Wikipedia:Teahouse

CiaPan, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Move over redir (I think?)

A new article on a band has been created at The 400 unit. I wanted to move it to the correct capitalisation at The 400 Unit, but there exists a redir from that name to the article on the front man Jason Isbell, and the redir page has a fair bit of history. Any advice? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the new article's creator @TheMoodyTracey: for possible comments. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the "The" necessary? I think it is not. So, simplest maybe to move it to 400 Unit and redirect both titles there. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Ping DoubleGrazing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not myself familiar with this act, but judging by the article on Isbell, the 'The' does seem to be part of the name. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:THE. You could list it at WP:RM/TR. If the significant history at the target precludes moving the new article over it, I am sure the experienced page movers that patrol there will say so. Or you could just propose a move (WP:RM#CM) and move on. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Where to start?

How you people find work here? Where can I start building this encyclopedia? --juslit ^tπlk 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Juslit Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to participate. A good place to find things to do is the Community Portal. You may also wish to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Juslit You might also find the WP:ADVENTURE helpful! The Wikipedia Adventure will give you a more formal and academic introduction to Wikipedia. Bekkadn (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page - article "White Lady"

Article White Lady: - I am sorry for asking that, but in the article named above authors are asked, to improve the article and to source badly sourced paragraphs. Unfortunately I experienced, that parts of the texts inserted by myself had been deleted although they were very well sourced and I made the effort, not only to do secondary cites by copy and paste, but even reading the original sources and finding new and actual sources. Additionally I found paragraphs - by my opinion not the best english and only a few or no cites - and those parts of the article seem to exist for a long time. This seems to be very contradictive and explanations could be useful. My questions resulting from those experiences are, if this article is intended to be deleted completely, - are there certain authors to claim a function as the only guardians of this article (and others are not wanted or needed), - do the english Wikipedians prefer simple collections of sources without any text? In the hope to get answers to my questions I looked back in the talk page, but I found the interesting hint as below:

"The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion." What for do unexperienced or new authors need a closed talk box, when they have questions or would like to check up, what kind of change is helpful? Making suggestions in the talk-page and getting advices could probably be very pleasant. But I am really helpless, how to deal with such an interdict as quoted above.

Concerning the contents I think folkloristic mythology is a part of the mankind's knowledge and it should be, written about that - not in a manner, that readers get the impression, the authors could probably believe in ghosts -, but for my own I made the experience, that dealing with ghost stories an folkloristic superstition reveals interesting historical facts. I agree with wikipedia, that a wiki is not to find new theories or do any research on that topics, texts have to be neutral, but I think it should be allowed, to report things as they are fixed in the cited literature.

I also mention my comments in the talk box of my account, and please be not injured because of my very direct language - I do not intend to be impolite, but I have written this very quickly, but maybe this may help you answer my questions.

I think I will wait for your answers or discussion, before I start adding further informations in this text. Bockpeterteuto (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bockpeterteuto, the message "The discussion above is closed" refers to the discussion about whether to move "White Lady (ghost)" to "White Lady". You are welcome to discuss the changes you made, by starting a new section on the talk page. Map room (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Bockpeterteuto, partial answer. All WP-articles are work in progress. A lot of stuff on WP is imperfect, since we have thousands of active editors for our millions of articles. People work on what they think they should.

"are there certain authors to claim a function as the only guardians of this article" - See WP:OWN.

"The discussion above is closed" That refers to the specific diskussion about the article's name, you are encouraged to start other discussions as necessary (and revisit the naming question if you think that's worth doing, in a new thread). You edited the article, then LuckyLouie edited it after you, partly reverting you. That's how WP works, sometimes. If you disgree with some of what they did, per WP:BRD you can go to the talkpage and start a discussion about it, or, you can just edit again and see what happens. See WP:EDITWAR though. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Bockpeterteuto, welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody "owns" an article or has special rights over it. We do not prefer simple collections of sources without any text, but editors often disagree about what to include. You can start a new section on the "New section" tab, or post to old unclosed sections by clicking the "edit" link at the heading. Please be more specific. Click the "View history" tab and then the "prev" links to see who removed something and whether they gave a reason. You can link to the edit when you post about it. You can contact the editor with {{Reply to|username}} in a signed post, or by posting to their user talk page. See more at Help:Talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bockpeterteuto, the White lady article happens to be on my watchlist. Your additions appeared well sourced but your English grammar was poor and incomprehensible in parts, and often going into great detail about people and things not directly related to the topic (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). I only cut a small portion of it. The rest I edited for grammar and tone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

===>>>helpful criticism always welcome, furthermore see below! By my opinion this was a problem of different points of view, how to create a text, and simply a matter of personal taste. I stop editing this article until I am signalized to go on. Do you allow me to discuss problems on our user talk pages in order to find a consensus? Yrs. sincerely and thank you very much in advance Bockpeterteuto (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if you, Bockpetereuto, have simple collections of sources that may be useful for citations, you can mention them on the article's talk page to see if they're eligible to be added. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Map room, Gråbergs Gråa Sång,PrimeHunter and User:Tenryuu, thank you very much for your really kind and helpful advice and the links to instructions for users. I have read them very properly and after reading them I have read the corrections made by the mentioned editor even more careful and properly. This only strenghtened my doubts concerning the revisor and his motives - and I by myself cannot get rid of the concern that this matter could become conflict-prone (that I urgently would like to avoid). I still disagree even more with those changes after all this re-reading, but I am not going to start an editwar, because I think this theme isn't worth it and editing for Wikipedia is a hobby for me and should be delightful for me. There are several factors, that made suppose, there possibly could arise the supposition of a claim for ownership: first of all please read the comment above, the second: the user talk page of the mentioned editor seems to be not very inviting to leave anything there, third the way how the reversions were made: by my impression always the central aspect and the main statement had been deleted. And last but not least I do not claim to be a native speaker of the english language (maybe my english is slightly old-fashioned) and I am very thankful to anyone who helps me to improve my language, but I think that criticism may be probably not totally wrong, but this I think some kind of criticism belongs to done into my personal talk box. Any editor is invited to correct mistakes in grammar, if they should happen to me, and explain it to me. I also try not to use slang or common speech. But all those collected aspects make this matter taste a little bit strange to me. I apologize for asking you, to read the corrections, that have been made, and then discuss them with me. I may conclude, that I feel to be a guest in the english Wikipedia and for myself do not want to to get suspicious to claim any ownership, so I do not want to provoke any conflict and I will not change anything in the reverts, that had been done, but this is tolerance and no agreement. It is clear to me, that articles are edited and usually I do not mind and often I thank for it, but the way it is done sometimes could also be interpreted as a message. Sorry for causing troubles and thank you very much for all - also in advance for your kind attention and help, Yrs. sincerely Bockpeterteuto (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Template(s) for disambiguating punctuation series?

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing templates for cleanly displaying punctuation sequences that wikicode would misinterpret. For example, a published review discussing several works might have a separate section for each work. Suppose that in the third paragraph of a section the reviewer has written

The book treats the controversy impartially, detailing both sides' claims in appropriate detail and with a neutral authorial voice.

And suppose I'm quoting just that paragraph. I want to name the book that the reviewer is talking about, but its title appears only in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the section. The book has an article here on WP, so I want that sentence in the quote to look something like

The book   [The Wives of Mr. Jones]   treats the controversy...

with the title and brackets to show that it's not part of the quotation but a comment on it, and linked to the WP article about that book. Normally I'd just double-bracket the title, but the resulting triple brackets in wikicode

''[[[The Wives of Mr. Jones]]]''

would probably get mangled in the display. What are the templates to prevent this?

(I've just realized that readers might well interpret the italics as standard format for book titles. I've already spent way too long composing this question, so please assume that it's not about a book or anything else that in itself requires italics.) Thnidu (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu. You can use {{Bracket}} PrimeHunter (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Or {{'}}. Or, I suppose, <nowiki>. DS (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I start an FA review?

I have noticed that the article of Uncle Tom's Cabin has a section in its talk page that explains all the issues it currently has, which according to Retired Duke, needs a lot of significant work to bring it up to the current FA status. So how can I make an FAR and notify people about it? Blue Jay (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Jay. You can find some general information on this at WP:FA? and WP:FAC. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Jay Also see Wikipedia:Featured article review. Uncle Tom's Cabin became a FA in 2007, and as you mentioned, a comment on the Talk page suggested it be reevaluated. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking personal deleted edits

Hi there, is it possible to check the content/edit summary of edits you made which were deleted? Thanks! EpicPupper 01:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi EpicPupper. There’s a record of every edit made to a Wikipedia page in its Help:Page history. You just need to find the WP:DIFF for the edit you want to see. You can also find a record of the edits you’ve made anywhere on Wikipedia in your “Contributions” history. Just look at the top of the page for the tab. The only edits you won’t find are ones that needed to be revision deleted or otherwise supressed for some reason. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: I am afraid no. Only WP:Admins (or, in some cases, only Oversighters) can see contents/edit summary of deleted edits, wether they are deleted by the page being deleted, revision deleted or supressed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

All right, thank you. I thought so too, just wanted to make sure. EpicPupper 00:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi, currently I'm completely down! Have a look at this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man, I'm accused for Sockpuppet. But which is completely wrong. I don't have any connection with the sock user:Phoenix Man. I started this account as "Sharath Aekansh" and later renamed as"Sharath Abhivadyah". Which is a Sanskrit word and also one of the name of lord Shiva. Here a person named Abhivadhyah is blocked as a sockpuppet of that above mentioned phoenix man.

Some people confirmed that I'm also a sockpuppet of phoenix man. The reasons they mentioned are:

• they're also using an identical signature to Vidhweshwar.

I've just copied the signature syntax from someone here and edited. I've seen so many same model signatures here in Wikipedia.

• I have a question about new User:Sharath Abhivadyah - their first edit after creating their Talk and User pages and changing their username was !voting in the Prashanth Nair AfD [1], which I tagged as having made few or no other edits outside of the topic [2]. The similar username to other socks, e.g. 1, 2, participation in an AfD where a sock had previously participated, and what seems like a more than basic understanding of Wikipedia (e.g. changing their username [3], participating in AfD) may be relevant in terms of the SPI discussions that have happened. After I tagged their !vote in the AfD discussion as having made few or no other edits outside of the topic, one of their next edits included a !vote in an AfD for a school in India, [4], which may also be relevant. I realize that this could all be a series of coincidences, but I figured I would mention this due to the history of these investigations.

I don't know what to do. Please help me . _signed, Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 02:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You're able to respond at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man, and indeed I see that you have already done so. This isn't a Teahouse matter. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Assistance in Enabling the "Macros" Option for Editing with Wikipedia

Dear Whomever it concerns,

I would like to ask if it's possible to have the "Macros" option to be enabled since I am currently editing my company's Wikipedia page and would like to insert a table of content.

Once I viewed different sources on how to insert the table, there were a mentioning of using Macros that easily created the table of content, and to get it activated I require assistance from the administrators.

Looking forward for your replies with regards to the subjected topic!

I wish whomever reads this post a Happy Easter to them and their family!

Best regards, Guy Bou Assi Guy Bou Assi (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"I wish whomever reads this post a Happy Easter to them and their family!" – thank you!

As to the article: you have a conflict of interest and because of this you shouldn't edit your company's article; instead, you should propose changes to it on the article's talk page. See WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:Edit requests for more info.

Tables of contents are generated automatically for all articles that have more than four subheadings. I assume you're talking about Fosroc; it consists only of two paragraphs and a list of references, and so it doesn't have a TOC. As far as I know, there's no way to force it to appear. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: there is a way to force a TOC, __FORCETOC__. For more magic words, see Help:Magic_words. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Bou Assi: There is not enough content at Fosroc to merit a Table of Contents. Neither are there any independent sources there to show it meets WP:NCORP. I would suggest someone does a WP:BEFORE check, and considers putting it forward for a deletion discussion as not being sufficiently notable to remain here. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: May I ask why is there a request for deletion of the article? There are numerous independent sources that mentions the company which shall allow the articles presence to remain. Furthermore, I was recently informed with regards to the COI, which I shall reqest for an Edit request. Thank you @Kleinpecan: for your informative reply and I shall raise it accordingly.

@Nick Moyes and Kleinpecan: (Service) Editor forgot to sign. @Guy Bou Assi: (I assume that was you) please sign your posts when contributing to talk pages (like this one). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

STATUS: Guy Bou Assi: An Articles for deletion (AfD) has not (yet) been initiated for Fosroc. Guy needs to declare PAID on User page and propose changes to the article on it's Talk page. In my opinion the existing three references do not confirm notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you for the constructive comments regarding the use of Wikipedia, as I am a new member and still learning the basic and I thank you for your understanding. I shall request for an Edit request and provide the editor with references from independent sources that mention all the entries that are already submitted in the current article as well as provide further evidence from independent sources of the requested edits. Furthermore, thank you for your update that the article for deletion has not been initiated yet, which shall give me time to provide the editors the required references for the notability to comply with Wikipedia's requirements. Guy Bou Assi (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Guy Bou Assi

Directory of Sudanese scientist in the world

I'm looking for volunteers to help me in Wikipedia new project entitled "Directory of Sudanese scientist in the world" Abdulla (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Abdulla2021. There is already an article called List of Sudanese scientists which you could add to if any are missing. Note that as with all such list articles the only people who should be included are those for whom a Wikipedia article already exists (that is, showing that they are in the Wikipedia sense, notable). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Abdujlla2021. Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abdujlla2021: We already have List of Sudanese scientists, which will suit you better. Such 'List' articles should only contain links to people for whom we already have a biography about them here. You could start a new article about them, providing you can find independent sources which refer to them. See WP:NPROF or WP:NBIO for our notability criteria. Then you could at them to that List. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

why my artical got decelined

why my artical got decelined although the grammer of the artical was correct also the way the artical was written was also correct but it was cancelled by david because he said the artical didnt had a good topic although the Topic was on SAFT MUN which is a debate society and i wrote each and every thing about it and in detail and also proof of the writeen work Hamix YT (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hamix YT Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article was rejected because what I assume to be your debate society has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You offer no independent sources at all, such as news stories that discuss your society in depth. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, like social media is. Please read Your First Article for more information. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks to do here, and it takes much time, practice, and experience to be successful. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Approving New Page - Please advise if additional information is required

Recently submitted the following page, and included several reputable citations, including CNN.

Please advise if additional information may be required.

Thanks, Ken

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kv2000/Katie_Hunt_Wallpaper Kv2000 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken, and welcome to Wikipedia. Currently the article lacks reliable sources that talk about the subject in depth. In order to show the subjects notability you have to add more reliable independent sources that would offer significant coverage - not just a mention. Another thing that requires your attention is style and language - as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's important to keep it neutral and avoid any type of advertisement. Please take a look at these policies: WP:IRS - about the sources, WP:SIGCOV - about the coverage, WP:NPOV - about the style. Please also note that if you are related to the subject it's highly recommended to avoid writing about them. Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have made the amendments recommended. Thanks, Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kv2000 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment, Kv2000. The CNN source would be the strongest of the few in your draft, as it is reliable. However, it does not provide significant coverage of Hunt, just a mention in the context of an article about wallpaper. You need several sources about the person herself from which to build a proper biography worthy of an article (the criteria described as notablility, which most people and very many new drafts don't meet). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Publishing a Submitted Draft

If i find an Article that has been submitted and i am well knowledgeable about the topic, a i allowed to make edits or if non required is it okay for me to move it in the main Space? Ibitukirire (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ibitukirire. There are, understandably, fairly strict rules for becoming a general reviewer of submitted articles. They are described at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Many of us (myself included) have been around for years without taking that on. On the other hand, any editor can make constructive edits to articles that are pending review, or comment on the draft's Talk Page about the content, just as with articles already in Main Space. You can place your own drafts straight on to Main Space but beware that if you do so the New Pages patrol folk are likely to treat it more harshly than an article that has gone through the WP:AfC process, so I don't recommend that until you are very experienced here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, Thank you. Ibitukirire (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

finding disambiguation pages

Hi i have a question, please help me...how i find disambiguation pages in any wikipedia page? Almgerdeu (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If you mean links to disambiguation pages, you can go to your preferences → Gadgets and turn on "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Or did you mean something else? Kleinpecan (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

thanksssssssss very very very muccccch Kleinpecan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almgerdeu (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2021(UTC)

Scottish Cup page

Hi there, can someone please help me create a bracket for the knockout stage of the scottish cup.

Thanks 2A00:23C4:3A14:5201:E5DF:630D:2142:7DD9 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your request on the article's talk page. If possible, provide an example of an article that has the bracket you're looking for. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will, 2A00:23C4:3A14:5201:8CCF:10DF:E2D4:EDA1 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Marlborough - hypocrisy of Wikipedia - spout / criticise first before you have any idea about what you are pontificating about. 'SovalValtos' - no idea and zero judgement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been a very longtime user of Wikipedia - since not long after it started. Until yesterday I'd never looked to add/edit anything, never needed to. But, on the prompting of a contact in Marlborough (who questioned the validity of the (now dead) entry link to Marlborough Townsite (overtly commercial, charge for every entry), suggested that Marlborough.news add a presence to that page as we are, and have been for some significant time, the prime source of news and information for Marlborough and the surrounding area. This was duly done - created an account and then added a very simple entry. But soon after, someone / something (bot / human?) calling them/it self 'SovalValtos' decided that this listing was an infringement of everything that Wikipedia stood for and removed the listing, chastising me for adding such an 'advertising' and 'promotional' entry. What this 'SovalValtos' hadn't done is any research into what/who we are. We are a very small, independent volunteer group that creates an important source of News / Info for the town. We are the only journalists who cover what goes on in the town - Police, Town Council et al. We don't take anything out. We do charge (some) of our advertisers (charities are generally FOC), income goes primarily to running the site (hosting, third party external development etc.) and any income over will go back into the community for local groups that perform a valuable community function but find income difficult to get - but vital. Example - when Wiltshire Council recently slashed the grants to keep day centres open for the elderly, we stepped in with as much as we could afford. We also support youth groups, sports clubs etc. Generally we don't want any publicity (what we do isn't news - not on our site anyway and we don't look for such), but sometimes for a sports club we will get a small display ad. Our ethos isn't about making money for ourselves. Unlike just about every other media presence or listing on Wikipedia. I cited The Guardian as an example. Do they pay themselves - of course, plenty. Are they commercial? Of course. Is every one of their mentions/entries/listings 'promotional' and / or 'advertising' - you bet. So, when 'SovalValtos' removes our listing and chastises us for breaking the Wikipedia rules - hell, what hypocrisy - or should that be Wikipocricy? I've asked that our listing stay well away from Wikipedia - we don't need it, we've done pretty well building a very strong and loyal audience over the past decade without any 'assistance' (hahahahaha) from Wikipedia, we'll leave that to the 'dead links' still showing on the Town page. I've contributed plenty over the years in answer to Jimmy Wales pleas. I had believed in Wikipedia. A fool, I realise now the level and standard of hypocrisy, if my recent experience is anything to go by is significant and biased heavily against honest potential users / contributors such as us. Enough, don't want anything to do with Wikipedia so please delete my account (and confirm forthwith that this has been done) and also make sure that our entry is removed (or stays removed). Guess you will continue with the 'dead' commercial link above where we were??  Neil Goodwin (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on external links is that they should be kept to a minimum and not be promotional. In light of the sheer number of links in that section, your best bet for editing there is to remove any which appear to be dead, tangential or otherwise not enhancing the article's content. Note that the official website of Marlboro is already at the top of the list. Quisqualis (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Deleting an account is not possible. This may be lucky, in view of the number of people who continue to use the accounts whose deletion they've requested/demanded. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There were a very few words, none of which were promotional or advertising. I'm not going to mess with any other links - that's your job and seeing what you've done to our very few words - you appear to be sufficiently adept. The official website of Marlborough is that of the Town Council - of course it should be top of the list. But they don't carry Marlborough News, per se. We do, as would any other local newspaper. Could a Council really report on it's own meetings? Could a Government do the same? I think (hope?) that you could answer that yourselves.

I've said plenty, wasted far to much time on what I will from now on treat with the contempt that it deserves....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Goodwin (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Neil, most editors will have no issue with local news sites. The issue is how they are added and by who. In general addition by a person who shows clear affiliation with the site is subject to concerns over advertising etc. This isn't personal: bear in mind how large the wikipedia project is and how many people are involved. Yes it's a form of wikipediocracy in many ways, but it also helps to prevent the saturation of what is meant to be an encyclopedia with unverified external links. As you point out: some are already deadlinked on the article, what confidence would any user have that your organisation has any greater durability vs self promotion?

Ultimately the policy that guides this decision process is one of our most rigid. It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. it is not an extraordinary policy, but it is also hard to ensure any new user is aware if it prior to starting, and other editors should have evaluated the page to see if it was worth re-adding (I haven't checked to see what subsequently happened). Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neil Goodwin. Please understand that all Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs; so, It's not really anyone's "job" to fix things that you think might be wrong with a particular article. If you think you can do so yourself, it's OK for you to be WP:BOLD. If you tried to do that already and were reverted by another editor, then you're welcome to follow up in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see whether article talk page discussion. Since the issue you're having seems to relate to an external link, you might want to look at Wikipedia:External links for some information on what types of links Wikipedia generally thinks are OK to add to articles. Most experienced editors like SovalValtos only revert an edit outright when they think it's a clear violation of some Wikipedia major policy and guideline; moreover, most are more than happy to explain why, but not many are likely to respond favorably to an post filled with all kinds of bad-faith innuendo like the one you made here. There are many things about Wikipedia that new editors or newish editors don't know about; so, it's OK to make mistakes. However, when such editors criticize Wikipedia or other Wikipedia editors without having any idea about what they're pontificating about, it's not going to make others want to try and help them sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Neil Goodwin: The addition was promotional. You wrote:

• Marlborough.news - Marlborough's news and information website – produced independently as a traditional newspaper providing news and information for Marlborough

That's longer than any of the seven other external links, and it has three "Marlborough", four "news" (including "newspaper") and two "information". Gee, I wonder whether the site has information and news about Marlborough. You made "Marlborough's news and information website" part of the link text although the text is not at the site. I don't know your intentions but that's a type of keyword spamming SEO people may try to influence search engine rankings. An uninvolved editor would be unlikely to write that entry. "Marlborough's news and information website" also gives the impression that it's official or the only site with news and information about Marlborough. It's not. You have a conflict of interest and can use {{Request edit}} on Talk:Marlborough, Wiltshire to suggest edits about your website. By the way, I see the html title of the site is "Marlborough News - Marlborough News". Seriously? I hope no search engine is dumb enough to reward that on searches for Marlborough news. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Another thing worth noting is that adding links to your own site does not help your site a whit - Wikipedia uses the nofollow flag, which tells search engines that respect robots.txt (i.e. the majority of them) to ignore outgoing links from Wikipedia when determining search engine results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hell, this goes on a long time and involves lots of people..... Suggest that anyone who wishes to opine - and there appear to be plenty - begins to understand about journalism, particularly grass roots local journalism that is there for the community (not the local political authority). And start to think about how it's run - by volunteers - (aren't you all volunteers too?) Then comment, but keep quiet and don't spout any hypocritical rubbish beforehand. Sorry Jimmy, you've lost me as a (regular) contributor..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Goodwin (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've no desire to 'resolve any conflict / dispute', I'm saying again, as I have above previously that I have no wish for marlborough.news to be listed in Wikipedia. We aren't going to lose any audience, we wouldn't gain any if the listing was still there. There isn't (now) any dispute / conflict, you've made your own pompous arrogant pontifications regarding what is acceptable and what isn't, and a small volunteer independent local news organisation where volunteers do everything and take nothing out comes under the 'non' acceptable' heading......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Goodwin (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Neil Goodwin

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rebellion Research

Would it be possible for some experienced editors to review Rebellion Research the entire article appears to be PR + promoting the CEO. Regards Devokewater 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Devokewater. In the article's current state, after your edits, I think the article is just fine. I agree that the section 'Alexander Fleiss, CEO' (added by two IPs coincidentally located in NYC) was wild, unabashed WP:PROMO and should've been completely removed, and I think your edit has successfully solved every single issue tag on that article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TheTechnician27 (Talk page) I was a bit concerned that my edits were over the top. --Devokewater 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's always good to get a second opinion when removing 3/5 of an article's prose. If anything, though, that section massively detracted from and essentially tried to cannibalize the original article and was wildly unbalanced, and I would bet money on it that the IP edits were from Fleiss himself or from someone affiliated with him. It's a good thing a vigilant editor like yourself found it so soon (it's been less than a year, which in Wikipedia time ain't half bad). While I can't go back in time and read Alexander Fleiss, my guess is it was more of the same. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you can – there is a copy of the article in the Internet Archive. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Živko Lukić

Sorry about my historical knowledge, but what would Belgrade, the birthplace of Živko Lukić, be classified as in the infobox of the article? I just put Belgrade, Yugoslavia, but since he was born in July 1944 (World War II), I don't know what the correct things are to be put. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie (talk) just checked the infobox, it looks fine to me. --Devokewater 18:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to have text and userboxes run parallel to each other?

Hi, at my userpage, I'm trying to have a short snippet of text on the left and some of my userboxes on the right. However, it seems like each occupies its own line to the left/right. Is it possible to have them directly next to eachother? Thank you. DrawWikiped^(talk) 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrawWikiped: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it is possible - see my user page as an example, where I use {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} to keep the userboxes on the right. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Hi, sorry, maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I added both of those tags to my userbox list and I still don't get the parallel effect I'm looking for. DrawWikiped^(talk) 20:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrawWikiped: You asked if it's possible to have text and userboxes run parallel. It seems that the text "I'm semi-new..." is parallel to the first userbox. Could you please provide more details on exactly what you want? GoingBatty (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

musicians info box

Hi there I'm trying to add a non-classical musicians info box to the draft page below. Any advice or pointers about how to do this would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks! Lndnfr----

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janine_Rainforth Lndnfr (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lndnfr: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you use {{Infobox musical artist}} instead of {{Infobox artist}}, and then populate the appropriate value to the right of each equals sign. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello GoingBatty

Thank you for your reply - I'm not sure how to do this ...! but will try to look into how to do it ..! ----

@Lndnfr: I edited the draft and you should be able to add the values to the infobox now and see them populate. Norsser

Can Smithsonian Open Access images be used in articles?

Hello - Can Smithsonian Open Access images be used in Wikipedia articles? https://www.si.edu/openaccess Should the image be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons first? With link back to the Smithsonian site? Thank you for your help! Nicolet1327 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolet1327. That website states "We have released these images and data into the public domain as Creative Commons Zero (CC0), meaning you can use, transform, and share our open access assets without asking permission from the Smithsonian." Therefore, those images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used for any purpose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I need help creating a Wiki page

Hello Wikipedians,

I created a page about a company called Revcontent, its a very popular advertising business with millions of searches per month (I invite you to see the searches by country on Google Trends:Here)

I found articles about this company on very large news websites like Forbes and Techcrunch

Despite all these references the page was not accepted > Draft:Revcontent

I think I missed something, I would like to know your opinion about the sources and this company because I also found a wiki page about them which was deleted (Published Page)

Thanks in advance Squirrelnet (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Squirrelnet: In order:

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2016/03/09/how-revcontent-grew-into-a-content-innovation-powerhouse/ is from a Forbes Contributor, making it a glorified opinion piece and thus useless for notability (See WP:FORBESCON).
• https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/revcontent-acquires-rover/ is routine news coverage (Standard notices [and] routine coverage [including, but nor limited to] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business [are not considered significant coverage].
• https://www.martechcube.com/content-marketing-platform-revcontent-partners-nba-nfl-analysis/ is more routine news coverage and even if it were not it's a press release and thus primary.
• https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/HJ117jvPXu is a name-drop that doesn't discuss Revcontent in any real depth.
• https://digiday.com/sponsored/in-the-race-to-shore-up-revenue-publishers-are-overlooking-deal-terms/ is native advertising and disclosed as such.

In summary, all your sources are useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand and I will delete the page... Thks

Jéské Couriano I don't think this tone ("in summary, all your sources are useless") is at all appropriate for the Teahouse. I also don't think that your signature, which reads "A little blue Bori", is appropriate for someone whose username is so different. Please see WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username › Mortee _talk 21:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you expect me to sugarcoat it? I'm not going to bloviate when someone brings up a draft whose sources are not up to par, especially if I am assessing them in the manner I am doing here. Being anything other than blunt results in them ignoring or misinterpreting you, and I would rather be unambiguous. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Why can bots create edit conflicts?

I was editing this page and I had put in, lots and lots and work into the page, with headers and everything, and then there was an edit conflict with a god damn anomie bot? How does that happen? I was so dissapointed and angry after all that work down the drain, please someone manage this feature and how do I get around this next time? Just copy and paste the source edit? LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: Welcome to the Teahouse! Edit conflicts happen to all of us. Ways to avoid edit conflicts include completing the work as a draft before moving it to mainspace, saving smaller incremental edits, or by adding {{in use}} at the top of the article while you were working on it. If it happens in the future, you can immediately copy your text to your favorite text editor/word processor, then reload the page, and edit again. It doesn't appear that User:AnomieBOT edited the article (another bot did), and all editors are expected to be civil, even in edit summaries. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Too late for you, but I believe that when an edit conflict appears, there is an option of scrolling down, copying all of the content you created, then leaving the page, and Wikipedia. Logging back into Wikipedia should allow you to open the article and reinsert your new content. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I don't think it's necessary to log out of Wikipedia. Reloading the page should be sufficient. GoingBatty (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Oh the irony!) @LongWinterBranches158: I do sympathise - it has happened to me, and it can be deeply and utterly frustrating when you appear to have lost work you've spent ages writing. Only on mobile do I ever lose work entirely (when my phone goes on standby). When editing Wikipedia on a PC I can't remember that ever happening. Yes, I still get innumerable edit conflicts (especially when replying here!) but my work is always retrievable, either by being displayed in the 'edit conflict' window, or by clicking the 'back' button on my browser, and then copying the redisplayed edits I was making. If you go to your Preference settings, and click 'Beta features' you can activate a particularly useful edit conflict tool called Paragraph-based edit conflict which clearly displays the edits you might be in conflict with.

I can understand why you don't want to re-do your improvements to Pervomaysk, Sakhalin Oblast, but GoingBatty has made some useful suggestions to avoid this happening in the future. Thank you for all your contributions. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha yea I sorely apologise for my tone, I was angry at the circumstances of course, it wasn’t the bots fault. Is there any way to get back the lost work after it’s gone though? I think a good idea would be to implement an auto save function or something into Wikipedia whilst ediitng — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: You might be able to find your text if you use your browser's back arrow enough times, but it's not saved on Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: Were you using the visual editor? There's a chance it might still be there if you try and edit the page again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi and sorry to hear about the edit conflict. Always a pain and a downside of collaborative editing. If you are on a device that supports multiple tabs then you can open the article again in a new tab and copy text from the edit conflict tab to make an edit that combines your work with whoever saved an edit just before you tried to. I doubt that works on a smartphone, but it works on tablets and PCs. Otherwise good practice is to save frequently, at least every ten minutes, and edit by section rather than the whole page. If you are editing a brand new article or one that is topical you need to save more frequently. I was editing the article on Sarah Palin on the night when John McCain announced her as his running mate - that article peaked at 25 edits per minute that evening and I dread to think how many edit conflicts. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It happened again with my latest Congo site, same situation, lost everything to a bot edit conflict, can’t trust this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LongWinterBranches158. Maybe try starting with a WP:DRAFT and then moving it to the WP:MAINSPACE when you think it's ready. For some reason, you seem to be starting a new article in the mainspace, WP:DRAFTIFYing the article, and then re-adding it back to the mainspace latter on. You did such a thing at least at Pervomaysk, Sakhalin Oblast and Wamaza as far as I can tell. When you create anything in the mainspace, it's there for anyone to edit at anytime; the same applies to the draft namespace as well, but many editors will leave a draft alone as a courtesy to the creator unless they're asked to help improve it or there's some clear policy or guideline issue that needs addressing. Moreover, when you create an article in the mainspace and then move it to the draft namespace, you're going to attract the attention of bots, etc. looking for such pages to tagged them with templates like {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} or added them to appropriate maintenance categories, etc. There are some things (like non-free content and certain types of categories) which are OK for articles that are not OK for drafts per WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts that might cause the page to be flagged for review and edited by a bot. You might be able to avoid edit conflicts with such bots by simply waiting a bit longer after draftifying a page to give the bots a chance to find the page and do whatever they've been set up to do: however, it simply seems better to just start off as a draft, work on improving it at your own pace, and then move it to the mainspace yourself or submit it to WP:AFC review when your ready. If the page you want to improve has already been created in the mainspace, sometimes adding a template like {{Under construction}} or {{In use}} can help reduce the possibility of an edit conflict, but there's no guarantee. So, it might be better to work on the improvement in your user sandbox first and then incorporate it into the article when you're ready. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I create a bot account?

How can I create a bot account? amonguslover (contact me here) 00:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Amonguslover, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Please see Wikipedia:Bots and Wikipedia:Bot policy, but the gist of it is that you'll need a "useful and harmless" task for the bot to perform, some programming experience, approval from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), and a willingness to maintain the bot should it be found to contain issues. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amonguslover: Having experience editing Wikipedia manually would be very helpful before thinking about a bot. GoingBatty (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with GoingBatty about this. Anyone who intends to write a bot program to help solve a specific problem should have a significant history of manual edits to solve that same problem. That is the only way to gain knowledge about the ambiguities and edge cases that the bot must analyze. Such experience based knowledge is also essential to refine and improve the bot if and when it makes bad edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How to post a Soca Artist

I'm trying to post an article about a Soca artist, Problem. Child but it's being rejected because Wifi says that the references I'm using are not reputable.

I reviewed the list of requirements for a musician but I'm struggling because there's minimal "reputable" sources for Soca music. The artist has released dozens of known Soca tracks, 3 albums, has won awards for various carnivals, has worked with many other artists (e.g. Machel Montano, Bunji Garlin, Patrice Roberts), having even written many of their songs but none of these things seem to not be considered "reputable" by Wikipedia.

What can I do in order to have an article published? DarleneCab (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarleneCab: There are no references in Draft:Problem Child (musician). At the top of the draft is a big red template with a gray box explaining why the draft was declined. There are several links in the gray box explaining how to provide references. Once you provide independent reliable sources that demonstrates how the musician meets the notability criteria for musicians, you can resubmit your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Going Batty. Thanks so much for your help but.... I still don;'t get it. I don't understand the message thrown back. According to Wiki, the artist must have won a Billboards award and have a record label and several other things. Soca has no Billboard section. Carnival awards are not recognized (even though Carnival has a Wiki article). If you look up Problem Child on YouTube or Spotify it's very clear that he's a real artist. How do I find out what sources Wiki considers to be reputable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarleneCab (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarleneCab: The notability criteria for musicians state that musicians "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" - you don't have to "have won a Billboards award and have a record label and several other things." There's no doubt that Problem Child is a real artist, but not every artist meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Reliable sources include major newspapers, magazines, and other publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As an add-on, if you're wondering whether or not the source you're using is reliable, you can search the reliable sources noticeboard and see if someone has started a discussion on it; if not, you can start one yourself for evaluation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why my website has been tagged as spam by wikipedia. ?

WP:DENY. JavaHurricane 04:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why my website has been tagged as spam by wikipedia ? We have no connection with wikipedia and have never edited wikipedia. Please remove all refernce to our corporate website as spam website immediately If some anonymous person adds our company website link to support some theory of theirs does it make our corporate website a spam website ? We are not saying our webesite name here, so please give us some anonymous method of communication which is not public. Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC) A non-transparent place to discuss the blacklist will not happen. This is not the place to contest a blacklisting; MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is, and they generally do not respond well to site owners' requests their domain be removed from the blacklist. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 04:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Then, How can we contact folowing anonymous persons who are adding our links as spam to your website @User:Sro23, @User:Ajraddatz, @User:Bsadowski1, @User:Lofty_abyss, @User:Masti, @User:Matiia, @User:Vituzzu  ? I already linked to the proper venue for this matter above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 04:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC) @Bl2phy7uwr9ty: You can contact editors on their talk page. For example, I am User:GoingBatty, and you can contact me on User talk:GoingBatty. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC) It says there that requests from new users will not be considered. So then, how can we contact folowing anonymous persons who are adding our links as spam to your website @Sro23:, @Ajraddatz:, @Bsadowski1:, @Lofty abyss:, @Masti:, @Matiia:, @Vituzzu:  ? What is the formal procedure system you have for content taking down ? Who is the grievance officer for this blog ? Thanks for your prompt reply, are you an officer of this website ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC) We are not a blog. We are an encyclopaedia. There is no formal structure, the lot of us are volunteers (and paid staff, barring extraordinary circumstances, do not edit or make editorial/content decisions in their capacity as such). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks GoingBatty (talk · contribs) . Should I contact those editors on their talk page ? Will they remove spam entry for our website or should I file a legal request ? Can you link to some past complaints where they have taken action ? And what is Arbitration procedure for this ? Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC) @Bl2phy7uwr9ty: Since you don't want to provide an example, it's hard for me to understand your issue. At first, I thought your issue was that Wikipedia has added your website to its spam blacklist, and you want that reverted so there can be links from Wikipedia to your website. If so, please go to the proper venue for this matter as noted above. However, if your issue is that these editors are spamming articles by adding links from Wikipedia to your website, and you don't want links from Wikipedia to your website, then you can contact them on their talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Blocked as NOT HERE following a report to AIV. This is obvious trolling. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit (removal) of my addition to Gay Literature article, Overview section

Why was addition re Asian gay literature removed by Njd-de? Explain pls. Updater852 (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Updater852: Welcome to the Teahouse! In the edit summary for this edit to the Gay literature article, Njd-de wrote "valid concern but we should improve this article instead of sending readers somewhere else". Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can discuss this at the article talk page, Talk:Gay literature, to work collaboratively to come to a consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Merging sections. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That edit called attention to the geographical and cultural limitations of an article that is too broadly titled Gay Literature. It would more appropriately be called, perhaps, Western Gay Literature. My addition, like a host of others in Wikipedia, simply called users’ attention to a broader field. It could hardly be construed as a direction “ away” from this article, but is, instead, a pointer to additional resources. This is my first experience with unjustified interference with a serious addition. I am disappointed, and will simply say that I don’t have time to waste on editing if such frivolous edits are permitted to stand. Cheers to DE. Updater852 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Updater852. When you make an edit to an article which you think is an improvement, but which another editor reverts, the thing to generally do is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to sort things out by discussing them on the article’s talk page. The questions you asked about this on your user talk page are most likely go unanswered or at least not answered for quite a long time because there are probably not nearly as many people watching your user talk page as there are watching the article Gay literature and by default its corresponding talk page. Finally, while I can understand it can be disappointing when an edit we make is subsequently reverted, we should try to understand why and seek clarification before labeling something as “unjustified”. There might be a good policy- or guideline-based reason the edit was reverted that may not be obvious at first. Even if the revert was made in error, we should still assume good faith at first at least until the other edit gives us a good reason to question their motivation. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience here, Updater852. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, but I'd say that you didn't quite get the style of Wikipedia articles right with these edits. The text you added was commentary about the content of the article, which we wouldn't usually include part-way through an article. If you feel that the article doesn't present a sufficiently world-wide perspective on the topic, then it might be worth considering tagging it with Template:Globalize. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting after an edit warring block

A user was recently blocked for 48 hrs for editwarring, immediately after his block was up he went back and reverted the two pages which he was edit warring on, whats the best course of action to take? A discussion has been started on one of the article talk pages however even after multiple editors explained why his edits were reverted he still either doesn't get it or is pretending not to get it. It seems likely hes not going to budge from his position, if no resolution can be reached through discussion whats the best thing to do. Daiichi1 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Daiichi1. I've asked the administrator who issued the previous block to take a look at this. Repeating the behavior that resulted in a block is not really a good idea and almost always leads to another much longer block. My suggestion to you would just be to avoid anything that might be perceived to be edit warring yourself and don't post anything which might provoke a further escalation of things on article's talk page. Give the blocking administrator or another administrator a chance to try see what is what and figure out whether any further action is needed. Even if the other editor refuses to do so, try to remain cool and keep focused on the content being discussed. It might even be a good idea to take a break from that particular article while things are being sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Daiichi1: The other editor has been blocked again. I suggest you stay away from their user talk page while they're blocked or appealing their block, even if they specifically mention you or lash at you in some of the comments they make. There are two administrators dealing with the editor now, and they will address any inappropriate comments made. At some point the blocked editor will either listen to the advice given by these administrators or will end up having their block extended even further and their ability to edit their own talk page taken away if they don't. If they do get unblocked, try to give them another chance to show they are WP:HERE and sincerely resolve any disputes through discussion and try not to bait them into doing something inappropriate because your actions can end up being reviewed as well. If they simply go back to the same behavior as before, then don't bother with reverting them or warning them; simply seek administrator assistance asap. Editors are given second and sometimes third chances, but at some point the community may decide enough is enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROMO on the draft has been fixed

I have fixed wp:PROMO and rewritten in the wp:NPOV in content. Also the article has been submitted for review Draft:KaHa Pte, and according to the admin on my talk-page “a lot of the promotional material seems to be taken care of”, I have attended to the draft and as I await the Afc, would need help in reviewing the draft by pointing out whatever you think it needs.--Afí-afeti (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Afí-afeti (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a comment. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I have attended to that also.--Afí-afeti (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Please help me with your knowledge. I cannot upload pictures it is showing that "something went wrong" .Please help me .

 Mam KP (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I do notice that your user page shows a graphic file that is missing evidence of permission, that it was you who uploaded it, that you were informed of the copyright problem on 31 March, and that the same image appears here, a page at whose foot we read "All Right Reserved." Please do not upload any more files until you have fixed problems with those that you have already uploaded. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Making an article about The Ramanujan Machine

I'm not sure if making an article about The Ramanujan Machine is notable. Is it? Ratamatao ✉ 09:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"If you have to ask whether some imaginable subject is notable, then it almost certainly is not," is the response that's so true (though perhaps, for politeness' sake, better left unsaid). Here, however, the coverage linked to from the site's page of "Coverage" (example) is substantial, so I'd imagine that the subject is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I hate adding any discordant notes here, but I feel compelled to say that quote is pithy but empirically untrue often enough that I think it's rather inapt. We get the question "is X notable" daily, if not more often (which means our attempts to broadcast our standards for inclusion are working to an extent), and the answer is manifestly "Sometimes 'yes', sometime 'no'" – with the "yes" not a rare occurrence (though admittedly less than half the time).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Those results, and the method used to find them, are fascinating (I hope more such results will be reported as they're found). I doubt the topic is notable (In Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense) yet, but I expect it will be in a year or two. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Saudi cricket

Two articles on this subject have been recently edited into a bit of a tangle, and I'm not quite sure how to untangle them. The article Saudi Cricket Centre describes an organisation called Saudi Arabian Cricket Federation. Meanwhile, there is a new page at Saudi Arabian Cricket Federation which has both a redir to Saudi Cricket Centre and, rather redundantly, also content which more or less duplicates the earlier article. I don't know if these are two separate organisations or one is a rebranding of the other, and whether both articles are therefore needed or only one (and if so which one). Cheers, DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing. This might be a good thing to ask about at WT:CRICKET since the members of that WikiProject probably know enough about the subject matter to help sort things out. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing I have had a look, and it's definitely a duplicate article, so I reverted it (cut-and-paste moves like this aren't allowed). It looks like the organisation may have changed its name, so I've started a move discussion about what the correct name should be. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How to publish an article

Hello, I have finished writing my article so it is now in my sandbox. But I would like to lay it out so that it becomes public, although I do not find how I can do it. Did not get a single clue when I searched for help on Wikipedia. I would be happy if someone can help me and advise how I can do. Thanks in advance. Regards Khamlia (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You should submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article; I have done this for you. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Khamlia. Looking at the existing article at the Czech language Wikipedia and the draft you posted, it seems pretty clear you used the Czech article as the source for the translation. Please note for future reference that when you use (suitably original) content from an existing page in another page, including when you translate it into another language Wikipedia, you must provide copyright attribution to the authors of the page who own the copyright to their original contributions under the free copyright licenses our edits are automatically released under. (Your original edits are owned by you in the same way—here, the translation is a derivative work—and that ownership gives you the legal and moral rights to be credited in like manner when your edits are re-used.)

You can find instructions about how to give suitable copyright attribution for translations at Help:Translation#License requirements. The main page dealing with the broader issue is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (which also has a section on translations at the shortcut WP:TFOLWP).

You don't need to do anything to fix this here because I have provided the missing attribution with the edit summary I left in this edit (see WP:RIA – "Repairing insufficient attribution", as well as the working repair examples at Help:Dummy edit). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

how do i reinstate valid info on Udhayanidhi_Stalin

revision 1015605526 deleted important info. what is the best way to restore it? Gi vi an (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an: Welcome to the Teahouse! It does not appear that there was important information deleted in that revision. Instead, it appears that you correctly fixed and expanded a reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources

What are secondary sources and how do you find them? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 64.121.103.144, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:SECONDARY as well as our article "secondary source". As far as where to find them, they come in all shapes and sizes, from news sources to books to magazines to academic journals. Not all of these necessarily are secondary sources, but those are a great place to look. If this question is specifically in reference to Draft:Starship SN11 – a fairly recent subject – news articles may be the best place to look. I'll note that the issue with your sources isn't that they aren't secondary sources; it's that these secondary sources are not necessarily reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting superimposed image with caption to display properly

[[file:

|288px|alt=]]

Luneburg reflectors (the marked protrusion) on an F-35

Hi, how do I get the image on the right to display properly as an image with arrow and caption? Can be using any other template too. I don't get why it shows the plain text syntax from inside the accolades.  Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pieceofmetalwork. I don't know the answer - I've never looked at these templates before - but it seems to me that {{Superimpose}} produces something that is syntactically a wikilink to an image, while {{multiple image}} wants bare filenames. I don't know if there is a way round this if you insist on using {{multiple image}}. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Would there be any other template that can produce a box with caption? Without caption it can render fine. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pieceofmetalwork: Use {{Image frame}}:

{{Image frame
|content={{Superimpose
 |base=RNLAF F-35 F-001 05.jpg
 |base_width=288px
 |float=Red arrow southeast.svg
 |float_width=30px
 |x=123
 |y=45
}}
|caption= Luneburg reflectors (the marked protrusion) on an [[Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II|F-35]]
|width=288
}}

Kleinpecan (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that works perfect! Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like someone to write a biographical article about someone.

 69.207.44.91 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with improving existing articles, if you haven't done so already. When you're ready to start working on a new article, first read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you don't have any relationship with the person, then I suggest you read all the information at Help:Your first article, and use the wizard to create a draft to be reviewed through the Articles for Creation process. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

69.207.44.91: Based on how you worded your question, it seems like Wikipedia:Requested articles is what you're looking for. Understand, however, that there are thousands of requested articles at any given time, and there's no guarantee an editor will even glance at your subject on the sprawling list of requested biographies, let alone decide to invest the time and effort necessary to create an article about them. Your best option, therefore, would be to follow GoingBatty's suggestion above. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting information

What should I do if two(or more) references have conflicting information? Steven Voutchkov (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steven Voutchkov: - an excellent question, and the source of much good discussion. First step is to check that your references are all reliable/independent. If one side is non-reliable than that solves it. Let's assume all are good sources. Next question is is it a 1:1 or 2:1 case, or is it a "6 sources say X, with one outlier saying Y"?. If the latter, then go with the consensus of sources. If more like the former, than it is generally good practice to say "some sources say X, other sources Y", and avoiding putting anything in Wikipedia's "voice". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Steven, and welcome to the Teahouse. About a week ago, I answered a similar question which can be found here in the archives. Hopefully this and Nosebagbear's advice helps! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How to block someone

How do block someone from editing wikipedia? Superman011 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is a specific issue, please give us a URL and some details of the issue so we can point you precisely. In a technical sense, only admins can carry out blocks. They can be requested at a few different locations, such as WP:AIV for very clear-cut vandalism. The administrator's noticeboard handles more complicated cases. Please read the instructions at the top first, especially with regarding to notifying the other side(s) and that all parties' behaviour being looked at. Critically, in all but the rarest of cases the editor should been warned and communicated with first. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Superman011: Nosebagbear (talk)

@Superman011: Also see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You created an account within the past 48 hours, no one has reverted any of your edits, and yet you are asking about blocking an editor? Feels premature. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: If we don't stop HostBot from greeting new editors at once, it will become too powerful for any of us to control. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions..." I suppose sometimes "friendly" is debatable. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hostbot

When does hostbot sends invites on talk page? Is it automatic or some human gives it list of newcomers? Asking because I was not invited by it ☹😢. Instead I was welcomed by User:Timtrent 😁. I mean I am happy that I was welcomed by Human but why this discrimination with others ?? Parnaval (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Parnaval. Hostbot just follows an automated set of rules you can read about here. One of those rules is that "the user has NOT already received an invitation to participate in Teahouse". Once you received a welcome message from a human, your account was outside the criteria for an automated invite. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How to actually submit a pushpin map

Hi, I am currently making an article about a village in Mato Grosso (Brazil) and i was surprised that there was no template map for it, so I went to Locationmap+ site on wikipedia help and it successfully explained how to create it but it didn't actually supply a button or place to submit them, or I just missed something :) LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

LongWinterBranches158, hello, friend! I'm a little confused. Once you create this map, you can just place it in the article in question. You have no need to submit it or anything like that. If that doesn't answer your question, try explaining it in a different way. Have a great day! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooh so you create it in the article? Wouldn’t that be quite complicated to do?

I think you were already on the right lines, LongWinterBranches158, in that you realised that the easiest way to do this is with the pushpin map feature. The documentation is at Template:Infobox_settlement#Maps,_coordinates and there is a linked example at Padang to show how it works. That example is a bit complicated as the settlement template contains much else as well, so perhaps you should take a look a the source code for Tengenenge instead, where the pushpin map is more obvious. It's near the top of the page in the editor, starting {{Infobox settlement | name= Tengenenge

and going on to the key bits, namely

| pushpin_map = Zimbabwe | pushpin_map_caption = Tengenenge in Zimbabwe | coordinates = {{coord|16|43|51|S|30|56|39|E|region:ZW|display=inline,title}}

You could copy this into the article you are drafting, swapping the relevant details. If you run into difficulties, ping me back here with the link to your draft and I'll try to help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

After writing this I looked at your recent contributions, one of which was Cachoeirinha, Mato Grosso, which seems to confirm you have worked out how to do the mapping! Well done for creating these articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew how to do that already, but I mean actually creating new templates, not used on articles before. How do I submit a pushpin map after creating it and not using another one to this list? I'm considering using a snipping tool on the Brazil map and cropping it into Mato Grosso (Mato Grosso's map doesn't work) and now that I'm not interested in Mato Grosso's mapping, I'd like one for Shaanxi (a huge Chinese) province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: In your recent Teahouse question regarding the Mato Grosso map, I recommended that you ask for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop if you wanted someone to create a module that would allow you to use a pushpin map of the state in articles' infoboxes. We have a blank map of Shaanxi province that can be used to create such a module. Just go to the Graphics Lab page linked above, and request that someone use that blank map to create Module:Location map/data/China Shaanxi. Once that is created, you can just enter "China Shaanxi" in the |pushpin_map= field of {{infobox settlement}} in an article about a place in that province, and a pushpin map will appear in the article. Deor (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeking assistance on Stanford Prison Experiment article

Beyond my Wikipedia work, I’ve also been working with Dr Philip Zimbardo for many years. He became infamous after the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment went very badly. It’s 50 years later this year, and there’s a lot of new retrospectives and coverage. Many new sources.

In looking at our current en.wikipedia Stanford Prison Experiment article, there’s a lot of room for improvement. It’s got some big gaps and inaccuracies.

Given my proximity to Zim, I know I should not be the one editing directly. I’m looking for anyone here who could help update the article to make it more accurate and better than C-class.

According to page view stats, the SPE article is getting over 4,000 view per day. Anyone here interested in making at least the opening paragraph better?

Thanks much for any replies. My/our goal consistently is not to add bias into the article in any way - it’s to improve the NPOV, accuracy and quality however we can.

ps - I posted text Zimbardo sent me onto the SPE talk page yesterday, per his request. I haven’t previously seen how else to do this - When a non wikipedian wants to comment on an article about their work, is there a better protocol than sharing their comments on the article talk page? DrMel (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrMel: Hi there! You're welcome to post specific suggestions to the Talk:Stanford prison experiment or Talk:Philip Zimbardo with the {{request edit}} templates. Note that some editors may be overwhelmed by the 6,800-word message you shared on Talk:Stanford prison experiment. Instead, I suggest you provide smaller suggestions in "change x to y" format with independent reliable sources. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Tone

What is a tone of an article? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The tone of an article is the way it's written: the choice of words and grammatical constructions; how it addresses the reader (if it does at all). A newspaper, a magazine, a novel, a textbook, a note to friends, a tweet, all have their own tone. This is an encyclopaedia, and articles should have the tone of an encyclopaedia. See WP:TONE for more. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello, the article got rejected for reliable sources but how do they determine what isn't reliable? The publications are all notable. How can I get some clarity on this? This may just be a cultural/exposure issue. Karawilliamsonpr (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Karawilliamsonpr: see Reliable sources. The medium.com one, for example, is unreliable. See WP:RSP for a list of commonly discussed sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing Rights Commandeered

Robinvp11 refused to allow the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chalgrove_Field to be changed. Logical reasoning is met with, ‘Wikipedia articles must not contain original research’. Four years of detailed referenced material was overwritten on the whim of Robinvp11. His reasoning is on the ‘Talk’ page for all to judge. Removal of my work was in violation of Wikipedia’s rules but my dispute resulted in a convoluted argument with the administrators who decided my ‘crime’ was so bad they blocked my account and removed my editing rights.

Editing rights were re-instated but changes to the Battle of Chalgrove Field resulted in a brief editing war. Robinvp11 threatened with menaces, and as happened before, that my editing rights would be withdrawn if John Chalgrove again edited the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage.

Robinvp11’s entry to the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage is based mainly on sources that are attributed to Lord Nugent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Nugent-Grenville,_2nd_Baron_Nugent – heading ‘Nugent the Historian’ has the whole story. Nugent’s fiction corrupted historians’ and Robinvp11’s understanding of the history of the battle of Chalgrove and John Hampden’s involvement.

The Teahouse has a great tradition of seeking out the truth but will Robinvp11’s last words be, ‘Wikipedia articles must not contain original research’. Can the Teahouse residents confirm they will protect John Chalgrove’s editing rights? John Chalgrove (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, please read Wikipedia: No original research as you have been told numerous times before, and please do not attack other editors. You have edit warred with more than one user name at John Hampden to get your original research included, the place to discuss the content would be Talk:John Hampden. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

John Chalgrove, I'm not sure that there are any Teahouse residents. I'm a mere Teahouse denizen. Time and energy permitting, I'll work to protect anybody's rights to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This edit, for one, flagrantly contravenes Wikipedia:No original research and thus should not have been made and, once made, should have been reverted. If the fruits of the research are as described (which I am willing to believe), then it may be published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, and then editors independent of the research will be welcome to cite it as they improve this and other relevant articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Good afternoon! Last December I created a Wikipedia article for Stephen Fichter carefully following the Wikipedia format. In an effort to address every detail for publication of the article, I have an inquiry regarding conflict of interest (COI). My question is twofold. Since I am a professional colleague and consequently a friend of Father Stephen, I was concerned about your COI caveat. It is suggested that a potential conflict be mentioned at the outset. As a sidebar, since time has elapsed from my initial writing of the article, I had every intention of working on the COI issue in December, but COVID has impacted my life in a very personal and challenging way. I am just now getting back to my desk to begin my work again. That said, I have read extensively all that you provide in the way of articles and see that there are three simple ways to mark your article accordingly. I believe that I will choose option 2 (statement in the edit summary) to explain that I am not being paid to write this article. The reason for writing the article was not to promote any specific project of Father Stephen’s, but rather to include him in the Wikipedia roster for accomplishments that clearly meet your notability criteria. For example, Stephen is a published author, movie producer, app developer, an often quotable source for New Jersey newspapers and sometimes the New York Times, and talk guest on Sirius, CBS, and Relevant radio shows. He enjoys notoriety in New Jersey. As you can see from the article I created, he is the pastor of one of the largest parishes in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey and has worked as a sociologist/researcher for 13 years for CARA (the leading research institute for the Catholic Church). So would you agree that option 2 is the best way to disclose this background information regarding my association with Father Stephen?

I believe my article is currently under review for publication. At this stage, save for adding the COI disclaimer, I believe I have done everything I can to see this article through to publication. Can you tell me if there is anything to do at this point to expedite its publication? Is there a way to know where the article may be in the approval process? I apologize for all of these questions. This is my first time to submit an article to Wikipedia, and I want to make sure that my submission meets your best standards. Thank you so much for your kind help with all of this!Frank S. Weaver (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Frank S. Weaver (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Frank S. Weaver, hello, friend! You said a lot of words, so I'll just address the final concern: You ask how to speed up the review process, but the answer is simply this: you can't. There are more than 5,000 drafts awaiting review and they are reviewed in no particular order. There is no way to tell how long yours will take, it could happen today, it could be in several months. You must be patient, as the drafts are reviewed by a handful of reviewers (myself included). Because of the high volume, editors who ask here don't get preferential treatment over anyone else for the review process. I do wish you the best of luck with this draft. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Frank S. Weaver. This will not speed up anyone's decision to initially take on an AfC assessment, but it might speed up the overall process by helping to ward against any extended time span involved in a decline and resubmission process. I suggest you go through with an eye toward making the tone a bit more neutral in parts. I should say the draft is not as extreme as we often see (many drafts read as absolutely blatant advertisements for their subjects; hagiography if you will), but nevertheless, it does have some tone issues. I would point you especially to the language used in relation to VITA – "a candid, from the heart..., heart-wrenching life decisions... This project is a 23-year-old labor of love..."

To provide some other hopefully instructive criticism, the lead section of an article should provide a summary of what's written in more detail in the body of the article. See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Your lead contains the sentence: "In ...date..., Fichter presented his third book, ....NAME..., to Pope Francis". This "presentation" information is not mentioned in the body at all, much less in more detail, and I don't really know what it means when you say it was "presented" to the Pope.

One other issue is boning up the attribution details of the citations. To give you an example (related to the sentence I just spoke about, the citation for the presentation of the book to the Pope), you cite what looks like the name of a webpage, New Jersey Catholic, the URL and an access date. It's actually a magazine, and what's provided are not the key attribution details of the source. What I would expect be related here is–yes, the name of the magazine (but in a manner that indicates its a magazine, in context) and its edition date, but more importantly, the title of the article containing the verifying detail, its author(s), the page number its found at, its date if separate from the date of the magazine edition, and other typical details to allow a reader to locate the work themselves, such as the magazine's applicable volume and issue numbers.

There's is no exact right "formula" you must follow for citations but because it's a magazine, instead of using {{cite web}} I would suggest using {{Cite magazine}}, the exact code you use to provide the key information is trivial (I could have done this with a manual citation, for instance, or used {{cite journal}} instead, etc.). Anyway, rather than explain in prose, let me just provide what I think is a very fully attributed citation for this use. I will thus end this sentence with a footnote to a recommended better citation detail; demonstrate below the code I used to create it; and show the display of the footnote below that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

<ref>{{Cite magazine|work=New Jersey Catholic|date=July–August 2019|title=Church Leadership in the 21st Century|last=Fichter|first=Stephen|url=https://catholicmagazines.org/magazine-archive/new-jersey-catholic/new0719|page=23|volume=6|issue=6|publisher=Archdiocese of Newark|oclc=85487339}}</ref>

References

Setting up a company page

How does one create a company page on wikipedia. There are plenty of outside sources to use as references but there still seems to be an error when it comes to reviewing and accepting the page and they want it to be deleted. Reitler Kailas Rosenblatt (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Reitler Kailas Rosenblatt, what's the name of the page you're trying to have created? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: it's too late. I have deleted their page as unambiguous promotion and have soft-blocked their account for being a promotional username and probable shared use. All three are breaches of our policies. The user clearly thinks Wikipedia is like LinkedIn and offers free corporate business pages. We don't. They need to appreciate this is an encyclopaedia of notable things, and not a place to advertise themselves. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help in posting an article

Hi I am trying to add a page to talk about a famous person who has been doing relentless service in imparting deep philosophical concepts. But every time I publish my draft(also in sandbox) its being declined. I am not able to understand the various rules inorder to successfully post the content. The content is original and is not copied from any where else.

I need help please inorder to post the content. SriChalapathiRao (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@SriChalapathiRao: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears you are writing about yourself given the similarity between your username and the subject, which is highly discouraged. Your sandbox also appears to be highly promotional. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SriChalapathiRao. I really do not mean to be rude, but I do feel you should try using LinkedIn or equivalent sites to tell people about yourself. This encyclopaedia selects its content based upon Notability Criteria, not on what we think about ourselves. I'm afraid you will need to provide links to independent sources that have written about you, and not to apply unsubstantiated Einstein-related waffle to promote yourself. I could do the same if I chose to - but I don't. You also have an abundantly clear Conflict of Interest, which you should address by following our guidance. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Android app - how to log on

This is probably a record for the most stupid question on the Teahouse and I apologize - but it has me beat. Yesterday I used the Android app on my phone to make an edit for the first time in a while. I was surprised to notice that it had my IP rather than my user name, because I thought it would keep me logged on. But then I looked for where to log on, and I just can't find it anywhere. I checked every menu. I read all the help linked from WP:ANDROID. It talks about the importance of logging on, but nowhere does it say how to do that. The app does not have the same link that is on the PC, and my head is really starting to hurt. Can anybody please tell me (like you're explaining it to a child, or an old person) how to log on using the Android app? --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. Whilst I might not be able to help you directly (I mostly use iOS), could you please specify which particular app you have been using? This will help anyone who is able to check for you. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: It is the Wikipedia app from the Android Play Store. I'm not sure how to specify it any further. The link is play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia 49.180.243.9 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. btw, which version are using? i am using version 2.7.50350-r-2021-04-02. on my wp app, look at bottom of app. you will find explore, saved, search edit and more (along with logos). tap more (hamburger symbol or three small horizontal lines). tap login in/join wikipedia. thats it. Gi vi an (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. You could try this: (i) Bring up the article that you want to edit; (ii) click on the pencil icon; (iii) make your edit; (iv) click Next. You are now on the edit preview page. You should see some buttons where you tell it the reason for the edit ("Fixed typo", etc.). Immediately below that, there is a paragraph of text which includes a "log in" link. Click that link and you are on your way. (Note that I discovered this by trail-and-error, so don't take it as official; there might be a less convoluted method, but I have never found it.)

Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated reference

Hello, I'm just reading Wikipedia and found a reference that was outdated I found another reference on the same website the Title in the website is the same to the Wikipedia's source title thingy, should I add an Archive URL, edit the URL to the reference, or add an Archive URL and add a new reference? Randomuserontheinter (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Randomuserontheinter. If I understand you correctly, a link used by a Wikipedia citation is dead (i.e. no longer leads to the intended source). However, you found a live link to the intended source. In that case, I would add an archive URL (I prefer to find an archive link with the old, dead URL if that's possible, but this is a minor stylistic choice) and then add the new, live link to the 'URL' parameter in the citation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

trying to get an article approved....

Hi folks,

I submitted an article through the creation process and it was rejected. One of the issues was that the sources were not reliable though most of the sources are top-tier media outlets. Do you recommend the live chat for specific questions? Or is there a better way to get some feedback. The editor also said the wording was too promotional. Suggestions are welcomed. Lesscynical (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lesscynical: (Courtesy link: Draft:Aurora Innovation) Watch this space. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lesscynical, and welcome to the Teahouse. At a glance, I'm a bit puzzled myself regarding the draft's use of reliable sources. However, Praxidicae, who reviewed your draft, is a highly experienced editor and article creator, so I'd imagine there's a good reason I'm simply missing from skimming over the draft. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Standing by.Lesscynical (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In regards to your sources:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-19/aurora-enters-partnership-with-paccar-for-driverless-trucks is walled, but based on the title this is routine coverage and thus useless for notability (Examples of trivial coverage [includes] standard notices[...]and routine coverage, such as[...]expansions, mergers, acquisitions, sale, or closure of the business)
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2019/10/29/aurora-ceo-chris-urmson-says-therell-be-hundreds-of-self-driving-cars-on-the-road-in-five-years/ doesn't discuss Aurora in any depth and is largely what its CEO says in any case.
• Crunchbase is not an acceptable source under any circumstance.
• https://venturebeat.com/2021/01/19/aurora-partners-with-paccar-to-develop-driverless-trucks/ is routine coverage (See above)
• https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/23/fresh-off-a-530m-round-aurora-acquires-lidar-startup-blackmore/ is routine coverage (See above)
• https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/aurora-prizes-independence-av-world is more routine coverage (see above)
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-07/uber-sells-self-driving-unit-to-aurora-takes-stake-in-startup is also walled but based upon the article title this is more routine coverage (See above)
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/technology/uber-self-driving-car-project.html is yet more routine coverage (See above)
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/02/09/toyota-denso-partner-with-aurora-on-robotaxi-tech/ is yet more routine coverage (See above)
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/paccar-aurora-to-develop-self-driving-big-rigs-11611090000 Yet Another #*%$@!@ Piece of Routine Coverage (YAFPoRC) (See above)
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/driverless-tech-startup-aurora-adds-volvo-to-trucking-partners is walled but based on the title it's YAFPoRC (See above)
• https://www.axios.com/googles-former-self-driving-car-guru-raises-cash-for-his-own-startup-1513301386-10cb3b49-2f73-4245-a8f3-89ffea0c58a9.html is YAFPoRC ([...]capital transaction[s], such as raised capital)
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2018/02/28/aurora-on-the-rise-robocar-startup-snags-90-million-adds-reid-hoffman-mike-volpi-to-board/ is YAFPoRC (see directly above)
• https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/amazon-sequoia-invest-in-self-driving-car-startup-aurora/ is YAFPoRC (See the Axios source above)
• https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/12/hyundai-takes-minority-stake-in-self-driving-car-startup-aurora/ is YAFPoRC (See Axios source above)

That's not to say all your sources are bad - you have five good sources that aren't routine coverage that discuss Aurora in some depth. But as a general rule, a draft where the overwhelming bulk of the sources are unusable for notability and are of little use otherwise is a draft that gets declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Any suggestions on where one goes from here? (by the way, not sure what the value of the "f" word stuff is. Your point was well made without it.) Lesscynical (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I recognize that the Teahouse isn't the place for debating policy interpretation (and that any further ramblings of mine are better off at Draft talk:Aurora Innovation), but as you made this analysis, the reason why I stated I was puzzled above is that I believe very little of the coverage provided by Lesscynical actually falls under WP:ROUTINE. This is an interesting policy, insofar as the page actually cites an outside source for how a 'Routine Event' should be defined, which can be found here from pages 200–207. As best I can tell, articles like this one from Bloomberg aren't routine as defined by that article (or by our own short blurb on the policy page). I believe these sources perfectly adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. However, I'll defer to Praxidicae on the matter of reliability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A volunteer editor doing the favor of looking at all of your references can become frustrated when ref after ref after ref contributes not to notability. Hence, I am guessing the #... Anyway, remove all the routine coverage refs and all of the content that rested on those refs. You may have a stripped down draft that will be accepted. P.S. The draft was Declined, not Rejected, which is worse. David notMD (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 and Jéské Couriano, now I'm adequately confused. I appreciate the feedback but are articles in Bloomberg such as those mentioned routine or not? Lesscynical (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It isn't entirely about the outlet. The content of the source also matters. It's possible for one Bloomberg article to be acceptable and another not for any number of reasons (and for the record, I treat reports of partnerships with other companies as routine coverage, more specifically expansion of the business). Likewise for any number of other reliable outlets. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm going to work on the article based on this feedback. Thank you both for your time. Lesscynical (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it is worth, if I did not explicitly call out a source cited in your draft above, then it's a usable source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jeska Couriano. Do you recommend I seek further feedback from the editor who did the initial review? Or soldier on based on what you provided? Thanks again. Lesscynical (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point I don't think notability is an issue, with the five good sources you do have. All the same, it wouldn't hurt to ask for further feedback from the reviewer, but I don't feel that it's, strictly speaking, necessary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oversight and IP addresses

Can an IP address ask for an Oversight on request, per bullet point 4, item 1, WP:OSPOL? If yes, is it a one-time opportunity? --2001:569:7B92:5500:417:8C85:BF60:A0B6 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, it is intended for new users who did not realize the IP address would be shown instead of a username. I don't know if "one time only" is enforced, but after you request once, you can't really say you didn't know. RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to edit Wikipedia without having their IP address displayed should register an account. It is free, easy, and provides very high standards of anonymity for those who prefer it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have one. I am just wondering. --2001:569:7B92:5500:417:8C85:BF60:A0B6 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As someone who once got logged out in the middle of an edit and had my IP exposed for that one edit, emailing Oversight fixed things pretty quickly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Assessment table

Hello, I am trying to reactivate the assessment table for WP:FISHING. I tried to do it manually via revert @User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Fishing, but it didn't work. Jerm (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ugly Gerry

Why was my ugly gerry passage reported for vandalism Whatergun110 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Whatergun110. Your edit was reverted as possible vandalism by an anti-vandalism bot. Please report the false positive, which will help improve the performance of the bot. My guess is that the word "janky" caught the bot's attention, since it is a slang word sometimes used as a personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatergun110, your edit (which you described obscurely as "another sentence") claimed that the title of this web page is not

• "There's a new downloadable font inspired by gerrymandered congressional districts"

but instead

• "There's a new downloadable font inspired by gerrymandered congressional. This font was made when Ben Doessel and James Lee, the creators 'After seeing how janky our Illinois 4th district had become' tried to spread awareness about the topic. districts".

Unsurprisingly, this is false. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the writing is so poor that it is almost incomprehensible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Cullen328, it appears that the OP intended to add this sentence to one place where it might belong, but accidentally added it both there and within this page title. After seeing how janky the Illinois 4th district had become (which I'm sorry to say doesn't surprise me) the pair tried to spread awareness of the matter via font design: fair enough. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the explanation, and I assume good faith, it was an error that combined with the word "janky" brought the edit to the attention of the anti-vandalism bot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I readded "janky": appropriately, I believe. Time for me to go to bed; when I wake I'll see what Cluebot made of my edit. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

secondary source question

 Njikecat (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Njikecat: What is your question? RudolfRed (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Asuming this is about your draft Draft:David Russell (artist). The few references you provided mention him by name but are not about him at some length. The list of what you call Sources adds nothing. IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Listing films he worked on adds nothing, because there is no verification that he worked on them . David notMD (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Njikecat: I am not sure if I am formatting book and article sources correctly. Please let me know if I need to change something. Please also confirm that the sources are suitable secondary sources, so that I can resubmit the article for review and posting. Thank you very much for helping. Njikecat (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)}}

No. For example, for many of them, there is a Wikilink to a Wikipedia article about the news source (magazine, newspaper, whatever). What is needed is a website reference that goes to the exact item about Russell. Also, the master class ref does not contribute to notability, as it is by Russell, not about him. It can be left in (without listing all the places it was broadcast), but citations to publications about him are needed. David notMD (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, the Moulin Rouge ref confirms he did storyboards, but is not ABOUT him. David notMD (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I find "visual editor" mode?

Thank you!!

 VPEllipsisW05 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@VPEllipsisW05: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:VisualEditor for instructions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To mention that I am hired to work for a Company.

Hi Wikipedians, I have recently received an Offer for creating a Wikipedia Page for a Company. It would be nice if anyone would come up front and help me out in this. Yes, I also need to confess that I am being paid to do this. I have read all the rules and norms for Wikipedia's notability criteria. So, It would be nice If someone would be by my side so that I do not do something wrong here. It would also be nice if the person would review the Company's Profile. Pls do message me in my Talk page, for helping me. Thanks. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

First, declare on your User page that you are being paid to create a draft of an article for _____ (name of company). Paid editors are expected to have a level of competency. However, it appears that you started your account recently, and have yet to make any article edits. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, Please do check my User Page for the Declaration. And can you help me out in this?? Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will not help you create an article on a topic I know nothing about. You can follow the instructions at WP:YFA to create and then submit a draft. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) describes what is necessary for a company to be notable. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jocelin Andrea. The fact that you're charging someone to create a Wikipedia article about their company when an article could be created about the company for free if it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is between you and said company; however, all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs so it's a bit odd that you're asking them to help you do this. I'm assuming the company entered into an agreement with you because none of the people associated with it either (1) want to be bothered with trying to create an article about it themselves, (2) know how to go about creating a Wikipedia article about anything, or (3) a combination of the the two. I'm also assuming that they are paying you because you stated that you could create an article and told them that you know how to properly do so. You're free to try as long as you comply with WP:PAID, but don't be disappointed if you don't find others willing to help you get paid.

A couple of other of things you might want to consider and explain to the company are Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and Wikipedia:Law of unintended consequences.

Assuming that you're successfully able to create a draft that is approved via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, that's pretty much where your involvement and ability to control things will end. If a draft you create eventually is upgraded to article status, neither you nor the company will have any final say or otherwise editorial control over the article's content; moreover, another editor could tag of flag the article for issues and even possibly deletion if they feel something about it doesn't meet relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and there would be nothing that you or the company could do about it outside of normal Wikipedia channels.

Assuming that you've already explained all of this to the company and they still want you to go ahead, then best of luck to you. If, however, neither you nor the company were aware of any of these things, then you might want to fill them in before they start issuing checks; otherwise, they might be quite angry if they find out later on that things don't work exactly as they thought.

Finally, the frankness of my post might give the impression that I'm angry about this kind of thing, but I'm actually not. There are many paid editors who are able to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and adhere to relevant policies and guidelines. Some editors are completely against COI and paid editing just on principle, but I only think it's a problem when it's not being done in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. At the same time though, expecting others to do your work for you is probably not going to receive a favorable response from most editors. So, if you have a question about a Wikpedia policy or guideline, then perhaps others will be willing to help; however, trying to get someone to actually help you write the article is probably going to be another story. -- Marchjuly (talk)

Written far better than I could have managed. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have a few problems.

Does this draft have a few problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Univision_Now ItsJustdancefan (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to the reviewers, yes, there are. Please read their comments (which start with a  ). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

About Akwa North

I have tried editing awka north page many times but it seems am getting it all wrong please how do i start editing?--ZUES the son KUJAS (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC) ZUES the son KUJAS (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ZUES the son KUJAS. Your edits are unreferenced, and were reverted for that reason. Additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means that you need to provide references to reliable sources. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

which country built the first jet airliner

 115.189.91.76 (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia; you should ask this question at the reference desk, or read the article on jet airliners which says: "The first airliners with turbojet propulsion were experimental conversions of the Avro Lancastrian piston-engined airliner, which were flown with several types of early jet engine, including the de Havilland Ghost and the Rolls-Royce Nene", and "The first purpose-built jet airliner was the British de Havilland Comet which first flew in 1949 and entered service in 1952, though it was withdrawn from service due to serious structural problems." Kleinpecan (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

references with html markup, what is allowed and not allowed

for example on Aerobic_exercise#cite_ref-26 vs is italiced using <i>. should i delete it? what about other html markup? Gi vi an (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gi vi an. If the markup mimics the source then it should usually be kept. In this case the source [5] writes <em>vs</em> which renders as vs. It's in italics for me. HTML element#em says: "Emphasis (conventionally displayed in italics)". I think it's best for us to use italics and not <em>...</em>. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an: Converted | title = Aerobic <i>vs</i> anaerobic exercise to | title = Aerobic ''vs'' anaerobic exercise (and other general fixes). GoingBatty (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing Feedback

I'm new to the process of editing, and I added a comment in an article about cystic fibrosis (added something about dornase alpha) then I added the reference. I want to know if there is anything else that I should do or I'm missing something Nmlim (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Nmlim (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nmlim, no, you don't need to do anything else. As long as you added a reference to a reliable source, it should be fine. Thanks for dropping by! MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nmlim: Welcome to the Teahouse! In case you didn't notice, another editor tweaked your addition by changing "it's" to "it is", per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. While we can be informal on talk pages like this, we should write more formally in articles. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi.. I have updated the page of danish performance group, Sisters Hope at their site. I can see that a discussion from 2014 flagged it for being promotional. A lot have happened since so I wonder if (and how) the page can stopped being flagged as being promotional now?

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_Hope Nfr444 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This is the English Wikipedia, the article you have linked to is on the German Wikipedia which is a separate project. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Danish not German: notice the "da". MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That link is for Danish Wikipedia- every language Wikipedia is run separately, so you'd need to ask for help at the Danish language Wikipedia helpdesk. Their help desk appears to be da:Hjælp:Nybegynderforum. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing accidental warnings?

I was accidentally given a warning because somebody reverted the wrong user by mistake. They've undone their revert with a edit description saying it was a mistake. Does that mean I'm allowed to remove the warning from my talk page? Thanks! Thattransgirl (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Thattransgirl: You can remove pretty much anything from your own talk page for any reason other than a notice from an administrator notifying you if you've been blocked. GMG^talk 14:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Even block notices can be removed; the things that cannot be removed are listed at WP:BLANKING, and they all involve community processes, like prior declined unblock requests while blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes. You are correct. I was speaking from memory and confused unblock notices with declined unblock requests. GMG^talk 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the approved format for citations which are to primary source documents available publicly in an archive repository?

I've been reading the guidance on reliable sources and see that it is ok to cite original records that are held in an archive office, providing they are publicly available. I see there are templates for citing books, journals, websites but there does not seem to be one for those I mentioned. Could some one point me to a suitable template or an example I could follow? Many thanks Buckland1072 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buckland1072: {{cite archive}} ? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buckland1072. It really does depend on what the source actually is. To give an example, if I was citing a newspaper that I found in an archive, I would still use {{cite news}} because of fitness for newspaper specifications – and would just use the URL of the archive for the convenience link it provides (as with almost every question we get here in the hypothetical, the specifics—the actual context—would allow a more tailored answer). As to whether it's "okay", in association with whether the source is "publicly available", the issues that come to mind are whether the location the source is found is violating copyright, and whether its archiving at whatever that location is meets the definition of "published" for purpose of verifiability. But if those threshold concerns are not implicated, then the use would have to meet the restrictions of WP:PRIMARY (and the additional limitations on use of primary sources in biographies of a living people). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I'll follow up on the links you provided Fuhghettaboutit and experiment with that template Victor Schmidt. Best wishes Buckland1072 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Singature without a question

 Boogieside0807 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Boogieside0807: Do you have a question? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User Name change

How can I change my user name please guide. Thanks and blessings Shahgill (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Colour question

How do you like decide what colours and how to word like the table on The Voice US, The Voice Australia, The Voice UK, The Voice Kids UK. E.g you use first names e.g Delta (The Voice Australia) Superman011 Superman011 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(created section title for this question) David notMD (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Superman011, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of any site-wide guidelines about what colours to use for tables, though there may be some. Hopefully editors try at least to be consistent between articles on the same broad topic. You give a good example of that. If you're really interested and want to know why the people editing those particular articles made the choices they did, you might try asking on the talk pages for those articles. All the best, › Mortee _talk 21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I need some help

I have created many articles about Kentucky Routes, which I try to create redirects for them but the thing is I need help making successful redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGs2007 (talk • contribs)

@TheGs2007: See Help:Redirect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Olympic Gull

I'm writing an article on Glaucous-winged x Western gulls in my sandbox, and am wondering what to call it. They are most commonly known as Olympic gulls, but are also sometimes known as Puget Sound gulls. Any thoughts? Note- I'm working on the article and this version is just a start. Abies balsamica (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello there @Abies balsamica:. The Wikipedia style guide for names recommends using the most common name as the title of the article. Other names can also be mentioned in the lead sentence. --Jayron32 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Abies balsamica. Noting the article subject, if you're not aware of it, you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds helpful here (it even has a section on bird names and article titles), as well as recommended layout, use of taxoboxes, linking to glossary terms using {{Birdgloss}}, linking calls from the Commons and at Xeno-Canto using {{Birdsong}}, etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abies balsamica: P.S. There's related material at hybridisation in gulls#Hybrid large white-headed gulls. The entry there for the olympic gull both has a citation needed tag for part of its content, and an existing citation, for another part. Maybe you can use that cite, and, once you're done with your draft, take care of the citation needed – assuming the detail there is sourced in your draft. There's also a cited entry in the second paragraph of bird hybrid.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Olympic gull currently redirects there, so (if my draft is accepted) I can clean that up and link it. Abies balsamica (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft deletion

How can I request a deletion of a Draft? LooneyTraceYT (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @LooneyTraceYT: Wikipedia has a series of tags you can add to articles to request deletion, they are listed at WP:CSD. In this case, {{db-author}} looks like the one most applicable for you. Just add that to the top of the page, and an admin will be along presently to take care of it. --Jayron32 18:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How to add a picture on an existing bibliography

 Kairo owethu (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked this question on 1 April and were answered. Below is the relevant content from that ask. Were the replies not sufficient? David notMD (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If the picture isn't yet at Wikipedia Commons, then see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, and the pages that follow. If it is already there, then jump ahead to Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/3. -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To complement what Hoary says, Kairo owethu: if the picture is already in Wikimedia Commons, then it is straightforward. If it isn't, then it needs to be uploaded. If it is a picture you took yourself, you can probably do that; if it is not, then it is likely that it cannot be used in Wikipedia. See the links Hoary provided for the details. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kairo owethu. It's hard to give you a very specific answer without knowing more details, but you can find out some more information in Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Images. Basically what you need to do depends on whether the image you want to add has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If it has, then how it can be used depends upon the type of copyright license it has. So, if you want to use an image of this type, it will be easier for a Teahouse host to help you if you can provide the file name of the image and the name of the Wikipedia page you want to add it to. If, however, the image you want to use doesn't exist (i.e. hasn't yet been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), then things are more complicated and whether it can be uploaded depends upon its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Boxes with pictures

how do you use boxes with pictures please tell me Wikismarty12359 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikismarty12359. I've added a header so that your question doesn't get absorbed into the one above. I'm afraid your question is not clear enough to answer. Do you mean you want to put a frame round an image? or use an image in an infobox? or something else? --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I improve my edit?

I run a dog blog and have made several edits regarding dog health. The edits were to expand on the topic and add more information regarding treatment/symptoms/causes of various dog issues. I was moderated and marked as spam, is it because my blog has affiliate links at the bottom of the page, products that can be used to solve certain pain points for dog owners? My pages are not advertisements but are informational. WorkNwrite (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As answered on your Talk page, your blog - dogleashpro - is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. Hence, correctly identified as spam, because it is seen as an attempt to promote you via your blog. If the information can be supported by a reliable source reference in no way connected to you that would be OK. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, WorkNwrite. Given the nature of the topic here, the most suitable sources are likely to be peer-reviewed articles in scholarly veterinary journals, rather than blog posts. The only case where I can think a blog post would be acceptable as a source about this topic would be if it were written by a well-established and qualified expert, and the material it supported was uncontroversial. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Without wishing to pile on, editing Wikipedia to add references to your own publication rather misses the point of what Wikipedia is for, and other editors aren't likely to have much patience for it. I wish you the very best for your writing work, but please leave it to others to decide if and when to reference it in building the encyclopedia. › Mortee _talk 21:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi WorkNwrite. You attempted to verify the information you added by citing to a blog, which, except for rare exceptions, is unacceptable as a source A second issue is that based on your disclosure, it appears this is your blog. You thus have a conflict of interest in citing to it at all (even, by the way, if it was an acceptable source for use). Additionally (though relatedly), despite your statement above, this has the appearance of advertising through self-promotion, which is something we see a great deal of here. However, now that you've been informed of the issue, if you don't continue to add these types of links, there's no problem. We are very forgiving of mistakes. The general cultural precepts are that edits that are inappropriate, for whatever reason, but not clearly made in bad faith, should be reverted (but should never be marked as vandalism, which we reserve for the clearly bad faith). After the user involved is clearly informed of the issue with their edits, repeating them converts the edits to bad faith and vandalism. I went through that explanation exercise because in my view your edits, while clearly inappropriate under our policies, were also clearly reverted in an inappropriate manner by the user who did so – using rollback, which is reserved for vandalism. That should not have happened. Sorry about that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)