From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Draft:Tomoharu Ushida[edit]

Hi, recently my draft has been declined. I would like to ask anyone help me to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page. Thank you. Shalom777br (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalom777br – All I can say is: revise it to meet the general notability guideline, and, since it's a biography, WP:ANYBIO. Traditionally, it means that all statements should be covered with reliable, secondary sources. In addition, multiple outlets must cover it significantly. You may also want to use {{find general sources}} and read WP:BLP since the article is a biography. Thanks. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advise. By the way, do you want to write about Tomoharu Ushida instead of me, to delete my article and publish yours? Thank you for your attention. Shalom777br (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shalom777br Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would advise not to ask any specific editor to create an article. However, you can request one at requested biographies. Nobody may pick up your article, but there's a better chance than just asking somebody. Have a good day/night!
Asparagusus (interaction) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice! I put my request at requested biographies by nacionality (Japan). Have a good day too. Shalom777br (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom777br, posting at requested biographies would almost certainly be a waste of your time. ("Requested articles" is a depressing sight, studded with proposed vanity articles.) Your draft looks promising. I haven't clicked on any of the links you provide in the references, but some of these look promising too. I imagine that much of the writing about Ushida uses bland/gushy terms such as "excellent", "precocious", "inspirational", "perceptive", etc; however, some music criticism goes beyond this, saying what it is that makes a performance excellent, inspirational, etc. See if you can find some intelligent, informative criticism of his playing, and try to summarize this criticism and add it to your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. How about this one?
Shalom777br (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been created in multiple other languages Tomoharu Ushida. I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After having a closer look, are you the one who creates the article in each version of Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]. Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in other-language Wikipedias doesn't necessarily mean it meets the inclusion criteria for English Wikipedia. Zindor (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in 30 other languages has 99% chance to meet inclusion criteria here. Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here). --Deansfa (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa Why is that not recommended? Is there a WP policy or essay on that? Just wondering. (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa I am still curious. When you said "Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended" -- is there a policy or essay on this? Also when you say the article might be notable "Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here)". Why is that? I would like to learn. (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I.P, i can see two reasons why it wouldn't be ideal. If there are issues with the version on one wiki it will bring those problems to all the other language wikis it is published at. Secondly, some subjects are treated in more depth in other languages, so a major aspect of the subject could be missed because only one language's sources are used; this can actually result in people being offended. This is a bit of non-issue when it comes to notability however because assessing notability by looking at whether it is included in other languages is an unreliable method (and i'm not sure why Deansfa is extolling the virtues of it). It's best to just assess against our actual inclusion criteria. Zindor (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not recommended because it's obvious that it will be an automatic translation in some language. The article in French is totally garbage, the first sentence of the biography is not grammatically correct (no verb). The second sentence uses a tense we don't use for biographies, the other sentences have a strong flavor of automatic translation (weird expression, nonsense, etc). --Deansfa (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor Well, if there happen to be NO issues with one version on one wiki, that's a good thing!
@Deansfa And yes, automatic translation is always bad. I suppose very few people are actually fluent in many, many languages... but the policy is, or should be, geared toward "not using automatic translations" rather than "do not create the same article in many language Wikipedias". You made it sound like a real policy, and I hadn't seen one -- but I understand the potential issues. Thanks. (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa I would like to ask one more time (last try): you said "It's not recommended because...". Where is it not recommended? @Zindor, is there a policy or an essay that I can refer to? Thanks. (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I.P. The 4th paragraph down at WP:WAX is directly relevant. Zindor (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor OK, thanks for that info! (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor Hmmmm. The section starts with two italicized paragraphs, then a sentence in small font, then some bulleted points. Then some prose paragraphs. The 4th prose para starts with "Sometimes arguments are made" and it has nothing to do with why one editor should not create articles in multiple languages -- it is all about what not to say in a deletion debate. I see that the fifth prose paragraph says not to compare an article, in a deletion debate, with articles in other languages. It says nothing about creating articles, so it doesn't seem to apply.
Maybe this "policy" is not documented anywhere. I will bow out now. (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply], i was being a rogue and not considering single sentences as paragraphs, there is however only one paragraph that talks about other language wikis. Deansfa's point is very valid and blends two ideas WP:CIR (which despite not mentioning translation is exactly what you're searching for) and WP:MACHINE. Regardless, the advice here often comes from experience and not being written down elsewhere doesn't invalidate it. Regards, Zindor (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you ask other people for help? This is the Teahouse, after all! I am happy to help! WikiFan2456 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about referencing[edit]

I've just added some references to the article Native Son (1951 film), and I have some questions. First, I used the same source for two references, #6 and #10. I know I'd usually have to use a sort of "ibid" style for the second reference (and I would need help with that), but I'm not sure it's appropriate here because some of the references that were there already use superscripts, and I don't know what they're there for, maybe another way of formatting the same reference multiple times? (Refs # 2, 3, 4, and 11; 1 and 13 don't use the superscripts.) Ref. #13 seems strange to me: it is short and in the Reference Notes subsection with all the others, but it refers to a full reference above under the Reference section heading. Why would that one reference be listed in different place, and be referred to separately? Finally, all the links in my reference work (#'s 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12) but the only links that are highlighted in blue are #'s 8 and 12. Is there a problem? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. That article uses a format that includes both references and reference notes. I find that style of referencing bizarre and incomprehensible, although I think that it is an an acceptable variant. As for references used more than once, WP:REFNAME should be informative. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328:I'm aware the WP:REFNAME exists, I just wasn't sure if it applied to the bizarre format. Could you discuss the superscripts and the blue highlights? Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: I didn't see any reason not to use the conventional single reflist in that article. Also (in regard to your other enquiry at the Teahouse) I converted the NYT's shouty house style into something more sensible. Just revert me if you don't like either change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull:Thanks, you just alleviated a lot of stress. (Now if I could only figure out what those darned superscripts are all about.) `` Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing my new article[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Cape doctor/Michael Mosoeu Moerane

I have just completed, after two weeks' work, an article on the black African composer Michael Mosoeu Moerane. I pushed the Publish button, but now I am wondering what happens next... Cape doctor (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is good stuff, Cape doctor. It's the best draft I've seen in quite a while. In preparation for its promotion to article status, I've moved it to Draft:Michael Mosoeu Moerane and posted an comment/request at its head that may annoy you -- but, well, writing for Wikipedia is a pain, as you've no doubt already realized. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cape doctor I see that the article has now been moved to Mainspace, so well done. Next steps are to add some categories (see WP:CATEGORY) so more people can find it. Also, are you aware of the did you know.... system which will place a "hook" from the article on to the Mainpage? Nomination is a bit of a faff the first time you do it but the nomination page (and more guidance) is here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is so encouraging, thank you Cape doctor (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, adding categories is I think an extraordinarily complex and difficult process for the new editor. I've added a bunch. However, my addition was rather sleepy and it's very likely that I've made the odd mistake and almost certain that I've failed to add some that beneficially could be added. Perhaps you'd care to look at my work and improve on it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, agreed! I just wanted to make Cape doctor aware of the system and maybe add Category:Choral composers as a learning exercise. Very often the editor who accepts a Draft adds some relevant categories but in this case Kenpmi did the move and perhaps because they are also relatively inexperienced didn't do that. I checked your own additions and they seem perfect, although I did remove Category:South African composers as that is implied by your addition of Category:South African male composers of which it is a sub-category. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Michael (and Hoary) - you have both greatly improved the article's visibility. Thank you! I didn't know about Categories and Hooks, thank you again. But I'm not sure what the status of the article is now and I'm terrified of messing it up. Additional Categories could be: Rhodes University alumni, W.B. du Bois, Pan-Africanism, Symphonic poem, Hymn, Church music, Spirituals, Maseru (capital of Lesotho), Morija (town in Lesotho), Thabo Mbeki, Epainette Mbeki, Joshua Pulumo Mohapeloa. Err.... how do I add them? Cape doctor (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cape doctor As Hoary said, I don't think you should worry too much about adding further categories and some of the possibilities you mention may not be established categories in any case. Your article is now part of the main encyclopaedia (we call this "Mainspace") and although it may not yet be indexed by third-party search engines like Google, it will be in due course. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike
Does this mean that it is not public, or approved, yet and I can still work on it? I am trying to resolve the issue you mentioned about using "Private Collection" that you pointed out, by finding secondary sources (even ones already cited) that can support the same information. Should I carry on doing this? Cape doctor (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor, everything you write on WP is public, like this page we're on right now can be seen by anyone who knows where it is. Drafts are also public, but not indexed by, for example, Google. Michael Mosoeu Moerane is in article-space, but that doesn't mean you or anyone interested should stop improving it. WP:BOLD is the law of the land. All WP-articles are works in progress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Cape doctor (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I had it. I'm really trying to grasp where the article "is" now, or where it "will be" when it is "published". If I log out and search for this article as an ordinary user, I can't see it or access it yet, and that is what is frustrating me. I'm looking for enlightenment... Cape doctor (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Cape doctor! To enlarge on something Michael D. Turnbull mentioned in passing; many editors can, and some do, publish articles straight to Mainspace without going through the review process yours has, and sometimes these are substandard. To limit the latter's exposure before they can be brought up to standard, access by Google's (and others') web crawlers is blocked either until the article has been checked by the New Page Patrol reviewers, or 90 days has passed. Before either of these, a Google (etc.) search won't find the article, though a search within Wikipedia will.
The NPP may release the new Article to the Web, improve it and then release it, or revert it to (or back to) Draft space for further work: in some extreme cases where someone has tried to slip blatantly poor material past us, they might even reject and delete the item.
You certainly don't have to worry about this; your article is good enought that the NPP will likely mark it as patrolled (lifting the crawler block) as soon as they see it (problematic cases take longer to decide on). After that it might take anything from minutes to a couple of days before the crawlers make their next pass. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor, If you type Michael Mosoeu Moerane into the WP-searchbox, you should find, wether logged in or not. It is where a WP-article should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cape doctor I have just done the NPP check and released the article for indexing by Google et al. Congratulations on a very nice new article! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, on your comment "I checked your own additions and they seem perfect, although I did remove Category:South African composers as that is implied by your addition of Category:South African male composers of which it is a sub-category": please see the pale blue box atop the latter category. Simply, where somebody is categorized as a male (or female) XYZ, it's entirely proper for that person also to be categorized as a [gender-unspecified] XYZ. (For newcomers here: Such an overlap contrasts with most categorization, whereby for instance anyone who's properly in Category:Scientists from Johannesburg shouldn't also be in either Category:People from Johannesburg or Category:South African scientists.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Hoary, I was, and still am, confused by the blue box at Category:South African male composers which says "It includes composers that can also be found in the parent category" (my emphasis). I took this to imply that the situation was normally the same as for your scientist example, with which I'm more familiar, whereas it seems to mean should be found. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cape doctor referred the reader to Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred a number of times, each time specifying the page number(s). The result was unnecessarily bulky, but (and I think more importantly) informative and helpful. One or more subsequent edits conflated these into a single reference, with an array of page numbers: it was now more tedious for anyone looking at the book to locate any particular assertion within it. Using Template:Rp, I've restored the specific page numbers where I can. "Where I can", because there are also newer references, whose specific page numbers I don't know. Cape doctor, as you seem to have access to a copy of the book and I do not, please readd missing page numbers. (More concretely, where there's a reference to the book but no page number, and the information can be found on pages 41–43, please expand plain <ref name="Gev"/> to <ref name="Gev"/>{{Rp|41–43}}.) Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to upload info about a person[edit]

hi, i want to write about my father who is a politician and want to create a wikipedia page for him, how can i do that. (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have already started to do the drafting on your User Page, which is not the correct place for this. See WP:UPYES for what can go there. You have a steep learning curve to climb. Wikipedia does not have "pages" in the sense used by social media: it has articles about topics, not written in any way to benefit the topic but to benefit our readers. So, start by reading, not writing, first the help page WP:YFA and the policy page WP:BLP. Then read very carefully Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing. If you still want to proceed, use the WP:AFC process to create a draft that others will approve (or not). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi and thanks for contributing in wikipedia. Wikipedia has Articles instead of pages. Creating an articles is a hardest work in Wikipedia. If the subject is Notable then you are able to create article on that particular subject. I noticed that you are trying to write an article about your father, so you have to consider this conflict of interest and you must have the knowledge about reliable sources. And take a look at your first article and article for creation probably this may helps you. Thank you and happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] To be clear: Start a draft using WP:YFA. Copy all that content about your father now on your User page to draft. Delete all that content from your User page. State on your User page that you are creating a draft about your father. DO NOT YET SUBMIT THE DRAFT. Last, add refs to your draft. Every factual statement must be verified by a published reference. What you know to be true cannot be added unless described in a reliable source reference. It cannot be accepted without refs. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: now at Draft:Brijmohan Shrivastav. David notMD (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie hebdo issue no.2011[edit]

I took down a picture of a cartoon of what people thought was the prophet SAW but someone put it back on?? For what reason is this?? Lethalhuntress (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lethalhuntress. The simple answer is that Wikipedia is not censored. It is an encyclopaedia serving the whole world and different people will vary in what they consider as offensive. Provided that images are relevant to the articles in which they appear, they won't be removed just because someone dislikes them. Why did you choose to read that article out of the millions we have here? Were you expecting to find something you didn't like and could censor? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I was doing research for my studies and came across this, I had no intention to surf the internet and find offensive material, I just came across this, I have a life thank you. Lethalhuntress (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Turnbull, I think your rhetorical question goes a little too far. I'm sure many people come to Wikipedia and look up some topic they feel strongly about a topic, in order to see how it's dealt with. And as far as that goes, I think there's nothing wrong with that; they can perhaps point out things where biases so common they're hardly recognized have crept in. I'm sure, for example, that many of the people who would censor things here backed by Newsmax and Life Lobby--as being unreliable sources--feel VERY strongly that NPR is to be trusted (whether it is or not); that Trump is a white-supremacist (whether he is or not); that his claims about election fraud are without basis (whether that's true or not); and that the SPLC labeling a group as a hate group is a clear indication that it IS a hate group (whether it is or not). I'm sure that claim that Wikipedia is not censored is made honestly. Nevertheless, there is certainly room for discussion about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More context at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. WP has stuff that can be seen as objectionable, it's like the rest of the internet/world in that way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to reply to the person who commented on my comment. Thank you for your reply, but it’s not because I dislike it- it’s not a petty issue. This material is deemed offensive to not just me but all Muslims, it shouldn’t be allowed to appear on Wikipedia as it’s mocking our religion and frankly spreading misinformation, it doesn’t matter if Wikipedia is not censored, this isn’t freedom of speech this is an insult and a mockery. As a Muslim it’s my duty to warn you heavily of the consequences of these actions, but this isn’t where you can say what you can, I could literally create a page about other religions and chat shit about other things but I’m not, because humans have a duty to respect one another. If people wish to continue to upload stuff like this, then you’ll see consequences for yourself. Lethalhuntress (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you might expect, you are not the first person to comment on images that might be offensive to Muslims. Wikipedia has implemented a way to make it less likely you would see one. The Help page Help:Options to hide an image gives instruction about how to implement this on your account when logged in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lethalhuntress An encyclopedia that removed everything that offended one group or another would leave very little behind. Almost everything is offensive to someone. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what you mean by "spreading misinformation". Do you see any misinformation in the Charlie Hebdo article? Do you question that the magazine's cover was as shown? Maproom (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethalhuntress "I could literally create a page about other religions and chat shit about other things but I’m not..." Yes, you could create an article, and if that article was backed by reliable sources, there would be no reason for it to be deleted from WP. (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lethalhuntress: I'd be careful writing things like [i]f people wish to continue to upload stuff like this, then you’ll see consequences for yourself, as that could be considered a veiled threat, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article literally specifically details the controversy that arose from the magazine issue being published. It doesn't promote or endorse the comic, it makes the WP article much more informative. Adding context to the controversy by showing the magazine's cover - literally the subject of the article - is not meant to disparage Muslims. It's to show the context behind the controversy. Not to mention the magazine was satirical. Lincoln1809 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted inaccuracies / updates required but can't do myself[edit]

I'm not proficient enough at editing Wikipedia and don't at the moment have the time to learn properly - but I have found a string of linked pages that are very out of date. Is there a place where I can alert other willing and able editors to sort these pages out? Many thanks JackD (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackD: Just as you posted a comment here on this page, you can also post suggestions for improvements on the talk page of any article. That would be the best place to start. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cushdybernard: As a reality check, some articles have few viewers, and far fewer looking at the Talk pages of those articles. Posting here a Wikilink to one or two of the dated articles. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cushdybernard One simple thing you could do is to add the template {{update}} at the top of such articles. Many more people will read the article and see the template than will notice a comment on its Talk Page. Another good place to make such comments is on the Talk Page of any Projects interested in the article, which will be listed on its own Talk Page. So for this chemistry/EU-related article, a comment could go on any or all of the Projects which claim an interest in it. Although David notMD is correct in saying that links here at the Teahouse might help, this thread will very soon be lost in the Teahouse archive. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology Article Space[edit]

Im trying to get my Mythology onto Article Space

The title of the article is Asithis

Was wondering if it was declined

If so for what reason

Also how do I Improve my articles in the future so that I can get it into Article Space Asithis (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Asithis
hi Asithis and welcome to the teahouse! firstly, you would need to cite reliable sources about the topic, which your draft currently has none of (and this is required for verifiability). I advise you to read Your first article and Writing better articles as well, these allow you to write an article better. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asithis If you created this mythology yourself, then it won't be accepted as an article on WP until (as @Melecie says) the wider world has taken note, and published some commentary about it. Please see WP:ONEDAY. To get any articles approved, or any edits to stick, you will need better punctuation. Cheers. (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asithis Did you draw the artwork that is in the draft, yourself? (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a verified source for information about a person's name[edit]

I was recently editing a Wikipedia page that is about my late mother-in-law. The page has existed for a number of years. One of the things I wanted to do was correct some information about her name. In particular, her first name at birth, was not the name that she went by as an adult. We wanted to correct that information and provide her birth name. I made a simple edit to do that. Someone objected to it because no source was provided for the information. I replied in the talk page that the source was personal communication from my wife, the daughter of the person who's Wikipedia page I was editing. I was told that this was not sufficient.

What I do have is a copy of her marriage license and also an image (that came from of the 1910 U.S. Census showing her name, and also a list of passengers from a ship arriving in the US that she was on. The problem is that these documents can't be found through an internet search. How do I make my documentation clear to someone who wants to know the source. What can I do to use these documents to show that my proposed edit is correct.

Thanks for your help. Fhnewell (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Fhnewell and welcome to the teahouse! unfortunately, you can't. information has to be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and while it doesn't need to be accessible through the internet (offline sources are allowed as long as they still meet the other requirements), it has to be accessible and verifiable to those who seek for it (so personal communication is not usable, and which is why we are looking for published sources). there's also the matter of conflict of interest (which I advise you to read) where your editing may be influenced by her being your mother in law, which may make everything trickier. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fhnewell. Google can be your friend when looking for sources. There is an interview here where she talks about her name and when she started using Margot. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to that source. I will go back and edit the page using that as my source of information. Fhnewell (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fhnewell It is frustrating when things that you know are true are not accepted in a WP article. Sure, you would not lie, and likely not for this kind of info, but unfortunately some people make stuff up. That is why every asserted fact needs to be backed up with a published source, so that other readers can verify what you have said. Those are the rules here... (well, I mostly duplicated what Melecie said.) (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable Structure of a Wiki Article[edit]

Hello, I'm a university student currently editing Microscopic scale for a unit assignment, and my contributions have since been refined by another editor.

I have already sent my following question to the Wiki editor who made these changes via their talk page, but with concern for my assignment due date, I'd like to receive as much insight as soon as I can.

As the page was previously a stub, I made significant additions to it, including changing the structure of the existing information to the page. I made these changes according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines, under "Scientific object/concept".

A wiki editor then reverted the structural changes I made to the page. I have no problem with the changes they made, although I am now wondering what is the basis of their decision, and if there are other resources or guidelines I need to read before continuing to edit this article.

If anybody could suggest any reasons or direct me to any other resources, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Sleepymochi (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sleepymochi. Is your class something that is being supported by the Wiki Education Foundation (WikiEd) or did your teacher just assign you and your classmates some Wikipedia articles to edit? If your class is being assisted by WikiEd, then I suggest you discuss things with your WikiEd course advisor. If not, then perhaps you should ask your teacher to take a look at Wikipedia:Student assignments. If your teacher is grading your class on the edits it makes to Wikipedia, then your teacher might not really understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Any deadlines or other instructions your teacher has given your class are not likely going to matter much to other members of the Wikipedia community. Please understand, I'm not trying to discourage you in anyway; it's just that students and teachers often run into problems when their objectives or expections differ greatly from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sleepymochi. It looks to me like you made some major contributions to Microscopic scale, and another editor made some relatively minor changes, specifically moving the "History" section to the beginning of the body of the article. This is pretty much the standard practice for "History" sections of articles. You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Guidelines, but despite the word "Guidelines" appearing in the title of that page, that is not actually a Wikipedia guideline. Wikiprojects on their own cannot establish guidelines, which must be agreed to by the community as a whole. Please note that there have not been any edits to that page for five years, and no edits to its talk page for seven years. I consider a page like that to have negligible credibility at this point. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Consensus, which is exceptionally well established. If another editor contests one of your edits, then it is incumbent on you to build consensus for your proposed changes. I hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sleepymochi - If you have had an interaction with another editor that you are raising at a noticeboard such as this one, it is a usual courtesy to ping that editor. For some notice boards it is compulsory, but not here. That way it makes it easier to build consensus. Not pinging the other editor(s) can make them feel as if you are going behind their backs to get a different (better?) answer. I have replied on your talk page about the issue.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Learning How To Add A Page For My Company[edit]

Is this where I can learn how to create a Wikipage for which is the company The Oklahoma Post ? Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gregorymoyer1, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles on Wikipedia need to follow our reliable sourcing policy. For a helpful guide on creating articles, see here, for an an interactive wizard on how to create an article, please see here. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello @Gregorymoyer1: and Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can create your company's article but you have to consider this conflict of interest and must have the knowledge about reliable sources, organization. Your first article and Article for creation probably helps you for creating article. Thanks and happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the wizard. Cheers! I did read on the conflict and a couple steps to take as you said. I will do so. Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your unreferenced draft mentions that the media website was started in 2022. It is unlikely that it has been written about in other publications, which would be the reliable source references essential to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been. I am learning and reading today how to edit others articles first. So, I'll circle back around to the article I started soon. Thanks for your information. Gregorymoyer1 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify an edit for a company through its official channels[edit]

I work at a multinational organisation which is popular enough that people use its name inso much fake news.

Is there a way we can set up a verified email to make edits that cannot be undone on Wikipedia? Honestly, we see lots and lots of fake news about us in multiple languages.

Thanks, (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia does not operate based on ownership of content; pages cannot be "locked" based on a company's wishes. The project's prose is based on what is said in reliable, neutral sources. If you would like to edit your own company's article, please disclose your paid editing; failure to do so may result in blocks. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an existing Wikipedia article about the company? David notMD (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A company representative is certainly free to create an account indicating that they are a company representative(such as "JohnDoe of XYZ Company"). You don't have to use your real name. They will also need to make a formal paid editing declaration and read conflict of interest. But that representative will have no more rights than any other editor- they will have less, actually, due to the conflict of interest. They would generally not be able to directly make edits related to the company, and would need to propose them instead on the article talk page. If a source is actual "fake news", you will need to explain why. Note that negative information about your company is permitted to be in any Wikipedia article about it as long as it appears in a reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF there is an existing article about the company, then you are allowed to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. Be specific, as in deleted _____, or replace ______ with _____. For each proposed change, you must provide a properly formated reference(s) in support of the proposed change. An editor with no connection to the company with either reject or implement the proposed change. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IF there are repeated efforts to add false information to the article, you can request that the article be protected. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. Ths blocks unregistered editors and recently registered editors from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style[edit]

I'm planning to reference an article from The New Yorker magazine. The title of the piece is in all caps. Should I reproduce it that way when I format the reference? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a reason to do so per MOS:ALLCAPS unless the title includes initialisms or acronyms requiring each letter be capitalized. Some periodicals may use the all caps style per their house style, and while doing so might techincally not be a problem per WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR, in might create introduce some inconsistencies that could otherwise be easily avoided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly:No acronyms, just idiosyncrasy. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized there's already a reference in the article with its title in all caps, so I should follow suit for consistency's sake, right? That preexisting reference also causes confusion because it uses superscripts, and I don't if I should follow WP:REFNAME or not, because I don't know what the superscripts mean. See "Questions about references" above. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would defer to MOS:ALLCAPS in this case and not use all caps for the titles of article: such a thing is specifically referred to in the first bullet point of ALLCAPS. There's no reason to adhere to the particular style chosen by the publication being cited, though many probably might. I think CITEVAR might only be relevant if every citation used all caps, and you unilaterally decided to switch to another capitalization style. In such a case, it might be best to discuss things first on the article's talk page to see what others think, but I think it would be hard to establish a consensus to retain the all caps style except in some fairly odd case. If only a few of the citations use all caps but the others don't, then perhaps the person who added the all caps just didn't think to much about it and things like CITEVAR. Since citations are often added at different times by different people, inconsistencies in style can creep into the article. You could look through the page history to see how the article's creator or primary contributor formatted the citations they added and then adopt that style; you could also try and make the citation style consistent per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful if doing so improves the article. If you're WP:BOLD and someone subsequently reverts your changes, you should try and resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former cantons in {{cantons of (department)}}[edit]

Can I add the list of former cantons in the templates of cantons of French departments (like in Template:Cantons of Nord)? See :fr:Modèle:Palette Cantons du Nord for example. (I know that most of those articles will be red links, but over the course of time, interested people can make such articles) Excellenc1 (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Excellenc1 (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got the Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter message[edit]

I want to help translate some exisiting Wikipedia pages from Japanese to English. I couldn't get it to allow me to do that for a particular page, so I tried making a stand alone English version with links connecting it to the existing Japanese version, but when I finally submitted the page to get published, I got the spambot filter message.

It says I should contact an Administrator.

It's my first time trying to make/edit on Wikipedia so I don't really understand anything yet.

What should I do? Sayjay1995 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayhay1995 Is this about the content at User:Sayjay1995/sandbox? David notMD (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In display, remove the left hand side panel/menu Quizjohn (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schools notablity[edit]

I want to write a article about a school how did i know that the school is notable enough or not. Saha86830 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Saha86830 and welcome to the teahouse! that would be found over at Notability (organizations) § Schools: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Saha86830 in practical terms, try to find three sources that are each: secondary (most commonly, news media), reliable, independent (no reason to be biased), and in-depth (roughly, 10+ lines on the school). If you can, especially if they aren't tiny local news sources, then it's likely notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bango plc submission (03/05)[edit]


I've updated a submission for Bango plc, found here: Draft:Bango plc. I appreciate it takes time to review pages, but would like to ask if there's an average wait time. Shehrozs (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shehrozs you need to click that blue 'resubmit' button, otherwise you will be waiting for a very long time indeed! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sandbox name is showing.[edit]

I created a Wiki page for Zelipa Zulu and my sandbox name is showing. How do I rename or remove this? Jason4004 (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Jason4004. Currently it's in your sandbox (as you know). I've opted against moving it to a draft at the moment, as currently it risks being viewed as a very pro-subject page.
You can't use external links within the body of (what will be) an article. You also need references: I suggest taking a look at Help:Intro, specifically the referencing page. Once you've handled those two bits ask here again and someone can move it for you, and let you know how to submit it for review to try and become an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So just to clarify a Wiki page for a person is classed as an article? Jason4004 (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Jason4004! that is correct, and when moving the page you move it to (Article). however I'd advise against moving it to there for now unless you know what you're doing, since it would be better for you to work on your draft and get feedback first, as if you move it to an (article)-prefixed page it can be deleted when it doesn't meet the required standards of an article, while a draft allow you to keep working on it even if it doesn't yet, then let a reviewer see if it's ready. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Jason4004 We tend to classify everything in Mainspace as articles. Few editors here like the term "page" as it has connotations of social media, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not. Also, it clarifies, for biographies, that the person being described does not WP:OWN their article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason4004 To clarify, User:Jason4004/sandbox is visible (and editable) to other editors, but not an article and not found be a search on "Zelipa Zulu" within Wikipedia or an outside search engine. The advised path is fix stuff, convert it to a draft, then submit the draft to AfC (Articles for Creation) to be reviewed, and either accepted, declined or rejected. As mentioned, no hyperlinks in the text. Some of the hyperlink connections can be turned into references. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Nigerian screenwriters for examples of accepted articles about screenwriters. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I can see I’m on a steep learning curve. I’ll keep it in draft and study examples. Thank you everyone so far! 2A00:23C4:38A2:6901:59A0:B5CD:ACEE:7688 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move image[edit]

Hi! I made a dumb misspelling when uploading File:Portraid of Matthew Morris Aid.jpg, but I'm unable to change the name. I have page mover permissions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PhotographyEdits To move files, you need to have a special file mover permission, or be an admin. I have tagged that image with {{Rename media}}, so hopefully a file mover/admin will move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New entry not going in as same name exists[edit]

I am trying to create a page for a individual but the same name exists already for another different person. The name is John Kamara A Tech Entrepreneur and Wiki has the name already but for the footballer from Sierra Leonne. How do I add the page without being directed to edit the Footballer page please. THESE ARE 2 TOTALLY UNRELATED People Waranganayi (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just title it John Kamara (entrepreneur). However, be sure that it meets WP:NOTABILITY and is sourced by reliable, secondary sources. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Speatle! Waranganayi (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi @Waranganayi and welcome to the teahouse! while we're here, it's best to also read Your first article along with the two links above Notability and Reliable sources, each of those help articles would aid in creating a new article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Melecie. Thank you. I have definitely read I'm however encountering this challenge that the name of the individual I am trying to add in exactly the same as someone who already exists on wiki. Please assist Waranganayi (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, you can title it John Kamara (entrepreneur). Kpddg (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Waranganayi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would advise you very strongly not to attempt to create an article directly in mainspace, but instead to use the articles for creation process, to create a draft of the article and submit it for review. Writing an encyclopaedia article is much more difficult than most people realise, and new editors generally have a somewhat frustrting time even if they do go via creating a draft: the likelihood of your very first attempt at an article being acceptable straight away is, I'm afraid, small. Going via this method has the additional advantage that you don't need to worry about the duplicate name. You can create Draft:John Kamara, and when you submit it for review and somebody accepts it, the reviewer will moveit to mainspace and handle the duplicate name appropriately.
Actually, I would advise you not even to create a draft until you have had a few months' experience learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring table content cells[edit]

I usually use the visual editor since I feel intimidated by the complexity of the source editor. But is there a quicker way to color in table content cells without having to switch back from one editor to another? Prodrummer619 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prodrummer619, welcome to the Teahouse! AFAIK, no. We have to switch to source editing for such advanced formatting. And, don't worry, the syntaxes maybe intimidating at first but becomes pretty helpful in some times. I hardly ever switch to visual editor now. Regards. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


how can i create an project TEEDKAAY (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TEEDKAAY: Hello TEEDKAAY and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you possibly elaborate what you meant with your question? Wikipedia doesn't have projects (outside of Wikiprojects). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To start up and be a member,there's lot of articles that i hv thought of that i wanna share
and need to be edited.
Can you please assist me to be accepted permanently like you
So where would i start from as a newcomer? TEEDKAAY (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TEEDKAAY: Well to start, you idea is not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not for. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TEEDKAAY: Relax, and please dont shout. If you want to know where your sandbox is, it's located at User:TEEDKAAY/sandbox. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Issues[edit]

I'm at a loss with understanding this notability thing. I was told that my submission was rejected for notability reasons and then to make edits to fix. Couple of years later (after finally finding online sources and paying for subscription), I added/replaced them with online sources from different news sources. But now I'm told that the submission will not be reviewed further and that the sources are not appropriate for establishing notability. What could be done? Michron777 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy, draft in question is Draft:Your Story Hour, which was Rejected three years ago. It was then deleted as having been abandoned, then recently restored. You could leave a query on the talk page of Reviewer User:K.e.coffman, who had posted the Rejected, as to whether that could be removed now that you are trying to improve the draft. Personally, I feel that a radio show that has been in existance for 70 years might be noteworthy. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michron777 I've added a note that further reviewers (after you resubmit) should treat the previous rejection as a decline, given the time-frame and additional work (although, looking at the state of it back in 2019, I would have declined, not rejected). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD I will do as suggested. Thank you.
@Nosebagbear Thank you Michron777 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortdesc helper[edit]

Hi folks at the Teahouse! I'm befuddled as to how to enable the Shortdesc helper gadget on my device. I went to its information page and found that I was supposed to look for it in the Preferences:Gadgets section, which I did, to no avail. I cannot find it. Can anyone help me with this? Or is there any alternative way of activating it which might help? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissoxciate Shortdesc helper (along with a lot of other gadgets) are not available on the mobile site. To use them you will need to swap to the desktop site, this can be done with the "desktop" button at the bottom of the page. (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for that! I hope once activated, they can still be used normally on the mobile site though? Dissoxciate (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissoxciate Nope, I'm afraid that's not the case, it can only be used on the desktop site. The desktop and mobile sites have different JavaScript API's and a few of the more complex gadgets and user scripts only work on the desktop site (another example is WP:TWINKLE). (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap, that doesn't sound too good. I guess I'll only be able to use it while on desktop then. Thanks for the heads-up, though! Appreciate it. Dissoxciate (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I created an article some time ago for a Canadian missing persons case (Disappearance of Dylan Ehler). This page has been subject to numerous edits, none citing valid sources, from parties who appear (or claim) to be personally involved with the Dylan Ehler case. I would therefore like to request some help from a reputed Wikipedia member, or members, in protecting this page from vandalism. There is now a person trying to put in unsourced information claiming that Dylan's parents were drug addicts and that his grandmother is criminally negligent, as well as a person trying to remove sourced information because it clashes with their own personal opinion. One person was on here awhile back claiming to be Dylan Ehler's mom, and they were chopping whole paragraphs out of the article for no reason, citing no valid sources or even any reasons why they were removing the information. Being from Nova Scotia myself, I know the case is highly contentious, and so there will be repeated vandalism on the page, most likely. Is there a way to protect the page? PetSematary182 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

PetSematary182 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. Pages are not protected preemptively, but will be if there is a demonstratable problem. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! PetSematary182 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PetSematary182: Hello PetSematary! I've removed some things from the article as they aren't really relevant to an encyclopedia article on a missing persons case (Such as a description of what they were wearing or where they were last seen, or that the town is most well-known for having an underwear factory). I suggest looking at some other articles relating to more modern missing persons cases (such as articles in the category Category:2020s missing person cases) to help know what is and isn't appropriate in the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is db-g12 suitable for draft with partial copyright violations?[edit]

Is {{db-g12}} appropriate to mark a draft for deletion (Draft:Organic fish) because of copyright violation when the entire three-paragraph lede is a verbatim copy of another source, but the later sub-sections appear to be OK, and cite the originals. In this case, there is also discussion of merging the content with an existing article (Organic aquaculture). How to just mark the portion that is in violation? if that's what I should do. signed, Willondon (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Willondon You can either remove the offending section then tag the article with {{Copyvio-revdel}} to ask that for any revisions with the material to be deleted, or you can list it at WP:Copyright problems where someone with expertise in dealing with copyvios will look at it. (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more than copyvio wrong with that draft. It starts "Organic fish is a kind of organic food fish", but doesn't specify what kind of fish it, nor what is organic about it. It is badly written and promotional. "Its nutritional value is higher than the nutritional value of wild fish such as the Selenium, Iron and other minerals." Why "the" Selenium? why capitalise the names of those elements? Why no supporting reference for that claim? Maproom (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's for sure. I hesitate to spend time improving it with conventional English and sourcing, because it seems destined to be dismantled for parts to be merged into an already existing article very close in topic. Re copyright, looks like the violated source may have copied it from WP. (I notice Google searches will find draft material in WP, too.) So problematic, I decided to basically leave it, and let the draft expire and/or the merge discussion run its course. I see one editor has already scavenged some draft content into the pre-existing article. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Resource Request[edit]

I have a resource request I am thinking of submitting at WP:RX at the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. I would like access to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics which is a very important reference for mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. I do not have access through my university. Is there a way to obtain access to the CRC handbook as a Wikipedia editor? Ideally, I could access the database through the Wikipedia Library database portal if CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group partnered with Wikipedia. I realize this may be unrealistic, is there a way to find a pdf of CRC handbook, ideally the one with all the database material up to the 102nd edition? I have come to WP:TEA because I'm not sure what if WP:RX is for database requests.ScientistBuilder (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScientistBuilder: The Wikipedia Library (of which I'm a member) does give access to Taylor & Francis, although applications may be limited in numbers so you might have to wait. I don't have such access so I don't know if the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is one of the items you could then reach. There is an online version at this URL, which does allow searching but I've never used it so I'm not sure how much data you can retrieve without an account. At one time, the Handbook's publishers didn't allow non-commercial use of data from the handbook (see old discussion at WT:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_20#Chemical_properties_tables_republication) but I don't know the current position. There are loads of old editions available relatively cheaply as hard copy from your favourite online retailer! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScientistBuilder: I am the coordinator of licenses to Wikipedia's T&F package. Michael Turnbull invited me to answer your question as it relates to T&F. I am afraid I can only give you a tentative answer: The package almost certainly does not give access to the CRC Handbook. I cannot give a definitive answer because T&F no longer has a coordinator with Wikipedia on the package. And despite my own and Sam Walton's request directly to relevant personnel at T&F we haven't had a list of the material provided in our package for several years. Here's what happened: Originally, T&F provided access to selected T&F journals in each of three groups: Earth sciences/natural history, Art and Humanities, and Defense and strategic studies. I have PDFs for the journals in those groups. Applicants were permitted to apply only for one of the groups. Then the Wikipedia Library cut over from the process of sending approved editors to a representative of the partners to simply approving an editor and having the application automatically sent (and filled) by the partner. When that cutoff took place, T&F dropped the three groups division. They also more or less stopped having communication with me (and perhaps everybody else at Wikipedia). I have no reason to believe that T&F expanded the journals when they dropped the divisions. And I have regularly asked approved editors to let me know what kinds of journals are available. This leads me to believe that the available journals are what I have in my PDFs. I have also verified that the package does not contain ebooks. (It did not when their were divisions as well.) So while I cannot say for certain, I would be as near certain as possible that it does not have access to the Handbook. (1) The science articles in the last list I have do not include Chemistry or Physics subjects. (2) No ebooks have been found either in the PDFs or by editors with current access. (3) T&F has twice refused to increase the number of journals or the areas it provides access to. Accordingly, my conclusion. Sorry for the long rambling explanation. But you now know as much (or little) as I do. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse Michael Turnbull's suggestion for old copies, so long as you don't need state-of-the-art cutting edge data. If you live near a college, university or good public library that has book sales, you are likely to be able to pick up last year's copy very cheaply. Every year I get the next newer one for a couple of bucks that way. Cheers. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond. As I understand, the Chemnet database is not open to letting Wikipedia editors have access despite contact.
@ScientistBuilder: Note that the URL for the database that I supplied above is not the same as the one in your post. Mine does allow access and search but I'm not sure how much data can be extracted once the search has obtained hits. I used "ethanol" and "boiling point" to test the system. I can't help with your other questions except to suggest you join the Wikipedia Library, assuming you meet the criteria for doing so. It is an incredibly useful resource even if the T&F part is not ideal. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope they will share the knowledge with Wikipedia editors soon or far in the future. ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the 75th edition in a big copy through my university, its the database format that I would like to use for online search and access @AnthroMimus@Michael D. Turnbull ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request access to another database Oreilly Media, which has the art of computer programming by Donald Knuth. This is related to Addison-Wesley and Pearson Books. I am wondering if there a place on Wikipedia to ask about expanding database access. ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also wondering how likely corporations are in general to enable open access. @AnthroMimus @Michael D. Turnbull ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have a printed copy of "Knuth". I don't think I still have it; I'm not sure. There were interesting articles such as how to efficiently sort a dataset using three reel to reel tape drives to store intermediate results. Fun stuff. (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Mumford page[edit]

i have a request to add to the page about the Population Control expert Stephen D. Mumford. it has come to my attention that he has his own website, called on this website, he makes several claims about the Catholic Church, accussing them of taking over the US supreme court through the organisation Opus Dei, and also accusses them of working with the CIA on Operation Gladio. i am very skeptical of these claims, as i have been unable to find any credible third party sources that confirm this. Omsk346 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Omsk346. The place to discuss this would be at Talk:Stephen D. Mumford. But I'll say that, in my opinion, unless there has been independent discussion (or at least reporting) of his views, the article should not even mention them. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Omsk346, Mumford seems to be a controversial fringe figure who does not fit in with either the "pro-choice" or "pro-life" factions of the abortion debate in the United States. I am not sure that he is even notable enough for a Wikipedia biography, but I could be wrong. A person's own website can be linked to, and it can be used to cite uncontroversial claims like where they were born or where the went to college. But such a websitevshould not be used for controversial claims about Opus Dei and the Supreme Court and instead that type of content should be cited to reliable, secondary sources that report on and analyze contentious claims like this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what i meant was that the fact he has such a bizarre website containing unsubstantiated claims that are borderline conspiracy theories should be mentioned. this has nothing to do with my personal opinions on abortion. Omsk346 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Omsk346 I get a message that the domain name is for sale. (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His own C.V. is the reference for the statement that he is a fertility expert. Is this valid? (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to get this page accepted?[edit]

I started working on a Wikipedia page Draft:Kaden Brightwell to be submitted for creation. Besides tweaking a few details and adding more information, is there any big things that need to be fixed for submission to be accepted? Equable247 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Equable247: thanks for your question. The major hurdle to your article being accepted is the notability of the subject itself. Unfortunately, Kaden Brightwell does not appear to have media coverage independent of himself. The barriers to passing notability requirements are high, and many people, subjects, organizations, etc., simply do not pass those requirements. Someday, this subject may be notable enough for an article here, but not currently. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equable247: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are essentially asking- to draw an analogy- "aside from the plumbing, electrical, windows, and HVAC, am I ready to build a house?" Writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to attempt on Wikipedia. It's even harder with a conflict of interest, as you have. You must set aside everything you know about Mr. Brightwell and all materials put out by him(like his Twitter feed) and only write to summarize what independent reliable sources say about him, showing that he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This is usually done by independent editors who take note of coverage in independent sources and choose to write about a topic on their own- trying to force the issue one's self(either directly or through a representative) is not often successful. But, if you rewrite the draft to summarize independent sources, and can show he is notable, it can be resubmitted. Also be advised that Mr. Brightwell might want to consider that there are good reasons to not want an article about himself. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, unless its some kind of mistaken placeholder, the "honorary titles" section that was added shows they may not seriously be looking to contribute to the encyclopedia, but may be attempting some kind of prank. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also quite confused by Brightwell graduated from the Hunterdon County Academies in 2025. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest, though, Equable247! (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Equable247, an article about a 14-year old with no reliable sources. Is this yourself? @Pyrrho the Skipper, is there a speedy deletion tag for a draft with too much detail about an identifiable minor child with information about his real school and siblings? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that can be applied to drafts, but I'm going to tag the reviewer, @KylieTastic:, so they can address this in the most efficient way. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it can only be applied by oversighters. Not being an oversighter, I have "addressed" this draft in a different yet efficient way. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Incidentally, not being an admin at Commons, I've had to launch a deletion request there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The draft has been deleted for being a hoax. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Editing[edit]

I have questions about how to upload the side bar table with the information

about the article?

How do I save the work completed so far when I’m not done with the article?

How do I send over to editor to see if I am formatting the information correctly? Gwen chandler (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen chandler, whenever you want to save, press "Publish". (In the context of drafts, "Publish" doesn't have its regular meaning.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YFA explains how to create and submit a draft. A draft does not require an "Infobox" to be submitted for review, but it does require references. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen chandler, what you call the "side bar table" (infobox) is among the least important aspects of a draft, and will have no influence on whether or not the draft is accepted. The most important factor is whether or not several independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to the topic of the draft. The second most important factor is whether or not the draft accurately and neutrally summarizes the content of those sources. Those are the essential elements. Everything else is secondary and easily corrected. Focus on the two points that I described. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with copyright[edit]

I am trying to add county seals to county pages in NC. I just realized that the copyright (Government) does not include county made designs. I was wondering if there is another copyright I could use to for these images or if they could be deleted if there is no way to fix them?

Images concerned.


Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoA340, you're far more likely to get well-informed advice if you ask at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Hoary. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DiscoA340, it looks like you are uploading County seals as copyright free as works of the U.S. Federal government. This is incorrect. While it is true that works of employees of the Federal government carrying out their job duties are in the public domain and therefore copyright free, this does not necessarily apply to state governments and their county level subdivisions. State and local governments establish their own copyright policies, which vary widely. You must investigate the specific policies of the specific government entity. Unless you can find solid evidence that a specific logo is in the public domain (or feely licensed), the assumption is that it is restricted by copyright. See WP:LOGO for possible exceptions for certain types of non free images. These non-free images belong here on English Wikipedia, not on Wikimedia Commons, which is for fully free inages only. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspan template[edit]


How do you make the N/A template stretch over multiple rows without just the text being displayed? See here for reference.

Thanks in advance! TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Trevortnidesserped and welcome to the teahouse! you'd place {{n/a}} without a pipe between it and the preceding rowspan to prevent the template from detecting the {{n/a}} as text to be put in the table itself. I've fixed the template over for you, happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing draft submission[edit]

I submitted Draft:Neo-Nazism in Russia top AFC, but I noticed it seems to be linked to discretionary sanctions and I am unsure whether I am potentially violating them by submitting the article. Can I retract my submission of it until I get further information on it? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Immanuelle. I don't believe you're violating anything by submitting an a draft for AFC review. Whether you're draft will be accepted is a different matter all together, but submitting it for review isn't (at least per my understanding) not a viloation of WP:ACDS. The discretionary sanctions notice was automatically added to the draft's talk page when you added a certain WikiProject banner or banners. This is just to let you and others know that the subject area often makes such articles targets for disruption and editors need to be aware that any such editing isn't not going to be tolerated even a little. I think you can simply wait until the draft is reviewed to decide what to do. If it's declined and you feel there's no point in pursuing it, you could blank the page and request speedy deletion per WP:G7. You could also simply abandon the draft, and eventually it will be deleted per WP:G13 after six months have passed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: I think you should be able to withdraw a pending submission by reverting the edit that added the 'Submission pending' yellow box. I tried it before, and it seemed to work. (talk | contributions) 05:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you make a link to a section in an article[edit]

No, i'm not talking about the 'Albert Einstein#Scientific career' sort of thing. That thing redirects you to another article and the section you have given. I want to link to a section inside the article. I searched up everywhere but i couldn't seem to find a template or a way to do that. Leahnn Rey (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Leahnn Rey and welcome to the teahouse! you'd do the same thing in this case, although starting with the article's name. to redirect to say, the thread five sections above, you'd do Wikipedia:Teahouse#What should I do to get this page accepted? happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to specify the article's title. #What should I do to get this page accepted? will work. However, either Melecie's method or this one will normally collapse if the section is retitled, as it well might be. (You can neither tell other editors not to rename it nor expect that they'll check for the consequences of renaming it.) For this reason, I advise you to use Template:Anchor; see this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you learn something new every day! thanks hoary 💜  melecie  talk - 01:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salting of Kathy Barnette[edit]

So I decided to work on Draft:Kathy Barnette, as when I found it, it was basically blank. I wrote a fairly basic article, and submitted it for review. Almost immediately, the draft was rejected and I learned that Kathy Barnette had been salted. While I'm not at all attached to Barnette or what I wrote, from my perspective, she definitely seems notable as she has been in the headlines CONSTANTLY! I can't seem to get away from her, Barnette this, Barnette that, she's everywhere. I will not be resubmitting the draft for review unless she wins, but I do think a discussion is needed to just talk of the possibility of unsalting Barnette. Physeters 00:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I KNOW RIGHT??? WikiFan2456 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Physeters: Article titles usually are salted when there have been persistent attempts to recreate the article in question despite an established consensus to the contrary. In this case, you can see the log for "Kathy Barnette" here. The article was discussed at WP:AFD twice and consensus was to "delete and redirect" each time. Since there apparently continued to be attempts to recreate the article despite the AFD results, the title was salted. If you think that salting is no longer warranted, you can discuss your concerns with the administrators who salted the article and see what they say. If they don't respond or still feel the salting is needed, you can follow the other suggestions given in the third paragraph of WP:SKYBLUELOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kathy Barnette does not meet the notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN at this time. If she is elected, then she will definitely be considered notable at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the primary may do it, at least WP:BASIC-wise:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though Barnette doesn't satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, I suspect that she does now satisfy WP:PERSON. So, Physeters|, if you do want to appeal the salting, you might read WP:PERSON carefully, decide if she satisfies it, and, if she does, then amass a rather small quantity of excellent references (I suggest no more than five of these) to demonstrate that she does. Marchjuly has explained the rest. But another tip: Hyperbole, boldface and exclamation points would each make your appeal less persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary I am already in the process of discussing appealing the salting. It doesn't look like they are going to do it as of yet, but I am still waiting for one major reply. Thanks for the advice about the bold text and hyperbole! Physeters 09:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link to AfC Help Desk discussion Zindor (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised it was decided that she was non-notable, as she's getting loads of coverage, even some for not having a wiki article! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that news article fascinating! To think they have nothing else to talk about except what's happening on Wikipedia. I do think that not having a wiki article on her is a bit of disservice to voters trying to make an informed decision. She has a pretty colored backstory, and it's important for voters to be able to have a non biased source to inform their decisions. Physeters 19:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a couple more listed at Talk:2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, see under This has been mentioned by multiple media organizations. WP actually gets a bit of presscoverage: Wikipedia:Press coverage 2022. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the afd:s couldn't consider coverage that wasn't published at the time. An editor said once about another case "I'd also add from an intellectual standpoint that I'm not really sure how we should deal with people who's claim to notability comes from us not considering them notable." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Physeters I accepted the article. The AfD is no longer relevant - I see so much recent coverage that WP:NBIO is definitely met. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect itself has 120000 page views over the past few days, wow. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wish that there could have been a consensus in favor of adding the article to the mainspace, and I worry that it will be re nominated for deletion, but if that happens, hopefully the right choice will be made. Physeters 20:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create a new Wikipedia page?[edit]

I need to know if you can create brand-new pages because i noticed that you have not got one on the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest Theme, The Sound Of Beauty. So I want to do one. WikiFan2456 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @WikiFan2456 and welcome to the teahouse! there is already an article on the 2022 Eurovision Song Contest, and I don't think themes of ESCs are given their separate articles. if there's lots of notable discussion on the theme, I'd advise you to put it on the existing eurovision article first, as writing an article is very tricky to do. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Can I ask you, do you watch Eurovision yourself? WikiFan2456 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiFan2456, whether or not a given editor watches or does not watch a song competition is utterly irrelevant here. This is not a fan site. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what published reliable independent sources say about a topic. "Watching the show" is not a qualification for editing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK! SORRY! WikiFan2456 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that some of the editors who discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision watch the thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WikiFan2456 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on what I should do to get published an article about microwave barriers[edit]

Goodmorning, I wrote an article about Microwave Barriers & Sensors and was rejected with this comment "I'm not sure what this is... an essay? original thought? I just know its not an encyclopedia article and it is unclear what is trying to be expressed to a reader." I am writing here to ask to someone more expert than me if could please help me in understanding what this sentence means and what are the changes i should implement in order to make the article suitable for wikipedia. Could anybody help me finding issues that should be solved? Thanks in advance for your time and suppor Annaas98 (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Annaas98 I have very little understanding of your topic, but possibly you could get some useful input if you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the draft is not about barriers to microwaves, but about motion detectors used to detect intruders. It is hard to understand. It says "Microwave sensors are motion devices that transmit a designated area with an electronic field". So it seems that they don't necessarily involve microwaves. I've no idea what "transmit ... an area" means. And I doubt there is such a thing as an "electronic field". Maproom (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Electronic field production there surely must be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Pseuds way of saying "on location" then, yes? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content has no refs, and is not in enyclopedia tone (no "we"). David notMD (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Annaas98 Why is a motion detector called a "barrier"? As @Maproom says, it is a weird article, with phrases like "These barriers are immune to atmospheric conditions, such as fog, rain, snow and sandstorms because the wavelength of the transmitted electromagnetic energy of the detector is much greater than that, ..." Much greater than what? Do fog and snow have wavelengths? (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of? Wavelength vs particle size determines how light interacts with things - see Rayleigh scattering, for instance. Microwave wavelengths are very long, though radio is the longest. (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you make too many typos[edit]

If you edit pages a lot and make too many typos, can you get banned from editing? My school already has an IP ban Skepstep (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skepstep: Only if an administrator has good reason to suspect they are doing it in bad faith, or if they are making far too many mistakes. See WP:GF and WP:DE. The Tips of Apmh 12:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skepstep, welcome to the teahouse, it is extremely unlikely that one gets banned from editing due to making too many typos. As long as you are editing in good faith, contributes positively to this encyclopedia, and listens to advice I would say that it's actually quite difficult to get banned from editing as a beginner. Your school IP ban is likely due to vandalism, which is editing that is not in good faith and is common across school IPs. Justiyaya 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skepstep, adding to the above, Wikipedia:Spellchecking#Using_a_web_browser may have something of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Infobox Broken[edit]

Can someone fix whatever is wrong with the Infobox TV? It gives the error Lua error in Module:Infobox_television at line 106: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil). It also has the same error message in the infobox itself, however there it says to match rather than to find, and line 284 rather than line 106 Danstarr69 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69 Welcome to the Teahouse! Are you referring to Template:Infobox television? Where are you seeing the errors? GoingBatty (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty Whenever I try to put the template on an article, whether as a shortcut, or the entire text, those errors appear. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 What is the name of the article where you are trying to add the template? GoingBatty (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty it's got nothing to do with the article. The TV template is broke. I tried to add the entire template text last night (when I was half asleep) to a rough stub article I was thinking about creating, like I usually do when I add templates. However after adding the release date, I noticed the errors so I thought I must have done something wrong. Then I deleted the date, and the errors were still there. Then I blanked the page, and added the shortcut instead, and the errors were still there. Today, I've just started a draft for a random article which doesn't exist, and tried again to post the template, but again those errors are still there. I suspect it's something to do with the edits on the template in March and April. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 I just pasted the whole template to User:GoingBatty/sandbox and don't see any errors. Could you please provide an example where you see the errors? GoingBatty (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty I'm starting to think that it only appears on new articles, as I've just pasted them both on articles which already exist and the errors don't appear.
However on articles which haven't been published yet:
The line 106 error appears at the top of the main article.
And the line 284 error appears inside the infobox on the right. Danstarr69 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69 Here are the steps I followed, and I don't see an error:
  1. Searched for "BoopBoop" to confirm there is no article of this name.
  2. Clicked on the redlink BoopBoop to start editing the article using the source editor (not VisualEditor)
  3. Copied the empty template from Template:Infobox television#Usage
  4. Pasted the empty template to BoopBoop.
  5. Clicked "Show preview" and I don't see any errors.
  6. Did NOT click "Publish page".
What process are you performing? GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Danstarr69:, by not-published do you mean draftspace? I've tested the blank template (even went as far as publishing) at Draft:Sandbox with no errors. I think a pressing question here is are you populating any of the fields in the template with information? Zindor (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zindor I did the same steps as GoingBatty, yet for some reason it's only showing me these errors on unpublished articles, and not you two. I don't even know what all that Lua stuff even means. Danstarr69 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Lua module is a lightweight server-side program which handles the more complex operations of the template. The error "line 106: bad argument #1 to 'find' (string expected, got nil)" made me think that either a parameter had been filled with non-parsable characters or that the template was using some kind of magic word (Pagename etc) to populate a string but this was being inhibited by being in the wrong namespace. Both those theories now seem wrong however. Zindor (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty I did the same, and the errors always appear.
However I've now just pressed publish on the empty article so I could show you, and the errors don't appear anymore now it's been published.
If someone wants to delete it, they can, however I'll be updating that one, or re-creating it later today anyway.
Here it is, with the errors magically disappeared after publishing One Pair of Eyes (TV series). Danstarr69 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty and Zindor.
By the way, the errors can only be seen when I switch from source editing to visual editing. Danstarr69 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danstarr69, I feel like we've come across a similar issue before at the Teahouse. I'm sure we'll have an answer for you once we rack our brains. Zindor (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why are my sources not considered reliable?[edit]

Hi everyone, my submission was declined due to it was not supported by reliable sources. But I tried to collect well-known reliable independent sources and they have entire articles (not passing mentions) written on the subject of my article. Could you please help me with some more clear information about the references in my article? Why are they not considered reliable and what kind of additional references should be used? Thank you in advanced.```` Krakozjabla (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakozjabla Welcome to the Teahouse! I presume you are referring to Draft:TVALB. Reference #1 does not appear to be independent. Reference #4 states it is a "Artikull i Sponsoruar" (Sponsored article), which means it is not independent. Reference #3 seems to be very similar, which leads me to believe it is also not independent. Reference #5 appears to be a press release, which means it is not independent. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are three separate requirements for a source to contribute to notability. It must be reliable (this applies to all sources), it must be independent of the subject (some non-independent sources are acceptable, but they do not contribute towards Notability; and it must contain significant coverage of the topic, not just a routine mention. I haven't looked at them, but judging from GoingBatty's comments, most of your sources are not independent, whether they are reliable or not. ColinFine (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remove bias and move to criticsm on page.[edit]


I have been trying to edit the StandWithUs Wikipedia page by asking on the talk page to remove a claim that the org. is right-wing. StandWithUs Unfortunately, despite numerous credible article and sources, the article is slanted, based on bias sources and papers, labeling an educational org. as right wing. A number of the sources were removed due to antisemitism however this main issue is still there. The reality is that it is a non partisan educational organization, and there may be disagreement, that is why I am asking to move this term into the "Criticism" section of the page.

Please help me remove this from page.

Thank you. MtTamlady (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PARTISAN would be a useful read for you. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MtTamlady. This matter has been discussed extensively at Talk:StandWithUs, and the current consensus is that the right wing descriptor is accurate and well-referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MtTamlady. Cullen best describes where these discussions should take place but I would like to point out a common misconception about Wikipedia. This surrounds the words "fact" and "truth". Wikipedia is not so concerned with any particular editor's or subject's view of truth or facts. Wikipedia is only concerned with what reliable sources say. It may, in fact, be true that this organization is not "right-wing". But if reliable sources say it is then Wikipedia is going to say it is. Our desire is that Wikipedia accurately summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject, even if they form the wrong conclusion. Just because something is written doesn't make it more or less true. The opposite is the case too. Current consensus made the right decision in upholding Wikipedia policy.
Feel free to add the term and information to the "Criticism" section of the article but this would only solidify the use of it in the lede as the lede summarizes the key points from the article anyway and reliable sources have given more weight to the "right wing" descriptor. --ARoseWolf 17:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! MtTamlady (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How may I remove my Wiki page immediately[edit]

This is Sabrina, June Preston's daughter. My Mom just passed away May 11th. I just received the first obit from the editor of The Hollywood Reporter June Preston, who did an outstanding obituary of her life with his professional resources. This is what should be on her Wiki page, not the negative connotations and misinformation that was put on there to minimizing her careers. I'm sorry but that is what her page has become. I want to remove her Wiki page completely because it is simply inaccurate. I rather not have her on Wiki at all than have people reading what is on there now, which they will as the obits start coming out. Please let me know how to remove it, do I call someone? the drop down on "More" only lets me Move, not delete.

June Preston Opera June Preston RKO Film Star Idoonie (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires neutrality which means we summarize the good and the bad. I can't see any reason this should or would be taken down but your only option is to send it to AFD. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article went to AfD back in January, the result was "keep". (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as others have asked you numerous times before on your talk page and elsewhere, please outline what in her article is incorrect. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of very experienced editors have worked on the article, it appears to be accurate, neutral and notable you have said "negative connotations and misinformation that was put on there to minimizing her careers" but you fail to give precise details, the article is extremely unlikely to be deleted. Please also note that it is not your "Wiki page", it is Wikipedia's article about June Preston. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Idoonie: I'm sorry that your mother passed away. I know how sad this can be, because my own mother passed away a few months ago. That said, Wikipedia articles should be written neutrally with reliable sources. Unfortunately, official sources like the subject's social media profile can only be used to verify basic facts. If you have concerns about the content, you can leave a message on the talk page (which I see you've already did) to inform others of the issue. You may use the {{request edit}} template to get the attention of other editors who may be able to implement the edit for you. Thanks.
And for the missing "Delete" option in the menu, only admins have the ability to delete pages. Hope this helps. (talk | contributions) 04:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denied for unreliable/unspecific sources but not sure how I can make it better[edit]

I've had my page submission declined by two reviewers now because there were insufficient reliable sources and that the sources I did provide don't prove the subject qualified for a wikipedia article because they don't cover the subject in depth or do anything more than a passing mention. The page is for an academic journal and the sources I have given all point to other websites that discuss the journal specifically and in depth. One of the university's other journals has an already published page with fewer and unspecific sources, so I'm not sure what to change to get this submission approved. Not sure if I can paste the URL for the draft, but here it is.[5] Here is the URL for another journal at the school that has fewer sources and has been approved.[6] Press4forapharmrep (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the other journal pre-dates the review process. Had it been submitted today, it would have been rejected, and I won't be surprised if it's deleted within the month. DS (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the second link you have is tagged as needing more sources and possibly not being worthy of an article - maybe what needs to happen is the second one being moved back into a draft? casualdejekyll 18:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Press4forapharmrep (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on your username, I assume that you have an association with the journal involved; please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
Be wary in citing other articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. The approval process is only required of IP and new users, and it has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. There are many ways to get an inappropriate article by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use another article as a model, make sure that it is classified as a good article.
Your draft does little more than state that the journal exists, and is only cited to sources associated with the journal. A Wikipedia article about a journal must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the journal, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable journal. Please read Your First Article.
We don't need the whole URL when linking to another Wikipedia article, simply place the title of the article in double brackets like this: [[Joe Biden]] gives Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template limit expansion[edit]

I have reached the editing limit in my sandbox and can't add to it anymore. Is there any way that I can circumnavigate this problem and continue my expansion? GOMUL13 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GOMUL13 It appears you've already asked this at Wikipedia:Help desk#Tree chart trouble. GoingBatty (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GOMUL13, are you aware that you can create more than one sandbox for yourself? Transferring the content to a second sandbox page might solve your problem. Just be sure that all of this is about (at least eventually) improving the encyclopedia, not purely for the fun of creating massive family trees. (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


What's the polite way/avenue to ping a specific user if you have questions for them specifically? Not about a specific article but want to ask them something a user who helped me get a page published told me to let them know what else I might be working on and I wasn't sure what the correct way to do that would be. Chainsawpunk (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chainsawpunk, and welcome to the Teahouse! User talk pages are the best way to ask specific users questions. If you'd like to ping a user, you can do so using any of the methods listed in the third paragraph here (though not all of those work in edit summaries). Does this answer your question? Perfect4th (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was that lady?[edit]

I can't get to the target page to kill the Redirect, which goes to an old TV show. The title should actually be reserved for the joke setup "Who was that lady I saw you with last night? That was no lady; that was my wife!" I'm sure there are enough sources to make an article, but nobody can do so because the Redirect hies the editor off to something entirely different. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. Although clicking on Who was that lady rediects you to Who Was That Lady?, there's link to the redirected page right below "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the very top of the target page. You can also use Template:No redirect to get to pages that have been redirected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile. I don't think you should force a new article into the existing page at Who was that lady (sentence case and no question mark), even though you technically could. We don't "reserve" titles like that and the redirect is currently doing a useful job for the existing article Who Was That Lady? (with capitalisation, italics and the question mark). If you want to draft a new article about the joke, you could use the articles for creation process, with any renaming/redirecting sorted out once it was accepted. Perhaps your new article would be better as Who was that lady I saw you with last night? in any case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article DJ Kelblizz[edit]

Hello everyone, please a administrator should help me create this article, I was unable to complete the process Kenpmi (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kenpmi. That article was deleted in 2019 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kelblizz and has been deleted repeatedly since then. In all honesty, I doubt whether you will be able to find an administrator to help you with that topic. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent redirect[edit]

How come De Grasse is a disambiguation page, but Degrasse redirects to the article of one particular individual whose surname is actually spelled with a space in the article? Note that the hatnote on that individual's page doesn't even link to the disambiguation page, only to one other individual with the surname (with no space). (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, looks like Degrasse used to redirect to De Grasse but due to some page moves accidentally ended up redirecting to the person. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for dining venue articles[edit]

I am looking for articles on different types of dinning venues for that I can submit to them for content. Can anyone point me in the right direction. NorthATLLife (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthATLLife: This is not advisable. Linking to your website on articles would likely be reverted as promotional. I'll also point out that, since your username is the name of a website that you represent, it is a violation of username policy since it is a promotional username that implies shared use. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to use the articles as content while giving credit to the author without linking? (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you want to populate YOUR website with content FROM WIkipedia, is that right? If so, please read this page thoroughly. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Sir/Madam This person details everywhere in net almost three decades. I gave a riel information about him but you remove so many times. So there is no purpose I am writing again about this person in wiki. Thanks (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! your question has been answered numerous times (1, 2, 3), but tl;dr please cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject (Referencing for beginners may help too) or else it will still be removed, no matter how truthful it is, it won't be useful without being able to verify that information. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been adding information to Suresh Joachim for a year, and your additions were reverted by several different editors because you do not provide references to verify th information. In addition, as you only edit about Joachim, you were recently asked on your Talk page to declare what is likely a conflict of interest. Please reply there. David notMD (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia[edit]

What is Wikipedia (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! first and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that documents our knowledge as a global community, and is free to use for many purposes. for more, see Wikipedia for general information, or Getting Started to learn how to start editing. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


it is okay if someone delate all your edits because of 1 single mistake? Jkma31 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkma31 Hi, no one seems to have deleted your edits. It looks like you are trying to edit Serbian mafia. You can leave an edit request at Talk:Serbian mafia specifying exactly what you want to be changed with the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jkma31. Deletion is not cleanup. Wikipedia guidelines say that Wikipedia edits don't have to be perfect, because someone else can fix it if there are mistakes. Quoting from the guideline:

If the error is minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up). Perfection is not required, and Wikipedia is built through incremental improvement.

So editors are encouraged to fix the mistakes in an edit rather than revert the edit entirely. (talk | contributions) 04:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a collapsible box[edit]

Basically i went to this article. and i saw a collapsible table on the ''Classification'' heading. When i click on it using Visual Editing, i noticed there are two templates inside of it? Collapse top and collapse bottom. i tried the same thing but it didn't work. I can't attach an image here, so it may not be clear.

Leahnn Rey (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Leahnn Rey, Welcome to the Teahouse! Were you trying to create a similar collapsible box? If so, you may use source editing and copy the exact code from {{Collapse top|... to ...Collapse bottom}} and edit it per your needs. You can learn more about templates from Help:Templates. Hope that helps. Regards. Lightbluerain (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 08:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am looking to add images of work by Alan Shields to my recently published first article. I am not really sure where to start. How can I know what is okay to upload? I also am looking to upload portraits and images of work for several other drafts that I'm working on: Jusaburō Tsujimura, Sal Salandra, Marsha Cottrell, and Sara Penn. Could anyone help me with where to look for license free images of these individuals and additionally their work? How can I best approach this. Thank you Chainsawpunk (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chainsawpunk. You can find some general information on uploading images at Wikipedia:Image use policy, but how an image can be used on Wikipedia depends upon its contextual relevance and its copyright status. If you're the copyright holder of the images you want to upload, you should be able to upload these as your own work under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. If you're not the copyright holder, then you can't upload the image under a free license without the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder. In some cases, you may be able to upload an image as non-free content, but this can be tricky and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy can be quite restrictive. You also need to be careful of claiming an image as your own work. For example, File:Alan Shields J + K 1972.jpg which you uploaded to Commons isn't 100% your own work; what you did was take a photo of someone else's creative work (i.e. create a WP:Derivative work) which means there may be two copyrights that need to be taken into account: one for your photo and one for the photographed work. In addition, simply taking a photo of someone else's 2D artwork is often not considered sufficient to generate a new copyright for the photo as explained here. If you're planning on taking photos of other works of art to use on Wikipedia, you might want to take a look at c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography for some general guidance. As for pictures of people, generally pictures of persons who are still living need to be released under a free license that Wikipedia accepts because non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never accepted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific place I can go to or look for free content or license free images? Also, I notice that you specified 2D–does it make a difference that the artwork in question is actually intended to be 3 dimensional? Chainsawpunk (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Community) Reassessment of "Good" article[edit]

Dear all,

Need your help: Have come across an article which is designated as a "Good article", but seems to be average at best. I have only just created an account with Wikipedia and am at a total loss with the instructions on the Community Reassessment of Good Articles [[7]]. The article in question is this one: [[8]]. Should I simply list my concerns on the corresponding Talk page? But it's not only about minor issues; compared to other "good" or "excellent" articles on Wikipedia, this one is really lacking.

Thank you for your advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarangayan (talkcontribs) 06:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC) --Sarangayan (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Anjem Choudary. If you have concerns, you should express them on its talk page.   Maproom (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was GA listed in 2010 and rassessed, keeping GA, in 2014. Per the top of the Talk page "Anjem Choudary has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. [my bold] If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it." [with a link on how to start a reassessment process]. The article has had more than 1,000 edits since 2014. It is definitely longer, but length does not guarantee quality has been maintained. David notMD (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a picture[edit]

I would like to know how we can change the picture that's in the right block of the page, where all the other important information are briefly mentioned. (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. It would help to know which article you are referring to, and who "we" is. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, context please. The default thinking is that random pics found online can't be used because copyright, until proven acceptable. More at Wikipedia:Image use policy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit semi protection pages[edit]

I am now an autoconfirmed user, how do I edit semi protection pages, because there is information that is inaccurate on Android (Operating System). BenHDev (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @BenHDev and welcome to the teahouse! since you are now autoconfirmed, you can edit Android (operating system) directly. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much :) BenHDev (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an article[edit]

Hi, I've nominated Rana temporaria temporaria for deletion but I don't know how to get a deletion discussion page? I thought it did it automatically but when I check the page it doesnt have it. I don't want it to be automatically deleted in case I'm wrong. Fourdots2 (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fourdots2, welcome to the Teahouse. I've actually removed the prod; i think you'd be better suited creating a merge proposal on the talk page of the article. The articles for deletion process might have been what you intended to use, as that does create another page, but would likely result in either it being kept or an alternative to deletion. The proposed deletion is for uncontroversial deletions and doesn't create another page. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fourdots2, the article Rana temporaria temporaria does nothing to explain how its subject differs from that of Common frog. I think there's a strong case for merger or deletion. Maproom (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with biography[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Gianni Caprioli

Hi there! Im helping to make a biography for my boss in wikipedia. However, it got declined due to not reaching minimum inline citation and it seeming like an advertisement even though I added the sources for the newspaper articles about him. Can anyone help? Irishzambrano (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As he or she is your boss, Irishzambrano, I infer that you are being paid by the company and that creating an article is part of your job. This makes you a "paid" editor. Please declare this on your user page. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Irishzambrano, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like many people, especially those who create articles about people or enterprises they are connected with, you are making the mistake of supposing that what should go into an article about your boss is what he knows, thinks, or says. This is wrong. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. You need to remove all sources that are about the restauant and not about him, all sources that derive from him or the company (including interviews and articles from press releases and announcements) and all sources that are merely routine mentions. If there are any sources left that are wholly independent of him, and discuss him in some detail, then you can write an article based on what those sources say. One of the reasons why writing with a conflict of interest is harder is that you will have to forget everything you know about him, and write solely based on what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Hripsime Yelinyan[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Hripsime Yelinyan
Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I created a page for singer Hripsime Yelinyan. My article was rejected. Can someone help me Grigdan84 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grigdan84 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article was not rejected, which means it has no hope of being accepted. It was declined, which means it needs more work. All the information you need is provided in the decline notices at the top of the draft and the blue links therefrom. You would also benefit from reading WP:YFA. Good luck! Shantavira|feed me 13:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia editor[edit]


I want to become a Wikipedia editor.

Can any one help me or describe the process ?

Mrnirajkalyan (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mrnirajkalyan. You have created an account, and are hence already a registered 'editor'. The links given in my welcome message on your talk page should help you go about. If you have any questions, please do ask. Kpddg (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrnirajkalyan, try WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wiki passion[edit]

how to kick start as wiki editor (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rwewe (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you hope to kick-start? -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi ip user! you can read on the task center to see how you can contribute to the encyclopedia. I'd advise starting with something like categorization or copyediting, simple tasks that would probably be easy for most people to do. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can we request for semi protection of unprotected Wikipedia pages?[edit]

As an autoconfirmed user, how can we request for semi protection of unprotected Wikipedia pages? BenHDev (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @BenHDev! first, please read up on the rough guide to semi-protection so that you can know where it applies. then if you're certain the article does meet the criteria, you can submit it to Requests for page protection to be considered. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! :) BenHDev (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BenHDev, who are "we"? I'm asking per WP:NOSHARE Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said autoconfirmed users. All I wanted clarification, nothing else. BenHDev (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I need a tutorial video on and the incubation process, Thanks.Jwale2 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jwale2:. Thanks for stopping by to ask this question! That website is unaffiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects. I did some looking around that website, and on the front page there is a link to a Support Desk. You should probably direct your question there. --Jayron32 13:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: I only just figured this out myself, based on a question here the other day about fixing the markup on Fante translatewiki Project, but there is some kind of association between Wikimedia and TranslateWiki (info here). That's all i know though, the rest is a mystery. Zindor (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that TranslateWiki was developed by some of the people associated with the development of MediaWiki, the open-source software that runs Wikimedia Foundation projects; but TranslateWiki is run by an unrelated organization, being Software in the Public Interest. A similar relationship exists between Fandom (website) and the WMF; there are some of the same players involved, but they are and have always been independently run organizations. Simply put, TranslateWiki is still not part of WMF, and we really don't support it here. Perhaps a random Teahouse host will also be a regular at TranslateWiki and could answer the OP's question, but I still stand by my recommendation that the OP ask at their own dedicated support desk for help. --Jayron32 14:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32 There's slightly more of a connection than that, the WMF uses translatewiki to translate all the default system messages in mediawiki. If you want to start a project in a new language these days one of the requirements is that you've uploaded translations of all the important system messages to translatewiki, see the second point of meta:Language proposal policy#Requisites for final approval. I assume this is what OP is talking about since they reference incubation. I agree translatewiki is a better place to ask though. (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! --Jayron32 15:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwale2 There's a help page on meta with some links to help pages on translate wiki, is there anything there that helps? Meta:meta:Babylon/Translations#Software I can't find any video tutorials though, sorry. (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I saw on Serbian mafia page there is something going on,1 or 2 older editors/administrators demolished and deleted all sourced contents-(a lot) on article page,sayng that contents wasn't sourced or poorly sourced which is absolutely lie. Another reason to block and delete sourced contents was that the user was already blocked couple months ago,because he didn't knew how to source contents,being new in this.after he learned was everything sourced and pretty good done as beginer,his edits were already proved by many editors,even fixed typos and added citations.So my question is what can be done against bad editors/admins that are doing unright things? Like for example deleting sourced contents,blocking new users for no reason? Jkma31 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jkma31: and thanks for stopping by today. Are you referring to the page Serbian mafia? If so, disputed content should be discussed at Talk:Serbian mafia. There are many reasons why content may be removed from a Wikipedia article, and merely "having a source" is not a sufficient reason to keep content from being removed. Per Wikipedia policy on inclusion of material, when content is challenged, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included...The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since you are challenging the removal, it is your responsibility to first establish consensus before restoring the removed content. I don't know why the content was removed, but if you ask on the article talk page, the people who removed it can probably present some good reasons. Your next step would be to ameliorate their concerns by fixing the problems they have with the added content, perhaps by posting a proposed draft to the article talk page that fixes the problems with the removed text. This is not a fast process, it can take some weeks or longer, but honestly it is worth it as it produces a better written, more reliable encyclopedia. --Jayron32 14:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkma31, it seems User:ZnatNepo23892 was blocked for using multiple accounts, harassment and persistent addition of poorly sourced, poorly written content. There also appears to be block evasion in the mix. As long as you use the talk page to discuss things and work out problems, you should be all right. Sourcing on Wikipedia can be complicated and difficult - WP:RS is a long read, I know, but give it a shot, and if you have more questions, we can answer them here or point you to where they can be answered. (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new articles about something[edit]

do I create new article about something in my user page? In sandbox? Jkma31 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkma31 Welcome to the Teahouse! Short answer: You can create a user sandbox page (e.g. User:Jkma31/sandbox) to work on a new article.
Long answer: Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 – Merging sections. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I create new wikipedia article page about criminal organization? (stil not existing on wikipedia) Jkma31 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkma31 See my response above, and refer to the specific notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). GoingBatty (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a new organization article in Wikipedia?[edit]

I wanted to add an article with the name of an old cultural organization that people search on Google for the right information but Wikipedia deleted it a few times.

@Saiful7072 Saiful7072 (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Saiful7072. Welcome to the Teahouse. What is the name of the organisation? If it has been deleted a few times before, it has probably already been decided that it fails to meet our essential criteria on notability for businesses - see this page to learn about the criteria. If you can furnish three independent, detailed, in-depth references to articles that talk about that organisation that haven't been seen before, then there might be a chance of a page being permitted for it. But without three really good sources, we would probably view any attempt at recreating that page as PROMOTION, and it would most likely be deleted again. Sorry about that, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for a Protected Page[edit]

Hello, I have no idea of the protocols for Wikipedia or the terms often used however, there is a page about that I would like to request is edited to reflect my most recent collaboration with Kenton Cool for his recording breaking 16th summit of Mount Everest.

The page is as follows, Teddy McDonald and I have placed the information with an independent reference on the 'Talk' page but, I think there is a problem because I have not 'signed' the request? Please could an editor make the edit for me? Thank you, Teddy McDonald. (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the request on the Talk Page and made the edit. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper - I marked the request template as answered for you. GoingBatty (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thank you! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, appreciated. Teddy. (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a question[edit]

Not a question but a thank-you for a quick and positive response to my submission. It's thei first time in years I've created a Wikipedia page and was quite rusty. A swift and friendly rejection was encouraging and I fixed a number of issues after refreshing my memory about Wiki protocols etc. Collardoscope (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is about Draft:Rónán Hession — there is already an article about him at Mumblin' Deaf Ro. You should help to improve that, rather than trying to create a duplicate article on the same subject. Maproom (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info Boxes[edit]

How do you make info boxes on Wikipedia? Extremeophile (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Extremeophile and welcome to Wikipedia editing. As a newcomer, I don't think you should worry about creating new infoboxes, as you face a steep learning curve simply learning to contribute according to policies and guidelines. There are loads of existing infoboxes, and their use is explained at MOS:IB, with the list of existing ones at WP:IB. There are places linked from there where you can suggest new ones, in the unlikely event that you can't find something suitable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally posted a draft![edit]

I am used to making drafts and working on them over time until they are published , I guess I can now post them straight, after I had two drafts approved and published yesterday? I started a draft on Greg Colfax KlaWayHee today and it published immediately... Is there a way for me to make this private again so that I can work on it before it is published? Do I have to delete it? How can I delete it? Chainsawpunk (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chainsawpunk! It looks like Lizardcreator has moved the page back to draft space for you. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And thanks Lizardcreator! Chainsawpunk (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chainsawpunk: Note that an experienced editor who is one of those who can accept drafts that go through the WP:AFC process has indicated (at the top of the draft) that he would be happy to accept it into Mainspace as-is. So don't be shy about moving it back there as soon as you're happy to do so. It can be developed by you (and others) in either location but readers will be more likely to find it within the main encyclopaedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The images do not match the description on mobile devices[edit]

Moved from Talk:Jimmy Wales

Hello I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know where to put this. Images like the one below might be difficult to understand on mobile devices.

The images do not match the description on mobile devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9A80:EA0:15B0:E5D6:8DB8:A254 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2022 9UTC) (UTC)

It appears to be a collage of six unrelated images (and the captions don't all go clockwise). Why would you want to put it anywhere? Maproom (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP is saying that the collage here displays the pictured way on a mobile phone, and the captions no longer match up. I don't have access to a mobile phone so I can't check. (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, see discussion here. But the problem was apparently fixed. (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It appears this is already resolved at Talk:The Anthropocene Reviewed with a re-write of the description. Whether they actually add to the article is a different matter.Slywriter (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Radagast (the Brown?) saves the day. I've shuffled the picture to the right so it doesn't interfere with comment indenting. (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]