(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Help Improve Wikipedia Pop-Up[edit]

Hi,

I signed up for a Wikipedia membership last week and missed the Pop-Up that says "Help Improve Wikipedia" "Edit a Suggested Article".

In order to progress my membership, please can you send me the link that this pop-up refers to?

Thanks

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Blincoe (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Steve Blincoe Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for being willing to help build this project. I'm not certain what the link is that you are referring to, but if you visit the Community Portal, you might find some of the information you are looking for. You may also want to use the new user tutorial. Again, welcome. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Blincoe: It's the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. You can start on a Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Valentina Murabito[edit]

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I am working on an article about the italian artist: "Draft:Valentina Murabito". Actually it's an translation from the german Wikipedia about her. I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. I put it in the sandbox in the beginning of November 2019 but unfortunatly until now it wasn't accepted. The sources are all public pages, articles about her and so on, so nothing personal. Could you help me? Best, KuLit63 (talk)

@KuLit63: Your draft was never submitted for review. Where can you see that the draft was not accepted? Interstellarity (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@KuLit63: I have added a submit button for you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity (talk)

@Interstellarity: Thanks for your immidiate reply. Sorry, I used the wrong term. It's not that the article wasn't accepted, I wanted to say "nothing happened". I'll have a look if it works with the submit button.

KuLit63, before you click submit (or soon after if you have already done so), take a look at your draft. In particular look to see if it will pass the standards on this version of Wikipedia for Notability. This usually requires finding multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail. You might want to read the comments a couple of sections above at #JT Music. You also might want to read our guideline on the notability of creative people. As that indicates, sources about an artist's works can also help to establish notability, but must still be reliable and independent. If there are no such sources, no article is going to be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Once you do click submit, that puts the draft into a pool to be reviewed. It is a pool, not a first-come, first-served line. Volunteers choose what drafts to review as they please. There are however, several thousand drafts now waiting for review. If all or most of the sources are in another language, it is likely that the draft will wait for a volunteer who knows that language. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi KuLit63. In addition to the advice you've received above, I also suggest you look at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you're simply translating an article from German Wikipedia into English, you will need to properly attribute the source article in order to comply with the terms of Wikipedia's licensing. You should also be aware that different language Wikipedias are separate projects that have their own respective policies and guidelines; so, just because an article about Murabito exists on German Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean it should exist on English Wikipedia. There may be lots of similarities between German and English Wikipedia, but there may also be some important differences; this means that if you're going to try and create an article on English Wikipedia, you're going to have to do so in accordance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Dembow wiki article[edit]

Hi all. I know there's a guide on how to address plagiarism on here, but I've never really done that sort of thing - contacting other editors, etc. Can someone with more experience than me with this address this? The article in question is Dembow, which heavily plagiarizes its RateYourMusic page. --Jokullmusic 03:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The offending cut/paste was done on December 11th, and yes, exact copy of paragraphs of text. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of that is also in https://frojas.sitios.ing.uc.cl/cix1ev/dembow-dominicano-2019.html DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes reverted, versions with copied content revision deleted. Any valid changes will need to be reapplied. If https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Dembow/ is a valid source that should be used, someone will need to put facts from it into the article properly, without copying. Thanks for calling attention to this, Jokullmusic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources#Rate Your Music is "deprecated", that's worse than "unreliable". –84.46.53.65 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this username ok?[edit]

I just saw this usermane and I don't know if it's ok or if it violates WP:Username. Can someone else give it a look, please?--SirEdimon (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: Thanks for your question, I don't think that that username violates the policy, but it is definitely borderline. I think that if you reported it to UAA, admins probably would not block it, but I'm not 100% sure. That's my opinion, I think it's ok, but iffy. Puddleglum ^2.0 05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SirEdimon and Puddleglum: I frequent UAA quite a bit, and If I saw that reported there I would mark it "Not a blatant violation". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC),

Also, I just looked at their recent contribs and they seem to be making OK edits. Seems ok to me. Thanks for the question though! Happy editing all! Puddleglum ^2.0 05:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Puddleglum2.0 I didn't report it at UAA, because according to their rules that noticeboard is for blatant and serious violation of WP:Username. As I'm not sure that this username violates the policy I chose to post here, hoping that some admins and/or experience users could analyze this and reach a conclusion about it.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If it's ok and fine with it. Thank you again.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, and again, have fun editing! Puddleglum ^2.0 05:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume you're concerned that the username is promotional, since it's the name of a product. Per WP:PROMONAME, promotional usernames require evidence of promotional editing to be blocked. So, if this user edited Chicken nuggets to say "McDonalds chicken nuggets are the best", it might be blockable - but if they're not doing that, then it's not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I edit an article I started but is no longer open on my screen?[edit]

How do I edit an article I started but is no longer open on my screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomastwinnings (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Thomastwinnings (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thomastwinnings, please see User:Thomastwinnings/sandbox--Quisqualis (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thomastwinnings. Pretty much every recorded (i.e. saved) edit you make on Wikipedia can be found in your user contribution history. You can find this particular page by scrolling up to the top of your screen and looking for "Contributions" and clicking on it: it's to the left of "Log out". There's no record, however, of you making any edits with this particular account other than your above post here at the Teahouse.

Were you trying to create a new article or edit an existing article using this account? If you were, then perhaps you logged off or got disconnected before you saved your edits (i.e. before you clicked the "Publish changes" button). If that's the case, then I don't think there's anyway to retrieve the content you were trying to create because Wikipedia doesn't have an auto-save function like some word processing programs may have. In general, when your doing stuff online you can sometimes click the "back button" on your browser to return to a page you were previously viewing, but its sound like you closed browser window (or it was closed for some reason) so you may no longer be able to that.

Now, if you were using another account (e.g. an IP address account) when you created this content and can remember what that account was, then it might be possible to retrieve things if you saved the relevant content. Otherwise, I afraid it's probably gone forever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm new at this - how do I edit an article that I saved?[edit]

Hi,

I am new at this. How do I edit an article that I saved with the Publish button? I had only just started with it and wanted to save it.

Thomastwinnings (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thomastwinnings. Please see my response to your other question. For reference, you don't need to start a new discussion thread every time you post at the Teahouse. If you want to add something to a previous post, you can simply do so in the same discussion thread right below the last post in the thread. In addition, it sometimes takes a bit of time for someone to respond to a Teahouse post so there's no need to repeat the same question or basically same question multiple times. It doesn't make things go faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page[edit]

I am getting repeated personal attacks from a user on a talk page. The attacks would fall under these 2:

• Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)

I am being civil, but I feel this needs more attention than just ignoring it. I am not sure what to do though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jews_for_Jesus#%22Jews_for_Jesus_is_not_considered_a_sect_of_Judaism_by_any_mainstream_Jewish_authorities.%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Laella, hi - the correct forum for reporting personal attacks is ANI. I'm not sure that what has been said at the talk page you reference quite reaches a sanctionable level, but I agree that discussion needs some of the heat taking out of it. I'll remind the editor in question about civility. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that if you make a report at WP:ANI, you really need to identify specific edits, perhaps quoting the most egregious text if possible, and of course to actually name the user. Pointing editors to a lengthy discussion, and expecting them to guess at what behaviour you object to, is not the best way to get it dealt with, especially at WP:ANI. Hug^syrup 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Laella (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for factual corrections[edit]

Dear Colleagues,

I'm sorry to complain again about a Wikipedia page concerning myself (titled 'J.C.D. Clark'), and my concern is to correct factual inaccuracies. I complained about this in 2010, but only now have I looked at the page again and found that the material is still there. Can you please help? I am unfamiliar with how to correct or update Wikipedia entries, and must appeal to the community for guidance.

I refer to the fourth paragraph, beginning 'Clark became notorious'. This is, I submit, wild language, and unsupported by facts. The only cited evidence for it is an opinion from one person, a contemporary historian named Ronald Hutton, and an opinion is not evidence.

Similarly, the claim that 'a public letter denouncing Clark was signed by every historian at Cambridge except for Sir Geoffrey Elton'. This is fiction: there was no such letter. If your biographer wishes to stand by his story, let him produce the letter. But there was no such letter. The fact that the claim is footnoted to an essay by one historian (again, Hutton) does not make it true.

The page is also way out of date, with little factual information since 1994. If it is worth publishing such a page, can it please be accurate and up to date? A neutral, factual account is all that I ask.

I would greatly appreciate your advice.

Yours sincerely Jonathan Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ2B=! (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

HJ2B=! Hi there. I do see problems with the information you have pointed out; it is sourced by works of a harsh critic of yours and should most likely be removed. It would be helpful for someone with knowledge of the reliability of Hutton's work to have their say as I can't offer that myself. The quote in the fourth paragraph is fine to stay, in my opinion, as it is clearly indicated that the view comes from one man, and one man only. Perhaps the whole of the fourth paragraph can stay, but phrases such as "According to Hutton..." added in. The information was added way back in 2009, as I believe you already know and the editor or editors who added it appear to be inactive. Therefore, it's probably best to have a discussion on the talk page and reach consensus. I am happy to input my opinion there. Cheers, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Beginning~ would love clarity on how to contribute/edit/write for...[edit]

Women in Green Related content: ancestral mysticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireAndersonGraham (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello ClaireAndersonGraham! I'm not quite sure I understand your question. If you mean that you want to add something about ancestral mysticism to the Women in Green article, then you should find good sources as defined at WP:Reliable sources, and summarize them in your own words with WP:Inline citations. These sources must be about ancestral mysticism in Women in Green, otherwise we call it WP:Original research and kick it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Social media as a source[edit]

If someone posted their own birthday, childhood info, etc. on their own social media, is that considered a reliable source? --125 Beethoven (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello 125 Beethoven! Per WP:ABOUTSELF, some simple and undisputed info like born when/in can be sourced to such sources. We try to avoid it if possible, but it can be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few things to think about, 125 Beethoven. The social media account must be official or verified as being from the actual person. Also, some people, especially in show business, may have a motivation to be seen as younger than they really are. So, if a birth date is disputed, the date given by the person on social media may not be reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't log in and want to edit.[edit]

I am writing a book about an early Denver area flyer and builder of aircraft by the name of Frank Van Dersarl. Frank is cited twice in Wikipedia and neither cite is totally correct. I would like to edit those. My first problem is that I have not been able to successfully reset my password to log in. I have entered my user name and a temporary password sent to me by Wikipedia but it doesn't work.

Thank you in advance for your help.

George Thompson Durango, Colorado — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.18.146 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you received a temporary password to recover your account access, it should work. Make sure your caps lock key is not on. Only you have access to your password- if for some reason it does not work, you might need to just create a new account and identify it as a successor to your original account("I am JohnDoe2, I previously used the account JohnDoe1 but lost the password to it"). 331dot (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, George, and welcome to the Teahouse. For most articles, you don't have to be logged in to edit them (though I get that you would prefer to use your account). But one thing I would warn you about, from what you say above, is original research. If your research is based on reliably published secondary sources, then you can report what those sources say; but you must not add your own arguments, conclusions, or synthesis of them. You should not add information which is not in a reliably published source, even if you are sure it is correct. Furthermore, you should not remove or alter information which is cited to an apparently reliable source, even if you are sure it is not correct. (If the information you want to remove or replace is not sourced, you may remove it).

If your book gets published by a reputable publisher, then it will be able to be cited as a source in Wikipedia articles: but you should not add such citations yourself, as you will be regarded as having a conflict of interest; but you may suggest edits on the article's talk page, with those citations, so that an uninvolved editor can decide whether they are appropriate or not. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Help, please, with authors who have NO pages in Wikipedia ![edit]

Can anyone give me any information about the authors Ric K. Hill, Tony Rosa and/or James Ross. I can find NO information, anywhere, on any of them (with the exception of that which is said about them on the back of their book jackets on the few books I have located in Albuquerque, New Mexico). All three are the authors of recently self-published golf novels (my own particular & peculiar bug-a-boo). These books are: Hill's "Slice of Heaven", "Panic at Augusta", "Stroke of Genius", "Heart of a Caddie", "Rub of the Green", "Bunkered", "Last Mulligan" and "Bogey Train"; Rosa's "The Schoolboy" and "Birdie" and Ross's "Lifetime Loser", "Finish Line", "Tuey's Course", "Opur's Blade", "Pabby's Score" and "Shari's Shot". Any information about these authors or their works will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this. Steve Prekker, Albuquerque, N.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdssteve (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdssteve Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This sort of general question might be better asked at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pdssteve: Note responses at Wikipedia:Help desk#Hill, Ric K. as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdssteve, It was recently explained to you that self-published authors almost never achieve what Wikipedia calls WP:Notability. That would explain why those authors you list haven't had articles written about them published in Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That said, this time he just want info about them, not a WP-article, so asking at the refdesk is not a bad idea. Or google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 have content for the official Government Response of FAQs on CAA ?[edit]

Kmoksha (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, Howdy hello! I'm afraid that the Teahouse does not mediate content disputes. You need to continue discussing this at the talk page. You have not fully explained your positions and discussed the issue. Dispute resolution is to be used only when discussion has been exhausted. I would caution you to listen to other editors, be civil, and to not be tenditious. Editing controversial issues, such as the CAA, have landed many editors in much hot water. If you cannot edit neutrally, you may wish to stay away from the subject.

Specific replies to the points you've raised:

2. Every claim in an article requires a citation. Where you reverted, the edit I saw had sections that were not supported by reliable citations. That is original research.

4. Making more, smaller edits, where you explain each step, will help with editors not reverting you. Making a 6k change at once is pretty drastic for most articles. If there is one thing wrong with it, all of the good stuff will also get reverted. Not all of your edits were bad. But editors took issue with part of it, and undid all of it.

5. Your question is worded so convolutedly I do not understand it. It is also not a neutral wording of the question. If you could refine it into something neutral and understandable, you could theoretically start a request for comment using it, which might be another avenue to solve the issues you're having.

If you wish me to followup further, please ping me or leave a note on my talk page. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek Thanks for your response. This is the diff of my edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019&diff=prev&oldid=932489305

Can you please point out one source link which was not appropriate and one edit which was appropriate in your opinion so that the things are more clear ? I will ensure that future edits are smaller in size. Unfortunately, the Talk Page editors just reverted my edit. But even on request, they did not specifically point what was wrong with my edit. They have directed me to several forums including this one. It would help me greatly if you could give your opinion on specific parts of the edit.

My question in point 5 of the thread opener, which I requested your opinion, is "Should the section 'Indian Government Response' of this article have content regarding official Government response on CAA like 'FAQs on CAA' ?"

Kmoksha (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, For sources: linking to a government's wordpress blog in the lead is not appropriate. We don't take governments at their word, because they don't have an incentive to give it to us straight. We instead trust news sources, who have an incentive to give us context, and investigate. As always, when talking about claims by a government, we attribute them clearly to the government, and do not give them too much weight. Also, a phrase like "Resorting to violence during protest is violation of a key fundamental duty of citizens" is very much original research and not neutral. Sources like the BBC or CNN are reliable however, and claims attributed to them are generally good.

Again, the Teahouse is not a place for mediation of content. But I will go over to the page in question and drop my opinion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

On reporting editors working to promote a political view/organization[edit]

I wanted to report a group of editors (mostly anonymous) who are editing articles to the stated purpose. It is said they are hired to do such work, though thats an irrelevant opinion in Wikipedia terms. I was wondering if there already exists a watchlist of already reported editors of such nature, which haven't been blocked yet.

So are we allowed to ask for such a watchlist if it exists, so that we could mark/undo their biased edits faster? Otherwise it would require us to go through every article in the topics we want to monitor for change.

Another (more permissible?) way to the same ends, whilst considerably slower, would be a way to list all articles with a search string, in decreasing order of last major edit, or something like that..

To be specific, I am more concerned about Indian politics and history articles, since it won't be wrong stats at all if I claim 90% of Indians take the word of Wikipedia and the Google search results to their questions(that list Wikipedia articles at the top most of the times) as the only truth.

As cool as Wiki is already I think everyone has already thought about such things, so please tell me whatever I can do and where.

Edit: by "paid editors" I meant anonymous people paid by 3rd parties that seek to further their own agenda, not Wikipedia's. Irrelevant still.

--Subham Burnwal (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Subham Burnwal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If editors have disclosed on Wikipedia that they are paid to make edits, that complies with the paid editing policy, though they still have a conflict of interest and should not make edits directly, but use the article talk page to suggest edits. If editors with a conflict of interest(COI) are directly editing, you can make a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If editors are promoting a political party or political views, that could be reported as vandalism to Administrators intervention against vandalism.

The only way for you to monitor edits to articles is to have the articles you wish to monitor in your watchlist. There may be technical things you can do to create some other page, but that's above my pay grade. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox or succession boxes?[edit]

Hi, I do a fair bit of work on political office-holders. I'm a bit confused about the difference between the infoboxes at the upper right-hand beginning of the page, and the succession boxes at the bottom. Some articles use infoboxes, some use succession boxes, and some use both.

Is there a policy or guideline on which to use? And when?

I personally prefer the infobox because it provides more information, and is a good thumbnail sketch that the reader sees immediately.

Thanks,

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, When possible, both ought be used. Infoboxes are preferred in all articles where they make sense, and enough info exists on the subject to fill an infobox. Succession boxes are not mandatory, but are useful. They make for more complete articles, and would be expected out of a top tier article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That gives you the usual effects of redundancy, it's more robust, but also requires more maintenance, and if the infobox says A, the article says B, and the bottom boxes say C it's a mess. It's also harder to get some "nice" result at the bottom. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My personal rule is to be consistent, if almost all persons in your case have the succession info in the infobox stick to it. At the bottom can also make sense, and if you disagree "discuss" (=suggest) it on a talk page, link to this "discussion" on another talk age, wait some weeks, and if nobody objected or if there is some rough consensus implement it consistently. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Is there a definite policy or guideline anywhere on this issue? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Navigation template, disclaimer: I haven't read it. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Help[edit]

I need editing help. Possibly adoption. Skoudco101 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you can check out Wikipedia:Adoption --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skoudco101: for a basic guide on how to edit, see Help:Editing. Cheers, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Adoption really isn't the solution for brand new editors seeking assistance. It's a much longer term commitment by both parties. The Teahouse is a far better way to give immediate support. @Skoudco101: what help do you seek, please? You might find Help:Getting started of some use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to edit but have no idea what about? Skoudco101 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to publish an article on wikipedia[edit]

Hi can you help me with the publishing of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviathema (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eviathema. If you mean Draft:Sotiris Barsakis, you need much better sources. The only citation does not seem to mention the subject. See WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and HELP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you hadn't realised that in the feedaback messages (on the draft and on your user talk page) the words "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" are in blue, meaning that they are a wikilink, in this case to Wikipedia:Notability? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Shiva Makinian[edit]

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. Hello. I am working on an article about a Iranian artist and actress : Draft:Shiva Makinian . I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Could you please help me to see if something is missing or if I may improve this article more? Please help me if possible. Keyhan narimannia (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Keyhan narimannia: We normally don't bold headings in article titles. I would advise not bolding them. Others are welcome to comment on ways how to improve this article. Interstellarity (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Thank you for respond. I changed they. Keyhan narimannia (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In the first Declined, Bkissin wrote that the draft appears to be a copyright violation, as copied near-verbatim from the artist's website. This was remedied by a copyright release action. The article still has problems. I recommend deleting the entire section "Public performance and international festivals", as articles about actors do not list their performances. As noted in the second Declined, much of the content is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: The copyright issue has been resolved. I solved this problem with DESiegel's help The page used as the source is copyrighted. You can see at the bottom of the page : http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/

:The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)

But I have a question: Shiva Makinian has many reference for searching the Persian language. But in English she has fewer references. I've used English references in this draft. Now; Can I use valid Persian references for this page? if yes, In this case, the resource problem will be resolved.

Thank you, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Keyhan narimannia! Yes, WP:RS in other languages can be used, see WP:NOENG. This generally excludes selfpublished sources, social media etc, but for example a good newspaper in any language can be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My recommendations on deleting a section were not about the copyright issue, but rather that in my opinion, listing performances does not belong in any actor article. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My question on looking at a few small examples to do online citations seems to have disappeared. Fortunately I had saved it as a small rtf file on my desktop[edit]

At any rate I went and tried using the visual editor as Captain Eek suggested. Unfortunately I got the error message "This reference list is generated by a template, and for now can only be edited in source mode." When I tried to add my reference to the list. Now I have the impression I busted something in there. 500 Place D'Armes. Can I fix this with the visual editor? --AlainV (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Yes, you can. But it's best if you delete the reference completely, and try again from scratch, (especially as you did add accessdate information outside of the reference.) And, yes, you can do that in Visual Editor. That said, VE is horrible to use for anything other than the simplest of references, and Source Editor is actually simpler. I have written some guidance notes which you can find at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. I'd welcome feedback if you found them helpful or unhelpful. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll try your notes for the source editor. Thanks. --AlainV (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I used them and the whole thing went very fast since a reflist already existed. The notes were very helpful. --AlainV (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Glad it worked for you, and thank you for letting me know. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia not approving my article "Arthur Choo".[edit]

Arthur Choo is a Singaporean musician. He is famous for his instrument the cajon. he is doing social works and helping poor and handicapped people in Singapore. I Artdotc want's to publish an article for his great efforts and social work. His contributions should be notable to the people and about him their should be an article on Wikipedia. I'm trying a lot to publish an article on his life but every time after publishing article (Arthur Choo) i'm getting notice that this article should be deleted under section G11. they are saying that i'm advertising in this article but i'm seriously not. I'm a confirmed user on Wikipedia, i know how to write an article and how to edit articles. Even if i upload an image of eminent personality Arthur Choo, i gotta notice that this image should be deleted. I click that image with my own camera, still they don't approve that image.

Wikipedia made me a confirmed user, that's great!, with this now i can create an article, move an article and upload media, this is only a joke with me. Still i'm unable to create articles and upload images. overall their is no use of my confirmed user. why Wikipedia isn't so smart and technical that it is unable to identify the point of view of my written article. There is no single medium of advertising and productivity in my article Arthur Choo. so please, it is a humble request to you, that let my article to be live on Wikipedia without any objections. and please contact me if you seriously found any mistake in my article(Arthur Choo), except deleting my article. Thanks Wikipedia confirmed User Artdotc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdotc (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Artdotc. The article contains multiple peacock terms, such as "most prominent personality" or "eminent". The sections "Appearances" and "Media" are directly copy-pasted from their own website. Please see our guidelines about neutral point of view and reliable sources. Best regards, Majavah ^(t/c) 15:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Also asked and answered at the help desk. Page has been nominated for speedy deletion as promotional and copy-vio. Eagleash (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What are reliabl;e sources for a translated article?[edit]

I work as a volunteer translator for a museum. I was asked to translate the Wikipedia page for the museum in English. My translated article was marked as a translation using both method specified in the instructions. However my article was declined due to lack of references so I referenced the original article This was declined again as you are not allowed to reference another Wikipedia page So what to do? Copy the "dutch" references from one page to the other? Or is my editor just being difficult and ignoring that this is a tranbslation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulderados (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Boulderados: Hello. You may use non-English sources, however English sources are preferred (if possible). For more information, see WP:NOENG. Please remember that the community discourages editing articles about subjects that you have an external relationship. Best regards, Majavah ^(t/c) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress[edit]

Hi

I am creating a book on PediaPress (https://pediapress.com/) on the Battle of Gettysburg. PediaPress takes Wikipedia pages and prints them in book form. Unfortunately pages are printed with editing remarks. How can I remove these remarks? Mieczkowski (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mieczkowski! It seems to me that this is a question for PediaPress, perhaps you can try the email here [1]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Power Towers Wikipedia Entry[edit]

I would like to add this new company entry from my sandbox to wikipedia main page. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfpuglia (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't, it will certainly be speedily deleted. Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to submit an article request for Mutu Certification International[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mutu_Certification_International — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyaanakbangsa (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Please check, if there are problems, please fix and discuss them first. thank you regards Dani Karyaanakbangsa (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has been submitted for review, and will be coonsidered on its merits. More importantly, you were told in the response to your previous question, about the mandatory requirements for declaration of paid editing. By continuing to edit without having made such a declaration you are violating Wikmedia's term & conditions. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you correct a link on our village's page?[edit]

Howdy - I'm not a member of Wikipedia, so I am asking for an edit. This is our village's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Pine,_Idaho Down at the bottom where it says "External Links" there is an out of date link. The link: http://www.ruralnetwork.net/~yptimes/ goes to an older website (not updated since 2004) I am the owner/author of that page. The new link should be: https://yellowpinetimes.wordpress.com/ I am the owner/author of that page and publisher of our local newspaper since Jan of 2000. I don't want to mess anything up by trying to make an edit myself. And I'm not sure if I am authorized to even make edits. Thank you - rrSue Yellow Pine Idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.177.47 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently not protected so you are authorized to edit the article. You can also discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article. It is accessed by clicking the link Talk next to Article. Interstellarity (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that the requested change has been made. Maproom (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - rrSue

Check and correct my sandbox[edit]

Hello. I want to translate an article ("fr:Manoir des Croft" in French), but my English is not great. Can you check and correct my sandbox, please ? Thanks in advance,--Paul Morère (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

One point is that you need to provide attribution to the article from which you made the translation, see WP:HOWTRANS. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

David Pimentel[edit]

How do I start a page for this recently deceased scientist? I have a stub to start with in my sandbox. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDrit2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

adding images that I have a copyright on[edit]

I am working on a draft page of Quaker abolitionist Yardley Taylor, but am having trouble uploading images. I own two daguerreotypes, of Yardley and Hannah Taylor, and have file images of the daguerreotypes, but the Wikipedia Image softwared doesn't let me upload the image files. A window opens up that says something about me perhaps not having copyright of the images, etc. What can I do to upload the images? Lee1101 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lee1101 Hello; you got an answer to this question at the Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Porygon2 and Porygon-Z article publication[edit]

Hi! I found somewhat of an article of both Porygon2 and Porygon-Z. I was wondering if someone could help me publish their articles, please. Thanks. UB Blacephalon (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Porygon Pokemon has been submitted for AFC review, and presumably will be considered within a few months. Porygon2 and Porygon-Z currently exist as redirects to other articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, there was a previous discussion here, at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1039#Porygon2 and Porygon-Z articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I would like to publish the Porygon2 and Porygon-Z articles, the evolution of the article of which is currently under review. Could anyone help me with that? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Citing a presentation[edit]

Currently I am working on the Akaflieg Stuttgart fs33 and while digging through the Akaflieg Stuttgart's archive, I stumbled upon a summary from a presentation. This raises a question: when citing information from a presentation, which format should I use in the 'References' section? The available options don't seem to fit quite well to the source material (the closest may possibly be conference, though admittedly I'm not sure). If I should take the format for a conference, does the location imply where the conference took place or where said conference proceeding can be found? Thanks in advance for the help! --Hardtofindausername (talk) 22:46, 05 January 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't be citing the presentation, you'd be citing the summary. However, we cannot use your original research here. That's not what an encyclopedia is. Our sources must be accessible for others to access. An item in a company archive cannot be used here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Two articles for the same individual[edit]

Hello, There are two articles for the same person and the pages are Khlaifa al-Khulaifi and Sultan al-Khalaifi, What do you suggest in this case. Thanks! Tarboun's (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tarboun's. Since multiple articles about the same subject aren't really needed, the first thing to do would be to make sure they are about the same subject and not just two similar but different subjects. These articles have different titles; so, this probably explains why nobody seemed to notice that there might be a problem up until now. If you're sure they are about the same person, the next thing to do would be to try and figure out which title should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes a person may use one name for personal reasons, but then another for professional reasons; in other cases, they may have changed their name at some point to something other than there birth name. The details about a person's name can be included in an article, but there's no need to make separate articles for each name.

Of the two articles, Sultan al-Khalaifi seems to be the one created first, which means that's probably the article to try and use as the target article. If that name is OK per COMMONNAME, then any content in the other article which is different can most likely be WP:MERGED into the target article. You can probably be WP:BOLD in doing this, but you can also propose such a merge on the relevant article talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. Since a merge either way may require a WP:HISTMERGE to preserve attribution, you might want to post something at WP:RFHM to see if this is necessary. The Khlaifa al-Khulaifi can then most likely just be blanked and redirected to "Sultan al-Khalaifi" since this will preserve attribution for that page and it shouldn't necessarily need to be deleted.

Things get more complicated if the COMMONNAME is actually "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" since you're basically going to be merging content the other way which might not be ideal. In this case, you may have to still merge from "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" to "Sultan al-Khalaifi", have a history merge done by an admin, have "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" deleted per WP:MAD to free up the name, and then WP:MOVE "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi". You cannot MOVE "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to the other name as long as that page exists, and I'm not sure if it's OK to just merge "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" because there may be issues with the respective page histories in trying to do that. If you want to do it this way, you probably shouldn't be BOLD and instead ask about it at WP:AN or WP:RFHM just to make sure it's OK to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tarboun's and Marchjuly: It looks like "Khlaifa" is mis-spelled, too (it should be "Khalifa"). Is "Sultan" his given name or an WP:HONORIFIC/title? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and Marchjuly: Thanks for your fast reply, The merge was already done by MSGJ and I want to thank him for that. the spelling is correct there are two names Khalifa and Khlaifa and Sultan is his given name so, I would suggest to move the article with the name: Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi. Thanks Tarboun's (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tarboun's: I asked about this at WP:AN#Discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual and Martin merged the articles. You should be able to be WP:BOLD and move the page to the correct title since Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi doesn't seem to exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It's clear for me now why did he merge the two articles. Article move to Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi and thanks for your support. Best Tarboun's (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Etienne Henri Deffarges life[edit]

Hello !

Can someone please tell me why my article about Deffarges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Etienne_Henri_Deffarges) has been declined and how can i make it follow wikipedia rules ?

Kind regards ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustoPelle (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AugustoPelle. At the top of the draft, the reviewer wrote the folllowing: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." You will need to address this, and to do so means removing all statements that cannot be supported by independent Reliable Sources. Nobody wants an encyclopaedia to look like a LinkedIn CV, as this one does. Instead, we want our articles to be based only upon verifiable sources that others have written about him. e.g. biographies in national media outlets. If there aren't any, he simply won't meet Wikipedia's  Notability criteria. I also note there are over 20 references, not one of which contains an online link, so I suspect you didn't know about the easy to use "Cite" templates available for adding references? I've written some guidance to help new editors add better inline citations - see WP:EASYREFBEGIN - but you only really need sources that other people have written. It is fine to add their own work to a 'Selected publications' section, but the absolute key focus for you is demonstrating that this person actually meets our Notability criteria, or there simply will never be an article about him here. Hoping this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Audette Exel[edit]

Hi Teahouse contributors and editors. I'm writing am article about businesswoman and philanthropist: Draft:Audette Exel. It was initially rejected because it didn't meet the formal tone expected of an encyclopedic article. Could you please help me see if there is any way I could improve the article? I have made NPOV changes, but looking for additional suggestions before resubmitting for review. Many thanks, Mk19Bu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk19Bu (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mk19Bu: I would recommend starting over, following these instructions I've written for how to create articles that won't be rejected. It will save you a lot of rounds of asking what the problem is this time.

In short, all you need to do is find three or more independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are primarily and specifically about Exel but not connected with, affiliated with, nor dependent upon her. So no sources like this one. You take those sources, summarize them, then paraphrase that summary. Don't add anything else. This will ensure that the article starts off with a base that is neutral and shows only their notability. You can expand it with other (still reliable) sources after it is approved. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Hermetic (album)[edit]

Hello, I created the article Hermetic as part of Magne Furuholmen's discography. The article got moved to the drafts section since there are very few references. Unfortunately the release is very old and most of the info I saved back then on my hard drive is no longer available online. How can I improve it? Are all of the official releases suitable for Wiki? How can I make an article better or suitable in this case? Thanks for your help Cat italia (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cat italia! Unfortunately, not all albums (or any work for that matter) are notable. That said, sources do not need to be online, nor do they need to be in English. All they need to be, is reliable. If you think you can find independent, reliable sources with significant coverage on the album, you can continue to work on the draft. Otherwise, it may be better to just move on from it, while keeping an eye out for sources that you might come across in the future. In the meantime, you can create a Redirect to the artist's article from the album's title. If you feel like the album might deserve an article of its own even though one can not be created at this time, you can add the template {{Redirect with possibilities}} to the redirect page to mark it as such. Hope this is helpful. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool! I've added to the draft links to the album on both Spotify and Google Play. I noticed that for some artists there are links to such sites for specific songs (I saw a couple of iTunes links on Lady Gaga's discography). Do you think those could be ok? Cat italia (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Cat italia, they are mostly not acceptable, as far as I know. In limited circumstances, they could be though. In any case, they do not add to notability and therefore won't help the draft get published in article space. I am out of my depths on this, I'm afraid. You could wait for someone knowledgeable to hopefully see this; or you might have a better luck asking questions like these at WT:ALBUMS. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't edit article[edit]

Hi, every-time I try and improve the article for the city in which I live it gets jumped on by a few users that far, far away and they just change my edits back? They give all sorts of vexatious reasons as to why the edits need to be reverted like "advertising" just because I listed the names of some developments that are going on in the city (as if that hasn't been done before) and I added updated population data which then got entirely deleted and they said it "was not useful" well I am very frustrated because that is just their opinion and I think they are abusing their admin position. I do not see how stating some of the developments underway in the city and the fact it has been named one of the countries fastest growing cities as advertising? I just say "it has been named one of Australia's fastest growing cities" and provided legitimate sources but that still got deleted because I think the admin has a personal vendetta against my city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townsville

I pretty much almost have no desire to use wikipedia again after this experience and I used to enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karver91 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Karver91. There's no record of you ever having edited Townsville. Did you perhaps try and use another account to edit the article? Anyway, from the article's history it does look as if there's a disagreement over certain content involving multiple editors. While I cannot say for sure, it seems unlikely that this disagreement is due to any personal grudge being held by some editor against either you or the town, but rather something which has to do with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how they apply to the content being disputed. It also appears that there might even be some inappropriate use of multiple accounts in an attempt to try and force someone's preferred version into the article, which is not a good thing at all. Generally, the best way to try and resolve a content dispute like this is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and engage in discussion on the article's talk page. While Wikipedia encourages us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles, relevant policy and guidelines also emphasis that the best way to try and resolve any disputes over content is through article talk page discussion. Moreover, just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should've been done. I don't see any attempts being made to try and discuss this matter at Talk:Townsville, so perhaps that's what you should try doing. There's no guarantee that will lead to the outcome you desire since the consensus may turn out to not be in favor of the changes you like to make, but ultimately these discussions are intended to be about figuring out what's best for Wikipedia in terms of relevant policies and guidelines and not what's best for an individual editor. As long as you assume good faith and avoid trying to turn the discussion into a battleground that pits one side against the other, you'll at least be doing your part to try and resolve things smoothly and amicably. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

What?[edit]

If a song needs more than charting (even peaking at number one), to have a page, what does the song need to be notable? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi CheatCodes4ever. See WP:NSONG. Majavah ^(t/c) 09:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

CheatCodes4ever, just to add to the comment above, the key point is that the three criteria in WP:NSONG, in particular #1 which is the one you refer to, do not give guaranteed notability. Rather, they indicate that it is likely that the song has received enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but the song (and not just the album) must still have been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. In addition, please note: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.. Hope this helps. Hug^syrup 09:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So a song needs to be covered to have its own article? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:NSONG - songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Hug^syrup 09:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CheatCodes4ever. There is some ambiguity in the meaning of the word "covered" in this context. If by "covered" you mean that reliable independent sources have devoted significant written coverage to the specific song, then that is the classic definition of notability. If, on the other hand, you mean that other performers have recorded cover versions of the song, then that is a possible indicator of notability of the song, as it makes it more likely that reliable sources will also devote significant written coverage to the song. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

But does it need to be covered by other artists? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not an absolute criterion for notability.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

which fraction should i use for 6½ ?[edit]

Calliotropis_limbifera contains 6½ whorls. i have never edited wiki page containing fractions. i have read MOS:FRAC, but i am undecided.

{{frac|6|1|2}} OR 6{{frac|1|2}}

which one of the above should i use ? Leela52452 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I'd say follow MOS:FRAC to use {{frac|6|1|2}}, rendering as ​6 ¹⁄₂, since it produces somewhat different HTML. Another option is 6.5. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: A couple bullets later, it says "In science and mathematics articles, mixed numbers are rarely used ... The use of {{frac}} is discouraged in favor of one of these styles: ... {{sfrac}}" It's not clear whether this means to only use {{sfrac}} when it's a scientific article and not a mixed number, but it does support mixed numbers. This gives you {{Sfrac|6|1|2}}, rendering 6+1/2 as an option. Maybe search and/or ask at WT:DATE, though either of the two templates or the decimal number is probably fine. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating a New Wikipedia Entry[edit]

Hello,

I have in my sandbox a new page called Power Towers Ltd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rfpuglia/sandbox) but I have no idea how to add it to wikipedia. Could you please help me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfpuglia (talk • contribs)

@Rfpuglia: You can submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. However do not do this yet as there is no chance of your article being accepted as it has no sources. An article can only be placed on Wikipedia if it has received substantial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. You will need to find these and add them to the article first. I strongly suspect, from reading the article, that you will struggle to find suitable sources and this business is probably not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. You might be able to create a redirect to JLG Industries instead. Hug^syrup 10:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

can i use ² and other similar codes in infoboxes[edit]

Caledonia,_New_York contains km² in infobox.

my query: can i use codes, for e.g. ² anywhere in an article ?

Leela52452 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leela52452. The infobox code produces km<sup>2</sup> in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts. Do not use the special character '²'. {{sup|2}} produces <sup>2</sup>so that's OK. Infoboxes usually expect pure numbers without units. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: Generally, yes, per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. Note that the infobox actually uses km², not the km² that was present (incorrectly; and which you fixed) in the Demographics section. I'll note there are three more of those '²' in the Geography section, if you want to fix them. You might also have a look at {{Convert}}, which can do the conversions and has lots of formatting options. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem in uploading Wikipedia Page[edit]

Dear Teahouse,

Hope you are well, compliments of the season

I am struggling to upload a Wiki page for our Business, and hope you can assist?

I am the Communications Officer at Finbond Mutual Bank and tasked with uploading the relevant page, which was submitted for consideration as per below

The sources are also quoted below the intended article as indicated below

WIKI FEEDBACK:

QUESTION:

I have already revamped the Article already from what it was to the following, which still does not seem to fit the Wiki requirements

Please advise whether it would be best to revise the article further, or do you have any other advice I may consider?

Thanks & kind regards,

Charles van Onselen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesvanonselen (talk • contribs) 10:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesvanonselen: Have you read User talk:Charlesvanonselen#Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 7) and the other blue links within it? The short list is:

• The references provided do not show that your company is notable (see the various links given regarding notability). Have multiple reliable sources, like newspapers or magazines, written articles about your company because they found it notable or interesting (not at your request, or in response to a press release issued by you)? That independent, in-depth, coverage is required to establish notability, which is required for an article to exist here.
• Related to notability, have you read WP:PROMO, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not here to do, which is promote a business? There are also other sections of that page that may sound familiar, like WP:NOTDIRECTORY (a lot of people mistake Wikipedia for another company directory or link farm where they must have an entry or be conspicuous by their absence).
• You are an employee of the company and are the wrong person to write an article about it because it is quite difficult to be neutral. If you insist, you must comply with WP:PAID, and be aware that everything will be scrutinized carefully for any sort of promotional language.
• The formatting and content of the article is not appropriate. See other articles for similar companies, as well as our manual of style, for information on this issue.

Again, there are other links on your User talk:Charlesvanonselen ("talk page"), as well as the article draft in User:Charlesvanonselen/sandbox (your "sandbox") with more info. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Charlesvanonselen (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your draft is a long way from being suitable for acceptance into Wikipedia. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or other forum for businesses to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about businesses that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what third parties say about it.

You also have what we call a conflict of interest and are a paid editor. Please review and comply with those policies; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. In order for you to be successful in writing a draft about your business, you essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources; most people in your position find this very difficult to do. If all you want to do is tell the world about your business, you should use social media, your own website, or other alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

On 6 Jan, C added the Paid template to User page. One hopes that with all the guidance provided above, C can attempt to work via Articles for Creation to create a draft in proper Wikipedia format and proper referencing that can then be evaluated by a reviewer. Looking at existing articles about banks may help but is no guarantee, as there are articles that exist, but are flawed and worthy of being nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarcastic jokes[edit]

So i would like to write an article about sarcastic jokes and thus wanted to know if its notable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krupali Parmar (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Krupali Parmar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I might first review the joke article to see if either what you want to do is already covered there, or could be added to that article, before attempting to write a standalone article about the subject. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Krupali Parmar! Sarcasm is WP:NOTABLE. Some examples covered in good sources could be a reasonable addition to that article, what WP:RS can you bring? However, on WP you can not write an article based on what jokes you consider sarcastic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So does that means i won't be able to write on that topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krupali Parmar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Krupali Parmar No, you could not write about what you consider to be sarcastic. If you are a professional comedian and independent reliable sources write about your jokes, you might merit an article (but you shouldn't be the one to write it). If you just want to tell the world about what you consider to be a sarcastic joke, you could do so on social media like Facebook, or a personal blog. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Krupali Parmar. Wikipedia is not interested in what you, or I, or any random person on the Internet, knows, or thinks, or believes, or has discovered, or worked out. It is interested in what published reliable sources have said. If you have found a published reliable source that has things to say about sarcastic jokes (not just examples, but actually saying something substantive about them), and you feel that what they say is not adequately covered in an existing article, then you are welcome to add a summary of what they say, citing the source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help about how and when to add or remove the tags ona Page[edit]

Hello! I recently edited the lead section of political parties of Japan. I wanted to know if it is okay enough? Can I remove the tag from that page now? Or does it need more improvement? Also, when I see articles through Random Article option many of them doesn't seem too good but are not tagged. Should I tag them? If yes, then how? Lightbluerain (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean List of political parties in Japan? - X201 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I took a look at List of political parties in Japan and I feel you summarized the key points of its contents so I think you are OK to remove the tag. If you come across a random article that has issues, please do not hesitate to tag them. If you have any further questions, please ask. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Lightbluerain, if you are not reasonably certain that you've addressed the issues, you're probably not the best person to untag it. And, if you are reasonably certain that an article requires a tag or requires tags removed, that's usually enough reason to do it, except in certain circumstances such as WP:CSD tag on the article you've created, WP:COI tags that refer to your contributions to the article, tags that are accompanied with talk page discussion that you've not addressed, etc. To tag an article, you can add templates manually or you can use WP:TWINKLE. To add templates manually, you need to know what those are. You can start at WP:TM or you can look at the code of the pages that have the tags to find out the templates that are used to generate them. Using Twinkle is much easier.

In the particular case in question, I feel like the lead should have more, as list articles should tell about the topic, the scope of the list and criteria for inclusion that prevents it from becoming an indiscriminate list. That said, if the article indeed lists all the Japanese political parties that there are, it is probably enough. If you're unsure, leave it for the others. Note that the article is also tagged for updating. Did you update the rest of the article too? If not, that tag should probably remain even if you remove the other one. The tag that asks for updating is duplicated in one of the sections, so if you can investigate and find out that that is the only section that needs updating, you can remove the tag from the top of the article. If the article needs updating at multiple places, you should remove the tag from that section since the article tag already covers that section as well. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks Usedtobecool and Interstellarity. Because i'm not certain about whether i did write a good lead section, I'm not removing the tag now. And, also Usedtobecool, i didn't update the article. So, ok. Thanks again. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is image streaming a notable topic[edit]

Hi,

I am thinking of writing an article on image streaming but I am not sure if it fits the wiki criteria. It is a fairly well-discussed topic, but it doesn't appear on many main news streams, but it isn't just confined to forums and blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackyboy123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mackyboy123. What is required is reliably published sources: please see WP:GNG. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Adoption[edit]

Hello! I've been wanting to became adopted by an experienced user and I don't know how. Can anyone help me? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Blacephalon, and welcome to the Teahouse. To be honest, I'd quite like to delete those templates which allow people to say they want to be adopted, as they tend to raise false hopes in people who deploy them. In my view, it is far better for someone seeking support, like you, to go in search of a like-minded editor who has already expressed a willingness to adopt someone, than it is to hope they will magically come to you. So, my advice is to look at the list of current people offering to adopt people, which you'll find at WP:AAU, specifically, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. In my book you appear to have enough edits behind you that you are clearly a committed editor, and aren't here to just to get one article created, only to disappear forever once you get what they want - so that's a real positive. That said, from a quick glance I don't think your editing interests and mine look like they'll coincide that much (and I'm currently unable to offer adoption right now as I'm quite busy in real life). Adoption/mentoring is a two-way process, so think about what sort of help and guidance it is that you need, look for a suitable adopter, check out their own recent edits and talk page activity and drop them a note explaining your interests, and identifying a few of the gaps you'd like to fill (anti-vandalism/article creation etc). Don't be disappointed if you get turned down right now - people differ in their time availability and interests. I hope this might have given you a useful start in the right direction. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the insight. Although it seems like a chasing game finding someone to adopt me, I will go out there and see who will adopt me. I just don't want to look like a person who keep nagging people and be an annoyance to people. I honestly agree with you on the fact that those templates won't do anything to those who want to be adopted. I've had that for a while now and no one even comments on my talk page. So thanks again for the advice as I will take it willingly. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Blacephalon, Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and I've been around a while and can show you the ropes. I would be down to adopt you! If you would like to be adopted by me, please leave a message on my talk page that explains what you'd like to get out of this adoption, and we can get going! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect without leaving a redirect[edit]

Hello there!

I would like to understand what the comment "over a redirect without leaving a redirect" means. My understanding is that it would mean a hyperlink directs the user to the wrong site. If that is correct, then I'm not sure why the page I was editing was moved from "Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission" back to draft.

Your help is much appreciate!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philharmagical19 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Philharmagical19: and welcome to the Teahouse! "over a redirect" means that the new page title had a redirect, which was replaced with the content. "without leaving a redirect" means that the old title is not redirecting to the new one; often, a page move results in a redirect from the old title, but when an article is moved to a draft, there shouldn't be a redirect, so this is nothing to be concerned about. Hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 19:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Philharmagical19: you can ignore that particular message: it doesn't tell you anything about why the draft was moved, it was just a technical detail about how Missvain moved it back to draft space after DGG moved it to main space. As to why: I'm not clear. DGG declined the draft (and said why in the comment), but moved it anyway: I don't know why, but it looks as if Missvain though it was a mistake and moved it back. I can't find any reason either of them gave, but I have pinged them both in this para, so perhaps they will come and comment. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Philharmagical19, it just means an admin moved the article back to draftspace. Usually moving pages leaves behind a redirect, admins can do that without leaving one. I think it was moved back because the draft was not properly cleaned up after it was moved to article space. Usually, the reviewing script automatically handles that. Perhaps it failed here and DGG didn't notice that, and Missvain didn't check whether the draft was moved by a reviewer or the submitter of the draft, before moving it back. That would be my best guess. You could ask DGG to re-accept it or wait for someone else to review it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah...back in my old stomping grounds! (I helped create the Teahouse!) Hi - I moved it back to the submission space because it was moved to the article space despite being rejected from Articles for Creation repeatedly. Not sure how it ended up in article space. Thanks for your patience. Missvain (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that DGG moved it, since it was cleaned up. I did some more cleanup and think it looks good enough now to be moved back into namespace. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Speech Community article[edit]

The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_community contains several unclear sentences. See, for example, these sentences in the section "Critique":

Thirdly, Chomsky and Labov's models made it clear that intra-personal variation is common. It also refine the choice of linguistic variant is often a choice madeto a specific speech context.

The force of these critiques with the concept of "speech communities" appeared because of the many contradictory. A part of scholars recommended abandoning the concept altogether, instead conceptualizing it as "the product of the communicative activities engaged in by a given group of people.

I am sure a careful reading would find other problematic sentences.

What does one do in such a situation? I have never edited a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LxShawn (talk • contribs) 2020-01-06T18:58:03 (UTC)

Hello there! Welcome to the Teahouse.

For unclear sentences, you can either edit them for clarity, grammar and tone yourself - or, if you're unsure, you can place the {{Clarify}} tag next to the unclear text. Be sure to avoid WP:DRIVEBY tagging, and place a short, new section on the article's Talk page about the problems raised by the clarify tags.

You can always ask for help on the Talk page - or failing that, at the Teahouse - if you want a specific edit checking over before you publish it, but as time goes on, it's expected that you'll WP:FIXIT by yourself - be bold in your edits, and gradually you'll gain confidence. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, LxShawn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out: it is clear that this has got garbled. It may be that it was introduced by somebody with poor English skills, or directly from an automatic translator; or it might be a bungled edit. There are several things you can do about it, depending on how familiar you are with the material, and how much effort you want to spend.

• If it is obvious what is meant, you can just edit it and correct it.
• If it is not obvious, you can tag it with the tag {{unclear}}; or open a discussion on the article's talk page, or both. Neither of these will necessarily get it fixed, but somebody might notice and do something about it.
• In a case like this, which is probably a bungled edit, you can go through the history ("Show History") to look for when the error was introduced, and see if you can see what happened, and how it is supposed to read. (There is a link to an external tool "find addition/removal" at the top of the History page, if it is not easy to find the right edit). That may let you reconstruct the right version (for example you can "edit" an old version just to copy the text, and paste it into the current version, if appropriate). If the offending edit is the most recent, you may be able to just roll it back (that doesn't appear to be the case here).
• Finally, you could look for an appropriate WikiProject (perhaps WikiProject Linguistics?) and make a suggestion there.

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

DISH Network discussion[edit]

Hello, my name is Caroline. As an employee of DISH Network, I presented an edit request at Talk:Dish_Network#Dish_México. The reviewing editor (User:Spintendo) recommended that others engaged in the subject area discuss the issue. I have placed a number of requests on the DISH Network Talk page, and Spintendo has been the only person to reply to any of them, so I am asking editors at the Teahouse how I might get others to take a look.

Briefly, here is the issue: The DISH Network infobox says that DISH owns 49% of Dish México and this is not correct. Dish México is a joint venture between EchoStar and MVS Comunicaciones. I have outlined in greater detail at the DISH Network Talk page, but let me know if I can explain more here. The company now called "DISH Network Corporation" was formerly called "EchoStar Communications Corporation"; but in 2007, EchoStar Communications Corporation split into two separate companies: DISH Network Corporation (the topic of the DISH Network article) and EchoStar (which holds a stake in Dish México). Spintendo has questioned whether the split off companies are really separate, and I'm not sure what else I can share to more clearly show that Dish México is a joint venture between EchoStar and MVS Comunicaciones, as I've already offered EchoStar's annual reports and a secondary source.

Can any editors here contribute to the discussion or correct the infobox? Thanks for your advice! CK-DISH (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete extra account[edit]

How do I go about deleting an extra account "Osvaldo Valdes Lopez"? Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

how to edit "Dr. R(eginald) Denys Hornabrook"[edit]

C._A._Hornabrook contains text "Dr. R(eginald) Denys Hornabrook". the only reference i found is at https://www.adelaide.edu.au/records/university-archives/online-resources/news-cuttings/index-to-volume-21-1934-1935-university#h

should i update it as Dr. Reginald Denys Hornabrook ?

Leela52452 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Page[edit]

Hello. I recently came across a celebrity page that false and inaccurate information. I am not the person who wrote it, but would like to have it deleted. Is there a way for it be deleted?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.211.221 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternatives for {{navbox}}[edit]

I want to know if there is anything that can serve navigational purposes (just like {{Navbox}}) but can be displayed on mobile view. The Lord of Math (Message; contribs) 02:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)