Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1026

Archive 1020

←

Archive 1024

Archive 1025

Archive 1026

Archive 1027

Archive 1028

→

Archive 1030

Situation in Lebanon

Please report on the situation in Lebanon in an article . The country is in economic crises and today huge manifestations are shaking the country's stability. The world must know what is happening . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.95.121 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey anon. If you would like to suggest changes to the current article, you can do so on the article's talk page, but you will have to provide sources for the information, usually things like newspapers and books. GMG^talk 15:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news outlet, this is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Which means that telling the world about something is specifically not what it is for. Wikipedia is only interested in things that the world has already been told about, in multiple, independent, reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Without meaning to pile on, there are some notes about what this principle is about and why we have it here. It also mentions Wikinews, which is a wiki project that's intended precisely to report the news, including original stories, something Wikipedia itself does not do. Hope this helps › Mortee _talk 23:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

We do have an article 2019 Lebanese protests. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Table change

Hello, Teahouse! I wanted to change data on this page in section Stadia and locations, as they are irrelevant, but both in visual editor and source in seems there's some kind of template I still haven't dealt with. Can someone please explain how to edit that table? --Less Unless (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What is transcluded in that section is the page 2019–20 Segunda División, but only the part between the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User may need some support

So I came across this user CentralTime301 when they reverted a valid edit on a page that in my watchlist and warned the user for it. I reverted it back and when to their talk page and that is when I saw this conversation telling an IP that they had to create an account. I decided to look into a few more reverts the user had done and while some where valid, others again appear to be done without actual checking to see if they weren't vandalism like they thought they were. Now along with their latest revert, reverting a bot removing a possible copyright image and putting a template warning on the bots talk page. I think the user could use some mentoring, as I see they are young. I don't have the time to do it, so thought I could bring it here. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So I owe CentralTime301 an apology after reverting them myself for the copyvis without doing a proper check myself. I thought logo only had permission for one article, missing further down that they had added it for the article in question. Making me guilty of the same thing I accused them off. So I'm sorry for that and my rather rude edit comment, lesson we all need to look into edits better before we just revert using tools like Twinkle. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 11:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@NZFC: Ok.... CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 12:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Unverified sources.

If I come across a source that gives no verification for the thing it is being used to reference, should I remove it or leave it where it is? LampGenie01 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You can tag it with a template such as {{Failed verification}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That's good to know. Should I restore the content and use that then? LampGenie01 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

LampGenie01, tagging is for when you are unsure what the right thing to do is, or are unable to do it for some other reason. If you can fix it, fixing is better. Personally, I'd only remove the content that couldn't be verified if I knew it to be untrue. If I could find an RS that verifies the information, I would replace/add sources as applicable. If I weren't going to remove the text or add better sources, the "failed verification" template would be a better alternative to removing the citation altogether and tagging it with "citation needed". Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

A source which doesn't verify the content was often correct when it was added but either died, changed, or somebody later changed the claim or added new claims without caring about sources. That's one of the reasons it's good to keep the source with {{Failed verification}}. Somebody may find a new url for a dead source, or check the page history to see how the source was intended to be used. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Zee Keralam

Hello guys, I am new here. I am going to create a page for Zee Keralam. But don't know why, page is not supported here and always shown redirected. Kindly please solve this problem earlier and make easy to people to find their quiries with Wikipedia.Koustav Sengupta (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Koustav Sengupta

@Koustav Sengupta: This page has been locked to bar creation of the article, because people keep re-creating it with inappropriate content (advertising).[1] But to be honest, the last version that got deleted doesn't look too ad-like to me. What independent (non-press-release) sources do you have about the channel? Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The log at Zee Keralam shows why the article is protected from being recreated directly. If you create a draft and submit it for AFC review, a reviewer will be able to see whether it addresses the concerns expressed about the previous versions, and if appropriate an admin will be able to see whether the versions are sufficiently different to lift the protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

sorry can't understand. please remove this redirected procedure. I will create this page and then review it. please help me to create this page. Koustav Sengupta (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Koustav Sengupta

I'm sorry if you don't understand English. You are not permitted to create the article directly. Only an admin can remove the protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have created this article for Zee Keralam, which is now on Draft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zee_Keralam. please approve the post and modify somewhere if needed. Koustav Sengupta (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Koustav Sengupta

You have indeed created a draft, Koustav Sengupta, and submitted it for review. As it says on the draft "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." But I suggest you spend that time looking for better sources. On a quick look, I would say that every one of the sources in your draft is based on either a press release or an interview with Zee Kerelam's people. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says about itself: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have said about it. If my (quick) estimation is right, none of those will ocntribute to establishing that the channel is notable, and so the draft will not be accepted as it stands.

If the channel was only started a year ago, it may well be WP:TOOSOON. Also: the urgency of your request prompts me to ask: do you work for Zee or one of its associates? If so, Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and you must disclose this. --ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not a worker of Zee, I am a student. You are requested to please edit the article properly, delete unnecessary parts and help to accept the article and remove the reasons by what article may be rejected. Thank you. Koustav Sengupta ([[User talk:Koustav Sengupta|talk]]) 11:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Koustav Sengupta

I've made some improvements to the layout of Draft:Zee Keralam. But all the references are to articles based on statements by the channel, there are no independent sources such are needed to show that the channel is notable.   Maproom (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Is religious censorship allowed on Wikipedia?

Hello, Two weeks ago I found out that the article about the mount Sinai revelation (where Moses received the ten commandments) presents this mythological event as real, actual history: the event is described exactly as the Bible says, without any mension that the factuality of the event is being questioned by leading researchers for at least 40 yesrs, and without framing the event as a story, myth or legend. Au contraire: there is a section specifying the exact day and year in which the event supposedly happened, which makes the article seem scientific and factual. First I tried to gently add only the words "myth" or "story" to the article, just to make it more encyclopedic, but these edits were erased by editors. Then I tried to add a sentence about modern researchers not accepting the biblical account word for word - that was erased too. So I brought references in the chat page to several influential academic researchers who support my claim, along with links to their articles, books and interviews - these were simply ignored by editors, who kept asking me for references while failing to bring any reference to support their own stand on the subject. Is wikipedia supposed to be censored because of religious reasons? How can I get the important fact about the Mt. Sinai revelation being considered a myth into the article, when the editors are reluctant to mention it because of religious or political reasons? Any help, tip or personal experience will be much appreciated. איתמראשפר (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@איתמראשפר: Which article? Your username's only contribution here is the posting above. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@איתמראשפר: This is the English Wikipedia, and we have no say at all over what happens on the Hebrew Wikipedia, where the dispute you're referring to took place. You'd have to have a discussion there about their policies. ST47 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: it's an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, here it is. There's no English version but I hope that any online translation service will suffice to show that it's purely religious with no scientific reference or a disclaimer about the article dealing with a myth rather than history.

@ST47: So if most Hebrew editors support this religious indoctrination of Wikipedia there's nothing anyone can do about it? I've been discussing this issue for two weeks already on the chat page, but it's not getting anywhere: the editors won't even agree to refer to the event as mythical or legendary! איתמראשפר (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, the only relationship between Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia is they have the same owner. Each Wikimedia website has its own policies and guidelines. We cannot offer advice or guidance about Hebrew Wikipedia. This forum is for English Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, what John from Idegon said. I took a look at the discussion with g-translate (works surprisingly well in parts) and I sympathize. If this was en-wp, I would look at what the policies said, start a discussion or ask for more input at relevant noticeboards or wikiprojects, that may help but it seems your up against some reluctance. As a very long shot, you could try to get someone like [2] interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're up for it, you could start a hebrew Historicity of the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for your effort and sympathy! I'll look up the policies of the Hebrew site and see if there's anything that can be done or anyone I can turn to. I did consider contacting the press about it, but only as a last resort as I don't want to embarrass Wikipedia in the news. Anyways, the journalist you pointed out seems like a great option so I might contact him. Thanks again! איתמראשפר (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

איתמראשפר, don't worry too much about that, WP is imperfect (comes from being made by people), and the media has noticed this, once or twice: Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019. Of course, the media has also sometimes noticed that all in all, WP is pretty great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång It is great, isn't it? :) איתמראשפר (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this resolution[3] implying that religious censorship is not accepted in all Wikipedia projects/languages? --Signimu (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know Hebrew but based on Google Translate, I don't think איתמראשפר gives a completely fair description. The translation starts "Mount Sinai is a formative Biblical event", and the main description has heading "The description in the Bible" ("The course of events in the Bible" before איתמראשפר got involved). The English Wikipedia has many articles which describe a religious belief without going into ways it contradicts normal history and science, but we may repeat more times that it's according to the religion. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

For example, Marriage at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine according to the Gospel of John, does not mention that it contradicts modern chemistry and physics because it would require cold fusion to get carbon from hydrogen and oxygen. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Marriage at Cana is IMO well structured. "is the first miracle attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John... Biblical account... Interpretation." That's how I want it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Cynthia Crane

I think an admin or experience editor needs to have a chat with the contributor who obviously is also the subject of the article Cynthia Crane. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have left a message on the editor's talk page, Maineartists. I note that you were argung for deletion at the AfD on this article 2 years ago, when it was kept. I will try some clean up on the article later today or tomorrow if I can find time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DESiegel. Yes, I did put the article up for AfD; but not because there was a COI. I honestly thought the BLP was not notable enough for WP. Guess I was wrong. However, that does not excuse the constant updating / editing by the subject themselves as though it were their own promotional resume. Maineartists (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand, Maineartists. Notability is always a bit of a judgement call, and we are not as consistent about it as might be wished. Notability in this case is perhaps not exactly clear cut. Strictly speaking, COI editing is not forbidden, nor grounds for blocking an editor, although it is discouraged. But dumping an unusable;e mass of external links is, indeed, not acceptable. It may be that some of those are links to what would be uiseful sources for the article, but not all of them are, and not in that format. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

"Blanking" Articles

Hello all! I was curious to what the consequences were if I "blanked" Wikipedia articles continuously even after being warned. Please note that by "blanking" I am specifically talking about the action of deleting all contents of a Wikipedia article deliberately, intentionally and expeditiously regardless of rules and regulations or the actual article itself.

Kind regards and thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procode200 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Procode200. That would be considered and vandalism. The blanking would be promptly reverted. If a user persists in such conduct after warnings, that user may be (AND PROBABLY WOULD BE) blocked from editing, In addition, this annoys other users and hinders their efforts to use Wikipedia, and wastes the time of everyone involved. Please don't do this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, do not delete any full article without posting to articles for deletion. Blanking an entire section is permitted, however only with a verifiable reason. HeartGlow30797 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, while you are correct that deletion should only happen though an approved process, blanking does not in fact delete an article. Any editor can revert blanking with a few clicks, and many will. True deletion requires an admin, and should be done only for good reason. Even then it can be reversed by the same or another admin. Blanking does, however, disrupt the project when it is done for no good reason. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How to stop Huggle from showing me reverted edits

Hi, I'm kind of new to WP:Huggle, and I was wondering Is there any way to stop it from showing me edits that were already reverted? Thank you Dino245 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ~

Hola Dino245. Although I'm a regular Huggle user, I can't quite answer your question. However, try asking at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. Interstellarity (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Dino245 Hi, Huggle shows all "recent" edits made. The very top section "History Section" is the latest edit. You can see which edit has been reverted and by who/editor or not on the history section. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

translation Jp>Eng

I'm a translator from Japanese to English and would like to work on pages that I have some knowledge about. 航空宇宙軍史 I've translated (in the Mac app "Pages") the Japanese article about the hard-SF series by Kōshū Tani known as 航空宇宙軍史, (kō kū uchū gun shi) and pasted in the URLs for the links to the English articles about topics mentioned in the article, such as FTL travel. Next I would like to make the contents page link to the relevant sections within the page, but don't know how. The links in the original article are URLs starting with the URL for [the whole Japanese page], but I don't have a URL for [the whole English page] until I create that page. Is it possible to create the English page and keep it invisible until I've finished putting the links together?

If so, or even if not, please tell me what to do next.

I'm also open to suggestions on other pages that might be in need for translation J to E. The reverse is possible but only if a native Japanese editor is available to polish my efforts.

2) I'd assumed that the "Talk" button at the top of the page led to a place where people discuss the article concerned but it only leads to "User TalkːSimon Varnam" where I seem to be able to send messages to myselfǃ Will anybody else see what I put there and respond?

best wishes Simon Varnam

P.S. no rush SPV (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Simon Varnamand welcome to the Teahouse. Several points:

• It is not possible to create a page but make it invisible, but you could create a page in the Draft namespace (that is a page whose name starts with "Draft:" ) such a page is not indexed by google or other search engines, and is not shown in the internal Wikipedia search unless drafts are explicitly asked for. Perhaps this would suit your needs.
• The automatically generated Table of Contents items automatically link to the relevant section contend, provided that proper section headers are used. There should be no need or reason to do fancy work with URLs.
• Please be aware that each language-edition of Wikipedia has its mown policies and standards for article inclusion. Here at the English-language Wikipedia, notability is very important, and it is essential that there be sufficient independent published reliable sources are cited to establish notability. I don't know if the policies in the Japanese-language Wikipedia are more or less strict, or just different.
• The talk page of any page is reached by the "talk" link displayed when that page is on display. For most pages, the corresponding talk page is for discussing improvements to the page. For articles, the talk page is very much the place to discuss how mto improve the article. for a main user page, the matching user talk page is for communication to the user, and responses by the user. See mine at User talk:DESiegel for an example. An article can't have an article talk page until after it has been created.

I hope that is all helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

ːVery useful indeed. Thank you very much, DESiegel. I'll be back. Hopefully with something to show.SPV (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Jose Altuve

What does this mean? " in that span. In the 2019 World Series, Kurt Suzuki of the Washington Nationals, with the help of the rest of the team, made Altuve his child. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:2:BE00:6473:B79C:A972:BFEC (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The article had been subjected to repeated vandalism this morning. This has been reverted since you looked at the article, which has now been protected. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

trouble with citation

Hello. I'm having trouble adding a citation to the article Norm Nixon. Although I tried to include all the info for the citation in the wikitext, I can't seem to properly add the citation. Can someone help me? Here is the article that I wish to cite: https://goduquesne.com/news/2019/10/9/mens-basketball-sincere-to-carry-on-the-legacy-of-no-10.aspxJoesom222 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Joesom222. I think that I and David Biddulph have had an edit conflict whilst both trying to fix your problem for you. My apologies to David as I thought it appropriate I overwrite his edit, primarily because your sentence was unbearably long winded. Saying that notable person A allowed named non-notable person B to wear a jersey number in memory of non-notable named person C who was killed in gun-related violence is far too long, and far too specific. So I've trimmed out the person C's name. Please check it conforms to the citation. How I added it was to use the 'Cite' button in the editing interface to insert the details, using the lookup function to use the hyperlink to insert the details (I've put some guidance notes together here, which might help). I had to add the article date manually, as I'm guessing it should have been 9th October, not 10th September. But I'm in the UK and we do things sensibly here (er, well, maybe not Brexit-related things...but most other things are done sensibly. LOL!!) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You's missed off the closing > from the opening <ref> tag. I've corrected it in this edit, & also included the title for the ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joesom222: If you prefer David's version, just undo mine in View History. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I also had an edit conflict with you and David Biddulph , but none of my changes remain in the article. I was going to shorten the excessivly long ref name as well as closing the open ref, but David Biddulph} got the ref closed first, so I didn't re-do my edit. Such is the power of the Teahouse. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: We're all just too darned keen, aren't we?. So maybe no time for kite-flying after all! (see post below) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, but can someone tell me how to properly include links in citations? I don't want to have this problem again. Joesom222 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC) I see; I can just use the handy-dandy cite button. I was using the buttons on the bottom not the top Joesom222 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joesom222: In the edit that I made (which you can see here, you'll note there is a command: |url=https://goduquesne.com/news/2019/10/9/mens-basketball-sincere-to-carry-on-the-legacy-of-no-10.aspx This was added via the Editing tool's 'Cite' button, and then by selecting the 'cite web' template, and simply pasting in the website url, and clicking 'Insert' to put the whole reference into the article.

However, I've just realised that the referencing format used in that article is a bit basic, and had you wanted to add a url into an existing one so that it follows the same style, you would should find the title of the article in that reference, and immediately before it type a single opening square bracket, immediately follow it by pasting in the full url, then leave one character space between what you've just typed and the article title, finally closing it all off by going to the very end of the article title and placing a closing square bracket. It's not as elegant, or as easy as using the cite web template via the 'Cite' button in whichever editing tool you're using , but hopefully you now have two ways of doing it. Does this make sense? Give it a go and let us know how you get on Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Be aware that that article also 'calls up' a second or third use of the same reference by calling the 'ref name'. The article will only have one full version of that reference, and that's the one you'd need to edit. See WP:REFNAME to understand how references can be re-used without having to retype them multiple times within the same article. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Joesom222 I will give you a quick summery, but I urge you to read Referencing for Beginners for more details than I can put into an answer here.

There are several ways to format citations. The msot basic is untemplated using <ref>...</ref> tags. These will look something like this:

<ref name="ShortName">[http://URLHERE Name to appear in reference list]2 October 2019, Author's name, Publisher, retrieved 22 October 2019 </ref>[

Note the placement of the ref tags, and the angle and square brackets. Leaving one of these out can produce odd results

Better, in my opinion, is to use a citation template. This will look something like this in the wiki-source:

<ref name="ShortName">{{cite web|url=https://URL-HERE |title=Title here |work= Name of website or publication here |date= Date of publication here| first=first name of author |last=last name of author |accessdate=Date you checked the web site}}</ref>

Note the positions of the curly braces and angle brackets. They matter. The order of the various paramaters does not matter. Thre are various semi-automated tools which allow yoiu to enter info on a form and will build such a reference in the wiki-text for you. All have limitations.

There are other ways of doing cites as well, but thsoe are the two most common. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

help me how I can edit Wikipedia

Teahouse hosts taking a few spare moments to enjoy Kite Flying

How I can use template on wiki and able to create article on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flykites (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flykites. As a very new editor here, you won't need templates to start an article (except maybe for adding references) - so perhaps leave that till a little later, eh? It's always best to start off slowly and learn the basics of editing and cooperating with others, rather than dive straight in to the hardest task here...that of creating a new article from scratch.

So maybe you might like to try out out interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, where you can acquire 15 different badges as you proceed. Then take a look at Help:Getting started or Help:Your first article. We advise new editors to create draft articles first, and to submit them for review and feedback at Articles for Creation. Meanwhile, I've left you a welcome template on your user talk page, full of lots of helpful links to understanding the basics. Just remember that everything you add here that might be challenged will need to be supported with a published reference. We have a page called Help:Referencing for beginners, though it can be a bit hard to follow until you've worked through some of the other simple tasks first. I see that Primefac has just suggested that on your talk page as the best place to start. If you find it a bit complex, try these alternative notes I put together on how to add inline references.

If you have any specific problems, just let us know. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: To actually answer your question: see Help:Template for more information on what templates do and how they work. Bear in mind that changes made to one template can impact on innumerable others, so be wary of fiddling with them until you are more familiar with the basics. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Flykites You may have been looking for the article wizard, which guides an editor though the process of constructing the skeleton of an article and putting it under the articles for creation project. That is not a bad way to start a new article, butit is better to do some editing that does not involved new articels fist. However, below are soem steps that often lead to success in creating an article.

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Need Feedback on my submission Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche

Hi,

my Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche got rejected the first time owing to being promotional, but the admin in question was helpful and pointed out the specific content that needed to be removed. I followed his instructions and removed a couple of sentences more that could be termed and promotional and have used some fresh references. What I have observed with these references is that most of them are Canadian or Nigerian in origin, so they are not exactly as renowned. However they do seem valid and independent in terms of covering various subjects, from what I found on exploring these further. I would be truly grateful if someone could find time to review the draft and suggest improvements, and also check out these country specific references. Thanks & regardsVinvibes 21:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinvibes (talk • contribs)

Hello, Vinvibes, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft as it now stands is not suitable to become an article. All the currently cited sources are interviews with the subject, except for one that is his degree thesis written by him. None are independent, and so none help to establish his notability. Please reread our guideline on notability and the one on notability in biographical articles. Wikipedia's Golden Rule is also worth reading, as is Your First Article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

DESHi, thanks for responding, and yes most of these sources are interviews, and a couple are articles. So what do you suggest I do about this page? Can I leave it in the draft phase over the next one week till I find more independent sources? Regards, Vinvibes 09:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Vinvibes, yes you may wait for a time until you can find appropriate sources. Note that articles which seem to simply repeat information from a press release are not independent and will not count for notability. Neither will articles which primarily consist of quotes from the subject, even if they are not structured as formal interviews. Please understand that to establish notability there need to be several (usually at least three) independent published reliable sources, each of which discusses the subject in some depth. If those do not exist, no valid article can be created. Please follow those links and read the guideline pages for a full explanation of each term.

If a draft is left unchanged for 6 months, it can be deleted under G13, but a delay of a short time should not cause any problems. Better to get it right than get it fast. Note that this subject has previously had highly promotional edits, so reviewers or other editors may be more critical than they might otherwise be. If notability can be clearly demonstrated, however, that should mnot matter. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DESHi, this I too realized that all of them revolve around more or less the same info, meaning either they are coming from the same source, or are copying each other. So I think searching for better sources is what I will do. The good part in all this is that at least I have learned to distinguish between sources in terms of reliability and authenticity, which I can use in future on this platform. Thanks for your help and will keep you posted in case I make further changes over the next one week or find any new reliable sources. Regards, Vinvibes 16:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Vinvibes has just been asked if they would change the formatting of the signature so it includes a link back their userpages- no need for other editors to think they need to alert them, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, done the needful, hoping its as it should be now, thanks & regards, Vinvibes (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't find information on the internet, only in physical format

Hello, I would like to know how to proceed to publish this article. I have searched a lot of information and I have only found it in physical format through specialized music magazines. 

Formerly there was a website where the history of this record label was explained, but unfortunately it is no longer available. I can't find any article on the internet, which makes reference to this record label (which is why I decided to make it fair by publishing an article about it on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be forgotten) I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me, because by not finding references on the internet, I don't know how to proceed. I have publications on paper that talk about it and explain the history, but they are not digitalized or published on the web (something normal because it is something old) thanks for your help. Mikelmurf (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Mikelmurf:. It's perfectly fine to cite sources that aren't online. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do it. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be online or be easy or free to access; they need to only be publicly accessible. (i.e. privately held documents unavailable to the public are not allowed). 331dot (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mikelmurf. It is perfectly OK to cite a print publication, as Joe Roe and 331dot have told you. Please be sure to include the title of the publication, the date, and the page number(s). However, if there used to be a website where the history of this record label was explained it might be possible to find a copy of it on the Internet archive's "wayback machine". If so, the archived page(s) could also be cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mikelmurf: Archive.org has this from a German company with just a few artists, if that's what you're looking for. Unfortunately, the background images of the page have been replaced by a domain registrar's ads for some reason, even in the earliest captures from 2002. Tell your browser to block images (temporarily) to see the actual content (in Firefox, go to Tools→Page Info→Media, check "Block images from web.archive.org", and reload the page with F5). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What to do to publish a draft updating an already existing entry?

Hello To work at my own pace on a polemic entry, I chose to write a userspace draft. I've made substantial changes, in fact way more than I intended! Before applying the changes to the main article, I would like to get some feedback. What would be the best way to do it? A RfC, a Wikipedia:Peer_review, or something else? I already posted the link on the talk page since I've started working on it about a week ago and no other editors chimed in, so I would like to use a more official form of community feedback request to increase the chances it's read. Thank you in advance --Signimu (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: for those interested, it's this entry: Fad diet, and here's my draft: User:Signimu/Fad diet - and please feel free to edit --Signimu (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Signimu and welcome to the Teahosue. It is often not the best idea to do such an extensive rewrite of an article in one large edit. It would be better, in future, to do it one piece at a time in the article itself. But if you want feedback from those who know the topic, i would post to Talk:Fad diet, which seems somewhat active -- oh i see you have been posting there. You could also try to find a rlevant wikipeoject, althoguh many of those ar enot active any more. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Yes I agree but when an article is both a mess with low quality outdated sources AND polemic, starting from a blank slate seemed like a good idea Anyway if asking on the Wikiproject is OK then great, I'll do that, have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(Let me clarify also that I rewrote the article under WP:MEDRS, whereas it was not part of the Medicine WikiProject before, that's in fact the main reason why I decided to start off from scratch since it's a different kind of article ) --Signimu (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The article in question dates back to 2003. Since then, hundreds of editors have made changes. In theory, this has led to a relatively good article. Rather than a radical replacement, I have two suggestions: 1) DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR DRAFT. Instead, do a section by section replacement in the existing article, each section change as a separate edit with an appropriate Edit summary. This will retain the history of the article and show your changes, and 2) The list of fad diets, to which it appears you do not intend to change much, could be split off to create a separate article (list articles exist), so that the remaining Fad diet article would be shorter, while having a link to the list article. David notMD (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Great idea, thank you very much! Yes ofc I didn't intend to submit without a proper review & consensus first I thought about adding section by section but wasn't sure it would be OK as I never saw that done before, but I can definitely apply changes section by section, maintaining refs consistency, one section per day to leave some time for other editors to review. I'll do that if I don't get any feedback at all after a few days --Signimu (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

And great suggestion for the list, we weren't sure what to do with another editor, we'll consider this option, thanks again! --Signimu (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

For articles I have raised to Good Article status I did section-by-section revisions and replacements, creating new sections at Talk for those articles if I thought needed. See Folate as recent example. You should be aware that there are a number of highly experienced editors who Watch articles related to nutrition/health, so don't be surprised to find that your edits are being further modified. P.S. The section you want to call Medically recommended nutrition is still utter crap. I advise deleting the content from Dr. Nestle and Katz, and instead replace with content from government or reputable non-gov't sources. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Your great examples cleared up a lot of my questions Thanks also for the feedback, it's a leftover from the mainspace article, I will update! --Signimu (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

May I create such a Wikipedians category?

Hi! I ask because I hate speedy deletes so I ask before creating, I suffer from OCD and would like to know whether I could create "Category:Wikipedians with OCD" as I've seen other categories of Wikipedians suffering other conditions :-), with respect, Iván. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee, Sounds OK to me. Interstellarity (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee (Iván) there could be a problem with such a category. It would need to make very celar that it was only for those editors who chose to add themselves to the category, andn that adding another editor to mit would not be OK. Doing so might constitute outing or an invasioin of privacy. If you want such a designation, a userbox might be a way to go. Interstellarity does this make sense to you? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, Yes it does Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel Oh no, I don't want nor is it my intention to out anyone, I would never want such a thing, I had not thought of that you may be correct, it's a disturbing disorder and many may not want to admit it, it even costs to me to do so. I will go for the userbox. Thank you both. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee, in fact a user box for OCD already exists at {{User OCD}}. It does not include a category, but the template page notes that one could be added. If you want that and want help adding one, please say so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DES No my friend, I just noticed that it clearly states that "for privacy reasons" such a category has not been created. I'll respect that strictly. Thank you again. :) --CoryGlee (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A discrete userbox sounds very sensible, though anyone can click that template and then click 'What links here' to see where it has been WP:transcluded, so it might have been better to have suggested substitution in that instance, which pastes in the full userbox markup, with no backlinks. Just out of interest, you might like to look at Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome. I'll just add that as an editor who has often bumped into new users who are being rather problematic with some of their editing, I have found it quite helpful to see such declarations. I confess to knowing little about such syndromes, but I do then tend to go a lot easier on people if I can understand where they're coming from, and thus they can become better editors with a bit more understanding and support from me in return. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What should I do if I find a sockpuppet account?

I found an account (User:Youname1488) which appears to be a sockpuppet by the username (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yourname) and by the fact that the account edited the talk page of a confirmed sockpuppet. What should I do? The category page said I should add {{Sockpuppet|Yourname|proven}}, but when I click "Preview", it inserts a message to their talk page saying they have been banned, which hasn't happened yet. What should I do? Merlin04 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Youname1488 per the block log, has been blocked, so I think its ok to put {{Sockpuppet|Yourname|proven}} on their talk page? Not sure though. Apologies about the short reply, interestingly if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and enable "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" (click on it and press save) any user that is blocked will be crossed out OkayKenji like this and appear lighter if blocked (so you don't have to go to the block log or their user page). OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)See belowOkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 00:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

​If you suspect someone is a sockpuppet and they haven't been blocked, you can start a sockpuppet investigation (Twinkle makes writing the report easy). You shouldn't add a tag, the blocking admin or a clerk will add these tags if they feel it is appropriate, and us regular editors rarely have a reason to add these tags. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I already added the tag, should I remove it? In addition, the user was already blocked, but it doesn't seem to be because they were a sockpuppet account. Should I still use Twinkle to start the investigation? Merlin04 (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​I've removed the tag so no worries. They are indeed a sockpuppet, the block note says long-term abuse, which are users which continually show up with new accounts to be bothersome – Yourname has been active on and off for 10 years. It's not necessary to start an investigation if someone has already been blocked. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Should have known better. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 00:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How to know whether an article has been reviewed

When I search google for “Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet”, it shows results form Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet.

But, I haven’t got a “reviewed” message for this article, and google only shows those articles which have been reviewed.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

For me, Google does not show that article. The page source for the article shows it tagged as NOINDEX, and Special:NewPagesFeed shows it as unreviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhavafro. David is right. If you post the url of the Google search and the result you see at Google then maybe we can see what is happening. If I include a quote from the article then I get a result from en.wikibedia.ru. This is not Wikipedia but a cybersquatter who copied the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:Google is literally showing the lead section, not only providing a link (like wikiBedia). Here you go.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no paragraph of text in that search, only a bunch of search hits which don't include Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet. Google search hits often display very differently for different people, and it probably spots the Wikipedia article in your previous activity, so it shows that text to you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: It's still strange if Google shows a page with noindex and quotes it. Does the search link to Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet for you? The only Wikipedia result for me is Ramjet. Is it one of the normal search results or displayed in a box at the top or top right? Do you see the page if you specifically ask for it with [4]? I don't get results for that search. I guess you are in India so maybe you get an Indian Google server which doesn't behave normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Yeah, it does link to that very article and is displayed in a box (just like any other article). Maybe this indicates some sort of spying by Google. (BTW that article just got reviewed an hour ago)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: Odd. The only results I see in boxes at your search is three YouTube videos at the top. Any chance you have a browser extension or feature which adds Wikipedia searches to Google results? I still don't see it at Google but it can take time before external search engines discover that noindex is removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Nope. No browser extension. Wikipedia-box shows up on mobile as well as PC, even while logged out. (I think we will be pulled-up for making teahouse a forum)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Need help on reverting unreferenced edits

What should I do if someone states that something had shut down, (e.g. changed "is" to "was", "currently operating" to "no longer operating") without any sources or new references? Should I revert it? Dibbydib (💬) (✏) 23:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​Yup, just revert and optionally leave a note at their talk page. {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} will include a link to referencing for beginners. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Dibbydib. Welcome to the Teahouse. For me, the answer really depends upon the context of the article. If it's about the sun, or the White House, then, yes, I'd revert it as vandalism or trouble-making. But if it looks like a good faith edit which maybe happened quite recently I might either revert it with an edit summary asking for a reference (as suggested above), or simply add the 'citation needed' template after it if it's very plausible and quite a minor event. Better still, does a quick browser search reveal any evidence of that thing 'shutting down' that you can add as supporting evidence, yourself? Had you given us a link to the article in question, I might have been able to give you a clearer answer. Does any of this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an attraction on an amusement park if that helps. I've reverted it because I searched plenty of sources and didn't find anything on that attraction shutting down, Nick Moyes. Thanks though! <3 Dibbydib (💬) (✏) 01:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't fix my own files?

I am trying to fix the speed and brightness/contrast of this file and this file, but when I head over to the place where the link to upload a new version of a file was supposed to be, I see "You cannot overwrite this file." What can/should I do to be able to upload a new version of each of the files?  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Glosome: that's hosted on Commons, so you're best off asking at the Commons help desk. That's where the experts would hang out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is present tense suitable here?

Hi, this editor reverted me here [5]. Which is correct? Thanks. 210.10.5.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@210.10.5.32: My guess is that becomes is correct, based on the fact that basically all of the other info in the article is in the present tense. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Should encyclopedia articles documenting past events be written in present tense? 210.10.5.32 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@210.10.5.32: I think it is per MOS:TENSE Taewangkorea (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s very helpful! I thought the opposite is more obvious. In the first example - “The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s.” would be wrong without any mention of the dates in the sentence. Even here, l would have used ‘was’ instead. 210.10.5.32 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense if you think of it in broader terms. The PDP 10 never stopped being a computer, though it stopped being manufactured. So it is a computer but was manufactured. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I get your point now. Never seen any computer larger than a desktop but I imagine our phones are more powerful than these old mainframes nowadays! 210.10.5.32 (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research

What is the difference between adding original research and unsourced content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.249 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty much the same thing: For example if I say "Danielle is an actress" this is both original research and is unsourced content. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I will offer a different opinion. Unsourced content may be true, but without a citation it has not been verified. Options are reverting, tagging with citation needed, or finding and adding a citation. Original research is information the editor believes to be true based on their own thought processes (if A is true and B is true, therefore C must be true). Can also be unpublished information known to the editor. Hope this helped. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:No original research. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Seeking permission/support to make changes

Hi, I've recently (16 October) suggested on its talk page merging one wikipage with another and was wondering do I need 'permission before proceeding and how long I need to wait, also what that would look like, thanks AJSteer (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:MERGECLOSE says "(normally one week or more)". The rest of WP:Merging tells you the various steps to go through (including tagging the relevant pages to let readers know about the merger proposal). --David Biddulph (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

writing article

hi,

  I am new here, I just want to ask that if i could write about myself here or not..And where should i write the content?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwedisandeep25 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 

@Diwedisandeep25: If you mean can you write an article about yourself then the answer to your question is almost always 'no', unless you have been widely written about already by other independent, reliable sources, that can be used as sources for an encyclopedia article. Have you been? You can put a small amount of information about yourself on your User page, so long as it is not excessive or highly promotional. Hug^syrup 12:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

what i should post on wikipedia

what should i post on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imtemmie (talk • contribs) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Imtemmie:. You don't 'post' on Wikipedia, but you can edit almost any existing article to make improvements so long as any changes are in line with our policies and are well-sourced. You can also create articles about topics that are notable - which is to say, they have been widely covered in reliable, independent sources already. I suggest you read this guidelines first: WP:GNG, WP:RS. Hug^syrup 12:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Submitting Draft Article

I want to submit my Draft article...How can I do so? Here’s the link to the article - Draft:Shinchan In India (Please submit it on my behalf). Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.231.62 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi greetings, welcome to teahouse. You can submit your draft by simply adding {{subst:Submit}} on the top of the draft and wait for some days (may be weeks) for a reviewer to review your draft. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I need help

How do you edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryanshu32 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Suryanshu32, Hi greetings, welcome to teahouse. I have posted a welcome message in your talk page. There are some bits of things that you can do! Best.--PATH SLOPU 13:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Article about EqualOcean

I am trying to set up an article for a company named EqualOcean, but I am still confused by the reasons of rejection. "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

How to define "significant" coverage? Must it be the main body of the coverage? How to determine is the source is "reliable"? To what extent, the source could be considered independent?

It will be really helpful to know which part of the article EqualOcean is not qualified. Is it the source only, or also other parts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CavernBreeze (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

CavernBreeze Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Significant coverage is coverage that goes beyond a brief mention; essentially, the source of the coverage must be primarily about the subject and be independent of the subject. The source must have chosen on its own to write about the subject. A 'reliable source' is a source that has a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. Put another way, they must have a reputation of not making things up and checking accuracy. Independent sources are not affiliated with the subject in any way; this includes a republished press release, a staff interview, or routine announcement(which are not independent as they come from the subject itself).

You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial if you haven't already. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Minor quibble, "the source of the coverage must be primarily about the subject" is not quite right, but the closer to this the better. But for WP:N purposes, passing mentions doesn't help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CavernBreeze Welcome to Teahouse. See below and WP:SIGCOV for details.

1. "Reliable sources" - means that sources that support the content claimed are published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that qualifies editorial integrity which could be verified. Books published by reputable publisher and major newspapers are considered reliable sources. User generated sources are considered not reliable.

2. "Secondary sources / sources that independent of the subject" - are sources not not affiliated/associate with the subject of the article. Homepage, official web site, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, interviews and etc are considered NOT independent sources

3. "Significant coverage" mean the sources talk about the subject directly and in detail and in depth, and not only passing mentioned.

Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you and hope the above help. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy, content is currently at Draft:EqualOcean. Submitted once, declined once, no edits since declined. Three of the four references in the draft are about the company receiving funding. Although I cannot read the content at the references, I doubt these can be considered independent. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

CavernBreeze: does it help if I remark that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything the company has said about itself, whether published on its own website, or in a press release or interview published by somebody else? Wikipedia is only interested where people unconnected with the subject have chosen, unprompted by the subject, to write something in depth about the subject and been published in a reliable place. If not enough such independent people have so chosen, then the company is not notable, and there is nothing that can be done to make such an article acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding Photographs

Greetings fellow Wikipedia Editors! I am new here and trying to contribute. My biggest difficulty has been finding photographs that comply with Wikipedia Commons usage rules. I had my first uploaded photo deleted for this reason. I also just edited 2 stub articles on "animation" and considered a few others that requested an image be added. However there does not seem to be a way to find images for film or other media work that readily complies short of emailing the copyright holder and asking for permission. This would likely take a long time and may not result in success. Any suggestions? Would a YouTube thumbnail image or an image from an official press release be acceptable? I was unable to add anything to the articles so far. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonam108 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it almost certainly wouldn't, I'm afraid, Sonam108. Unfortunately the laws on copyright are rather tortuous, and Wikipedia chooses to apply them rather more strictly than many sites. In some circumstances Wikipedia allows non-free images, but use in a general article (such as Animation) is unlikely to meet all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with sourcing

I need help with citing news, the second reference on User:Melofors/Keepy Ducky. Melofors (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Corrected in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, what an embarassing mistake. Melofors (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles about couples

I am thinking about writing an article about Georg and Vera Leisner, who were collaborating archaeologists working in the early to mid 20th Century. They were responsible for carrying out initial excavations of many of the megalithic sites in Portugal that I have recently been writing articles on and they left their collections to the Portuguese state. My question: Can I do one article or should I do one for each? Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Roundtheworld. Consider the example of Charles and Ray Eames, the married team of furniture and industrial designers. We have an article about the team, and separate biographies for the husband and the wife. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If most of their work was done together, it makes sense to write just one article. If you feel so impelled, just be WP:Bold and do it in your WP:sandbox. If it looks good to you, chances are it will look good to most other people, too. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

My edits are getting removed

Yes my first 2 edits were spiteful but the following edits have only been constructive so why are they getting removed ? Iwasntallowedemojis (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Iwasntallowedemojis: Your edits such as this do not look very constructive to me. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iwasntallowedemojis: welcome to the Teahouse. You haven't made many mainspace edits yet, and none of them seemed appropriate, or valid to me. Did you really think this contribution was OK and be likely to remain? People who make bad edits do tend to have the next few scrutinised closely. It's now your chance to show you can contribute constructively, and to support all your additions with citations. We'll gladly support you if you do. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There are harsh ecxerpt on page about living people written just in lede on page "Sonja Biserko"

There is harsh criticism of person on page Sonja Biserko written straight in lede, that is a bit unusual for bio of living people. May admins with experience help to clean up or edit it? PoetVeches (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey PoetVeches. I have removed that bit from the lead as well as another bit that was probably questionably source and really badly written besides. Looks like there were some drive by additions by an anonymous editor a little while ago, and just nobody noticed it. GMG^talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There was more of that on Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia Page for my company

Good Day Wikipedia community,

I would just like to know what steps must I follow to create a Wikipedia page for my company and how long will it eventually take?

Our website url: http://www.myplayers.com/

Regards, Raynique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raynique Meyer (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Raynique Meyer: - we don't have 'pages' here, exactly, as it's not a company directory or social media site. It's an encyclopedia, and we have articles about notable topics, so the key question is whether your company is notable. The easiest way to establish that is to consider whether it meets the criteria at WP:NORG. If it meets those criteria then you can create a draft article by following the instructions at WP:AFC, but as you have a conflict of interest and meet our definition of a paid editor, you must first read WP:PAID and make the disclosure specified there, otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing. Hug^syrup 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Raynique Meyer: The link you supplied rather made me chuckle. You haven't even built the website yet (!), so I earnestly suggest you forget about trying to promote your organisation on this encyclopaedia. We're not here to help you advertise your project. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding a photo

How does one add a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkazmaeditsnow (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Kingkazmaeditsnow Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. How to upload an image is described at WP:UPIMAGE, however you should first be familiar with the image use policy. You need to make sure that you have the rights to upload the image and that its copyright is compatible with Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing section in Wikipedia which highlights violence act, spoiling content of the page

Respected there is a page Charsadda in which section Recent History contains violent material which is exploiting the whole content of the page the thing is that a reference of external website is provided how can i make changes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mian Moazam (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mian Moazam Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not censored in that text describing a violent act cannot be removed merely because it describes a violent act or anything offensive. A significant incident in a community would seem on the surface to be worthy of inclusion as a historical event for the community- but if you have an argument based in Wikipedia guidelines and policy that it should not be included, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page with other editors who follow that article. You can even make it a formal Request for Comment to get additional input. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot Mian Moazam I think I found a reasonable way to communicate the info about the attack without having to describe the violence in detail. I added an education section to the article, and linked to the university and the article about the attack there. I just moved the link from the external links section to the education section and piped it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

how to link email to wikipedia account

Good afternoon wikipedia! I forgot my pass code, and i am wondering if i can link my email to my wikipedia account. Gumshoe97 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97 I assume that you are still logged in to your account; you can add your email in your Preferences, in the top right corner of the screen. Once you click Preferences, the option to add your email should be in the User Profile tab. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Gumshoe97 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

ahoi ashtami

What do I need to change in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryanshu32 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to change anything, but most articles can do with a bit of improvement and this one is no exception. You could consider giving it a copy-edit, and it probably needs some better sources, as well as having the existing sources properly formatted to include more information about author/publisher/date etc. Go slow and only make changes you are comfortable with, being sure to discuss anything that may be controversial or that another editor objects to. Hug^syrup 12:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Link: Ahoi Ashtami —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Image sizing and just images in general

I am confused on how to resize an image to the format I want it to be at because I keep trying to add in photos that are too big for the page and just mess up the entire page. As well as how to even get an image inside wikipedia if it wasn't added by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neararena (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Neararena: I'm not an image expert, but you might look at MOS:IMAGE, which is fairly comprehensive and has links to other pages as needed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Lists vs. Tables in Living Persons Biographies

I've been reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout to try to discern when tables can be used or when it is better to use a list in Living Persons Biographies. Over the past little while (less than one year) I've written several articles but would like to expand and improve them. I would like to expand articles to present select exhibitions and a filmography. I've drafted a Biography section and two subsections 'selected exhibitions' and 'filmography'. In the table for the selected exhibitions subsection I've created table headings:'year', 'title', 'venue', 'works', & 'reference'. For the filmography subsection I've created the table headings: 'year', 'title', 'role', 'notes', & 'reference'. If this should not be done this way could you kindly make a recommendation how it should be done. Thank You! LorriBrown (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Examples:

Select exhibitions

Year	Title	Venue	Works	Reference
Year	Title	Venue	Works	Reference
Year	Title	Venue	Works	Reference

Filmography

Year	Title	Role	Notes	Reference
Year	Title	Role	Notes	Reference
Year	Title	Role	Notes	Reference

LorriBrown (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: there's some advice at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Dead URL in Indian National Highways

This is in relation to dead URL [6] used extensively as reference in National Highways of India articles as in National Highway 544DD (India) for example. This URL is archived Here. Please run the relevant bot to incorporate archived URL to resolve this issue. Thanks -- Jazze7 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jazze7:  Done in this edit DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-diffusing category

Hello,

What does one mean when they say "Non-diffusing" category? For example, if you have "Government ministers of X" and then "Female government ministers of X" on the same page. Why do we need to keep the parent category if it's already part of a subcategory? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUPCAT says: "Subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality should almost always be non-diffusing subcategories." --David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: So it could have the parent and the non-diffusing category or just the parent category, correct? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: As I read it, ... there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory means that if "Female government ministers of X" is a non-diffusing category, a page for a female minister of X should be in both "Female government ministers of X" and "Government ministers of X".

It would be helpful if you gave links to the article and categories that raised the question. Here's one: Category:Freemason United States Presidents is a non-diffusing sub-category of Category:Presidents of the United States, so articles like Andrew Jackson are in both categories. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Number of edits

How do I found out how many edits I made? Jtarvin (talk). 2:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: You can go to your preferences and view how many edits you made. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: A more complete analysis can be found at Jtarvin – Wikipedia (enbaike.710302.xyz) – Edit Counter – XTools. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I become a GA/FA reviewer?

I'm fairly interested in becoming one myself, so it's good to know.Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Thanks for wanting to make Wikipedia better. See Wikipedia:Good_articles. According to that page, anyone may become a reviewer, if you follow the linked instructions. RudolfRed (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Many thanks.Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That said, GA reviewers typically have been active for months and months, have made hundreds of edits, may have created articles, and definitely have been through the experience of raising an article to GA status. Editors who have joined only recently would not be expected to have a working relationship with what is expected. There have been instances when a reviewer approved an article to GA, and then a more experienced editor downgraded it as not qualifying. David notMD (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as to whether requiring a 500 edit minimum and/or having raised an article to GA in order to be able to do a review of a proposed GA. David notMD (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Recently deceased

This is probably in WP:MOS somewhere, but I cannot find it. When an article subject has recently died as a result of suicide, do we say "died by suicide in XY place" or "committed suicide in XY Place"? Thank you in advance to the volunteers on this page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: This recent RFC about category titles found consensus on "committed". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about date format

I was going to add something to an article when I noticed that in the first paragraph the American date format is used. However in a later paragraph the British format is use. I read the Style Manual about date formats and know this is "unacceptable". How does one determine which format to keep? The article is Good Omens TV Series and it's a collaboration between the BBC and Amazon Prime video. Thanks for your help with this.

Mjr524 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The first line of the wikitext of the article says: "{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2019}}". --David Biddulph (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Which was changed - with a blank edit summary - from the initial usage of DMY on 2 June. Raise it on the talk page. Not sure why this shouldn't use DMY, given the source material, setting, cast, crew etc. Only American thing about it is the Amazon money. - X201 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the dates were all changed from MDY to DMY by script only the day prior. There was no use dates template (of either flavo[u]r) prior to that edit, and the first MDY date was added in 2017, shortly after the article was created. Agreed that this discussion should go to the talk page, however. CThomas³ (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mjr524: There's no one standard date format that articles are expected to follow, but there are certain things listed in MOS:BADDATE that are not recommended. Much like citation style and variety of national English used, generally the date format used by the first major contributor to the article should be the one used unless there's a good reason like MOS:DATETIES for changing to another. Probably the most important thing is consistency in format, but over time this consistency can be lost as more content is added and more people are editing the article. So, if you can figure out what format was established by the first major contributor to the article, then that's should be the starting point. Once you've determined that, you can then decide whether a change in format is warranted. If you think it is, then you can try and be WP:BOLD and make the change; if reverted, follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Some person posted on my talk page to come here and I don't know what this is or what I should do? Am I in trouble?? I want to contribute positively. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeggieGaymer (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey VeggieGaymer. That's just a helpful little robot that posts automatic notifications on the talk pages of new users. You don't have any obligation to do anything at all. It's just letting you know that if you have any questions, this would be the correct place to seek advice or assistance. GMG^talk 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Where do I find the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeggieGaymer (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey VeggieGaymer. I left a message on your talk page with some helpful links about how Wikipedia works. You might also want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG^talk 17:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That makes two of us! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you guys so much!! I can't believe how nice everyone is. I thought i'd be treated poorly for not knowing the rules. I am truly grateful! VeggieGaymer (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: This user has since been indefinitely blocked as a WP:sockpuppet for abusing multiple accounts. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How to add awards and honors to a page.

After updating an award entry with links to offical websites. It was removed by an administer. How can update awards without it being removing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganGenus (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

MorganGenus Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits were removed because they violated Wikipedia policy on copyright. Please review the information on your user talk page to learn more about this. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal Biography

Hello there, How can I Build my personal biography? I need help, please. I tried to build mine (User:Mzalendo Mithika Mwenda/sandbox) but it has not been approved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalendo Mithika Mwenda (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You have not submitted it for approval, but of course it would not be approved because it has no references to published reliable sources. Please read the advice against trying to use Wikipedia to write an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mzalendo Mithika Mwenda Wikipedia is not social media or other place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about you, not in what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of non-English title translations in "List of ..." articles?

I looked in on a "List of ..." article today, and found it has (often long, and multi-language) translations of the the names of the various government agencies related to a particular topic. It seemed a bit unwieldy for a list, since I would imagine the language translations also occur near the top of the actual subject articles, as do many other details. Does Wikipedia have any guidelines for how much translation might be appropriate in articles that list a large number of English names of items that obviously also have names in the various 100's of other languages? (Here's the example, if you'd like to see what is there in this list article.)

I'm happy to start a discussion, but would like to understand what has come up before, or been worked out more broadly, before having the article-specific discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image licensing

I keep uploading an image of Dolly, Andrew Johnson's first slave, to his Wikipedia page and another user keeps removing it challenging the license. The image is the public domain. I have confirmed this with the National Parks Service and the Andrew Johnson NHS. The user who continues to remove it says the public domain licensing is not enough and further that it doesn't comply with WP:OPRS--what is this?

Stirpicult (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)stirpicult

Hello Stirpicult, OTRS is essentially the system used to email Wikipedia.

What the editors will be asking you to do, is for the copyright holder of the image (I assume Andrew Johnson National Historic Site) to email OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org to show that permission is given to use the image. There are instructions on how to do this at Commons:OTRS

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

For other helpers, the image is File:Dolly - Andrew Johnson.jpg ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please assist me

Hello, Please assist me in guiding on how to improve the rating of any article through improving the article. Check my recent edit on the article Sooraj Pancholi. Thanks, I hope to get a answer. Imwet (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Imwet Greetings. I have done the assessment on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Content assessment rating. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Payment

Does one get paid for corrections on the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.34.125.176 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Editors are volunteers. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Translation

How many edits do I need to make if I want to translate a page into english? Jtarvin (talk). 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: If you are able to translate into English from another language, you can do that now. See Wikipedia:Translation for guidance and also WP:YFA for how to write an article on English Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Jtarvin, although if you want to use the Wikipedia:Content translation tool you require 500 edits over 30 days. However, this tool isn't actually that useful, and for translation into English doesn't really give much improvement over translating by copy and paste - just make sure you use the attribution templates.

Also, be aware that Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing - see WP:MACHINETRANSLATION ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing image syntax

How do I fix image syntax? Ayobami Abiodun. --Abiodun 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayobami Abiodun (talk • contribs)

If you are thinking of the image in the infobox in User:Ayobami Abiodun/sandbox/My sandbox, then Template:Infobox person tells you the syntax. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Found a mistake

Hi I found a mistake on a page that is protected from vandalism. How can I pass on the correct information so it can be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.72.122 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You can make an edit request on the article's talk page using {{Edit semi-protected}}. There's more information at Wikipedia:Edit requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Backlinks for another language wikipedia/wikimedia

Is there a way I can see the backlinks to the wikipage from another language wiki or commons from "What Links Here" section? Coderzombie (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: m:PetScan might be able to do something like that. I've never tried. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing Modes

I want to edit in the Visual mode, but I can't seem to get back to it. Can someone explain how I activate that mode, vs the more technical code-based mode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichBMoore (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your Teahouse question, RichBMoore. This should be an easy one for you to fix. Go to the very top of any page whilst logged in and click 'Preferences' and then click the 'Editing' tab. (Here's a shortcut to it) These are your own personal settings, and look for 'Editing mode:' and choose the best drop-down option. You'll probably want to select "Always give me the Visual Editor when possible", though I like to have both options always visible. Just click 'Save' to change your default editing preference. Note that you can switch between the two editors whilst actually editing. Just look for the big black pencil logo which allows you to 'Switch editor'. It's on the right hand side whilst editing in source editor mode. Does this sort things for you? (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.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating Charts

I'm interested in adding a chart for listing significant events, but can't find any directions on doing so. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichBMoore (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@RichBMoore: You might like to try Help:Tables. You can add simple tables from the Visual Editor - it's one of the few things that VE is good for, in my view, though I fear you have dived into a rather more difficult area than I would recommend for a brand new editor! May I remind you to sign your posts, as I suggested in my answer to your post immediately above? Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

An afterthought: see this help page, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding notability

I believe I may have identified an article which is lacking notability. Specifically, the article can be found at this URL: Samuel V. Jones

As best I can tell, the article appears to be autobiographical and self-promotional. I am having trouble identifying anything notable about the subject, apart from the fact that he is an attorney. My understanding of wikipedia is that being an attorney is not sufficient merit to pass the test for noteworthiness. I would like some direction on how to bring this to the attention of a more competent editor than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.51.107 (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Jones is more than "Just a lawyer", Unregistered editor. He is also a law professor. One of the cited scources describes him as a nationally recognized commentator on social justice issues, [who] has authored numerous scholarly publications and his essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Grio and Chicago Tribune.

But in any case, please remember that "notable" to Wikipedia, does not mean "important", "newsworthy", or "famous". Rather it means "a topic covered in some detal by multiple independent published reliable sources". From the cited sources in the article Samuel V. Jones. without doing a careful review, I suspect that Prof Jones is notable.

If you think an articel may not be notable, you can tag it with {{notability}}, as described on the project page Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would add that this particular article was initially submitted via out articles for creation program, reviewed by at least two highly experienced editors with no connection to Jones and little tolerance for promotional content, and later edited bu=y a number of different editors, including some additional highly experienced editors. None of which means there could not be a reasonable debate over notability, but makes it less likely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What should this article be called?

I'm editing this article about a comic that was written in Spanish. To my knowledge the comic has never been translated into English, so it doesn't have an official English title. Should the title of the article be the Spanish title, or an English translation of the title? HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: You can leave it at the spanish title, or the translations; if you want to see what others think, you can open a move request, which will initiate a discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Cite your sources

I put the scientific paper as the source but I don't know how to put a page number with that scientific paper. Example So i'm interested how to put the page number next to the source, thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Hi Mikola22. Page numbers can be added a couple of ways depending upon how you format the citation. Right now, you've basically just provided a bare url as a citation; this gives a link, but that's all and it's much better to format the citation by providing the reader with more information about the source as explained in WP:CITEHOW. See Help:Referencing for beginners for some more information on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Having issues with this article

Hi Teahouse i created this article User:MelvinSeja/sandbox and i was told there was already a draft article Diego Tryno and i had to merge my article with that draft article to make it one because they will consider the one already submitted and i did that . A reviewer asked us to comment about how the person qualifies to be singer and i commented but the original author of the article later commented and i thought his comment was better than mine ,here is his comment How he qualifies to be Singer. Today i checked the article to see if it has been reviewed and i noticed the original author removed a lot of things ,also he removed the awards category that i added saying that he didnt believe it has strong sources to be added there ,so i know i could add that category back but i wanted to ask how many sources are required for the award category to be on the article? Secondly how many sources are required on a article for it to be approved? .Lastly is there a reviewer here who can review the article so that i don't join the waiting crew? because the original draft was created in June and its been edited by various users but it took only 15 minutes for my own article to be declined so that i merge it with this article. Im new here ,im still learning so im sorry if i made the question long.When i checked the reviewers talk page ,he said he will leave another reviewer to decide.This is the draftDraft:Diego_Tryno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelvinSeja (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of the info you included was properly sourced and should have been left alone, but a lot of what you added was sourcing not for the subject of the article, but sources to substantiate that a school exists. That's unnecessary. Sources should be used to substantiate the person's attendance. Also, Wikipedia isn't itself used as a source for other articles. (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In answer to the when will it be reviewed question - the pile of drafts waiting to be reviewed is not a queue. The cadre of reviewers tries to get to drafts within eight weeks, but some are unreviewed at three months or more. While waiting, editors can work on improving the draft. You and the editor who created the draft can have a discussion on own Talk pages on howto improve the draft. David notMD (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone check this over?

I'm a relatively new RC Patroller [article] and this user blanked a significant section of Eurasianism. The user (IP) did specify why he/she blanked the section, but I don't know if this is a proper reason, can someone check this for me please? I'm kinda stumped as I don't know much about the subject. (I'll also notify the Wikiproject behind this, if this is necessary). Thanks! Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dibbydib: I'm not a Teahouse host, but I would suggest you use the WP:BRD principle and revert the large deletion and request the IP discuss it on the Talk:Eurasianism. It is trivial to reinstate the material from the old revision in the history if their reasons are valid, but given it's an IP (so we have no idea of how experienced they are with Wikipedia policies), I am inclined to be a bit suspicious that their motivation may be WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than an actual policy. Their argument appears to be that Brazil and South Africa are not in Eurasia but on the other hand Russia, China and India are Eurasia so it would seem to be not unreasonable to discuss BRICS in the article to compare it against some of the other collaborations being described. Having the discussion on Talk will hopefully invite a wider range of views to establish a consensus on whether a discussion on BRICS is in scope or not for the article which is the nub of the issue. Kerry (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dibbydib: I'd start a talk page discussion. Maybe the IP will contribute. You might have to post an alert to the IP's talk page, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

While one of the maps at Eurasianism includes India and China, the body of the article is about greater Russia. As such, I agree with the IP's decision to delete all the BRIC content as not relevant. I also agree that the article Talk page is the place to have this discussion. David notMD (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Verification

I was wondering, how do you highlight the important text on Wikipedia so people can visit the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay heisenburg 1 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jay heisenburg 1: I'm unclear as to what you are asking. Can you be more specific please? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia when you search up something and you go on the page and you read the article, there are multiple blue highlights that when you click on them, take you to other articles. How is that effect achieved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay heisenburg 1 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jay heisenburg 1: these blue things are Links. They will take you to other pages on the internet (Or on Wikipedia) if you click on them. See Help:Links for how to create them on Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jay heisenburg 1: To create a "wikilink" to a page on Wikipedia, surround the page name with two sets of square brackets, like this: [[United States]], producing United States. To like to an external site, use just one set of square brackets: [https://google.com], producing [7], but note that these "external links" have limited allowed uses, as described at WP:EL. I've added a welcome message to your User talk:Jay heisenburg 1 page with some useful information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft, change of name

Hi Everyone! I'm still writing an article on an upcoming company, however i would like to change the name from Certifyd Inc to Certifyd (App). Do i have to wait for it to be approved before doing so?? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesha Roberts (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alesha Roberts: Continue working on the draft with its current name. When the article is approved and moved to namespace it can be given a new name if needed. RudolfRed (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alesha Roberts: Because you used the phrase "upcoming company", I decided to take a look at Draft:Certifyd Inc. and note that it only formed this year. I also note that currently all your sources are based on the company's own media outlets, plus a dead link to their website. I also noted a similarity in your username with that of the founders (and then found your WP:COI declaration - for which I thank you), and also that you write in 'marketing speak', which is a massive 'no-no' on this encyclopaedia. There are thus various things you need to do before you attempt to submit your draft...

Firstly, do please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and ask yourself whether you honestly and genuinely think this new company could, right now, ever meet the criteria we set out for 'notability'. If it fails that, there will never, ever be an article about it on Wikipedia, and you'll simply be wasting your time on that draft.

Secondly, if you can find three or more independent sources that talk in depth about the company, and noting you already have a COI declaration on your userpage, you do still need to conform to this policy on paid editing before you continue to work on it. As a founder/director/employee or a mere contractor, you do need to be a bit clearer on how you receive remuneration and the nature of your affiliation to the company you are trying to promote. See this guidance on how to disclose.

Now, I realise you're still working on this draft, but having searched online for independent reliable sources that talk about Cetifyd or its parent company, I cannot find any. Thus, I fear you will be wasting your time trying to promote this business on Wikipedia. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but maybe you can console yourself by reading this essay on why sometimes it can simply be 'too soon'. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ok, understood.. I am not paid by the company, and I am not the owner. However, I volunteered to help them. i guess ill just leave it for someone else to do whenever they reach that publicity. thanks! Alesha Roberts (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And another thing, while i understand what you are saying, it was IN MY DRAFT, not meant for public view or approval. So the in depth scrutiny is appreciated, but also a bit harsh. It was just supposed to sit there until it was ready and had met the guidelines. I simply asked one question, and it seems like this company is being blacklisted. I would appreciate if you and others would give this company a chance. I made the mistake, they didnt. Alesha Roberts (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alesha Roberts: I'm sorry you felt I was harsh; I felt I was being realistic, and trying to save you time. If you'd simply asked one question and hadn't had my reply, how much more effort do you think you would have gone on to expend before eventually submitting it and then having it rejected as not meeting WP:NCORP? I'm afraid draft's aren't private spaces, and content that isn't appropriate (including some content - though probably not yours right now) does get speedily deleted if it's not deemed appropriate here. That can happen in both Sandbox spaces and in Draft spaces. Whilst it is seen as rather bad form for one person to edit another's sandbox page without agreement, Draft spaces are theoretically communal spaces, though in practice the creator is generally left to themselves there unless there's an issue. But anyone can look at that content, and act if there's a problem, as I did. I am sorry you didn't like my advice - it was well meant. Finally, I must say that we're not here to give any company a break. We are an encyclopaedia of notable things!, and we have gatekeepers to keep out spam, vandalism and outright promotion, and nothing I've said here does them any harm, and I'm certainly not willing to do them or any editor a favour just for the sake of it. But if you have contacts with the company, you might tell them to sort their website domain out. It doesn't seem to work -at least, not from my side of the pond. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Never asked for you to give them a break, I asked to give them a FAIR CHANCE. What i meant was, if someone else decided to do an article on this company, there shouldn't be a bias towards them. When the time comes, whoever tries to SUBMIT an article for review, will most likely do it correct. A break and chance are two different things. They didn't appoint me to try to do this, i volunteered and took it upon myself, as previously stated. Keeping the site safe is important, and i understand that. But again, mistakes were made, not on the company's behalf, but on mine. However, quite obviously by your tone, it seems like giving them a fair shake isn't something you're willing to do. I find that to be unfortunate. Alesha Roberts (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have not told you not to stop or not to submit it, have I? The choice is yours. You've done nothing wrong in making this draft. I was just offering my view on notability as an editor with some experience here, both in article creation and review and in deletion. It doesn't mean I'm necessarily always right. If you have access to suitable supporting sources, you go for it! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alesha Roberts. Just for reference, all pages on Wikipedia can be seen by anyone, i.e. they are public pages, and all pages can, in principle, be edited by anyone; so, there are no "my articles", "my pages" or "my drafts" as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Drafts are subject to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just like an article, but for the most part they will be left alone as a courtesy to those working unless there's a request for help or there's some policy/guideline problem which needs to be addressed. The draft namespace is for things which are ultimately intended to be articles by their creators and thus are expected to worked on so as the achieve that goal; moreover, the draft namespace is sort of a "community" namespace so improvements can be made by others in the spirit of being WP:HERE, but once again many editors will refrain from doing so as a courtesy unless asked. The draft namespace is not, however, intended to be a "holding pen" where things are left to sit indefinitely. If that's what you'd like to do, then you might be better off with a userspace draft instead. Pages in the username space can still be edited by anyone per WP:UP#OWN, but again most editors will refrain from doing so unless there's a policy/guideline problem that needs addressing; moreover, a little more leeway is granted towards userspace drafts than "regular" drafts and you don't have to worry as much about a userspace draft being deleted simply because you've left it unedited for quite awhile. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: The OP chose to blank their draft, and thus the empty page has now been deleted. It can be retrieved on request, however. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Zakir Naik Wiki page

Dr Naik is no longer on the board of IERA and thus the information is outdated... can i update this without it being re-instated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutowriter123 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Plutowriter123 Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You should discuss this either with the editors of that article directly on their user talk pages, or on the article talk page, along with any supporting information you have. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

More professional

How do i make my first page look more professional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beartrack 1 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beartrack 1: If you haven't read it already, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your First Article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If by "first page" you mean your User page, there are lots of ways to add content. Wikipedia:User pages has do's and don't's about what goes on a UP. Remember, no email, phone, address, true name. Keep in mind that we are here to improve the encyclopedia, not perfect our UP's. P.S. 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As said, your userpage is of little importance, so there is no need to make it look "professional". What we really value are your contributions. If you would like help in that respect, please see the Tutorial or the Wikipedia Adventure. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Beartrack 1 to contradict one part of the above, if you are an adult you are free to include your legal ("true") name on your user page if you choose to, in spite of the comment above by David notMD I include mine, and have done since 2005. But you should be aware that such a page will be visible to anyone and everyone, and may be archived in ways that make it effectively impossible ever to remove it from public view, so have a care. The same goes for your email address.

I thoroughly agree that your user page should not be used to try to enhance your personal or professional reputation -- it is for describing you as a Wikipedia editor; to other editors and to readers. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC) {ping|Beartrack 1}} DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Learning about punctuation would help. —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Beartrack 1 DESiegel The Beartrack 1 User page states being 13 years old, hence my advice to not include true name and contact information. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors to help young editors. Welcome, and keep in mind that A) help is always available, and B) Wikipedia guidelines include "Don't bite the newbies." David notMD (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, David notMD, I missed that. No, Beartrack 1, if you are actually under 18 i would strongly advise you not to post your real name, email, or any identifying info, such as pictures taken in your neighborhood or the name of your school. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Rejecting a wikipedia article

I am a new user and I am writing an article based on a help center. My article is rejected. Please can some one help me to improve it, I really appreciate your advice and help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lash Pre (talk • contribs) 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link for other editors: Draft:Local_Language_Help_Center. @Lash Pre: - your article has been rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia, so I'm afraid it is not really a case of improving the article - the only way to change this is for the topic to become more notable, and that means being written about extensively by reliable, independent sources outside of Wikipedia. There is nothing that editors here can do to assist with that unfortunately. Hug^syrup 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Key issue is too soon. The Help Center was established earlier this year. Using Google, I could not find published articles written about the Center. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

translation : "attribution needs to be provided on the talk page"

Hello, I just translated a French page into English. But a user did not accept my article because (among other reasons) "attribution needs to be provided on the talk page that this article was created from a translation." I do understand what it means, but I don't know exactly how to do it. Any help? Please excuse my silly questions: I am French and have no habit of English Wikipedia. Thanks a lot in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etoiledeneige (talk • contribs) 10:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Etoiledeneige:. If you check out WP:HOWTRANS there are instructions there. You should ideally put information in the first edit summary about the fact you have copied and translated content from another Wikipedia page, although it is too late for that - you could do it in the next edit summary next time you edit the page, I guess. However the other thing you need to do, as the article reviewer said, is put this template {{Translated page}} on the talk page. Note that it takes various parameters, some of which are required - you can see more information on how to format this template, what the parameters are, and which are mandatory here: Template:Translated_page. Hug^syrup 10:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup:. Thanks a lot!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Etoiledeneige (talk • contribs)

@Etoiledeneige: I placed the {{translated page}} template on Draft talk:Didier Gazagnadou for you. It would be ideal if you knew which version of the page on French Wikipedia you used, but it's not necessary.

Et si vous êtes plus confortable pour communiquer en français, laissez-moi un message sur ma page de discussion. Merci! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Neil Krug artist notable?

I am wondering if you find the artist Neil Krug notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. He has photographed numerous album covers for artists such a Lana Del Rey, Bonobo, Tame Impala, Glass Animals, and Unknown Mortal Orchestra. He has also filmed and photographed fashion shows such as Givenchy during the 2019 Paris Fashion Week.

Before I begin a page on him, I want to ensure that the artist Neil Krug meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Thanks!

Bonnie KB

References: https://www.neilkrug.com/ https://www.neilkrug.com/tame-impala https://www.neilkrug.com/lana-del-rey https://www.neilkrug.com/umo https://www.neilkrug.com/bonobo http://photoindex.net/neil-krug/ https://lanadelrey.fandom.com/wiki/Neil_Krug https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-krug-photographer-pr_b_4304697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonnie KB (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bonnie KB, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most of those links are to pages from Krug's own web site, so they do not contribute to notability at all. I could create a web site saying that I am the king of the world. That wouldn't make me King, nor would it make me notable (unless other wrote about how nutty i am). The Photoindex page is a very brief intro to Krug's pictures. The Huffington Post' article is mostly an interview with Krug, so it is his words, which don't count toward notability. Only the introductory section can count at all, and that is on the short side. It isn't what a person says about him- or herself, or even what a person does that makes the person notable, it is what others write about that person. See our guideline on the notability of biographical articles. it may well be that krug is in fact notable, but the above references do not demonstrate it. There need to be multiple Independent, professionally published reliable sources that discuss the article subject tin some depth and detail. That means not a person's own web site, or speeches, not the books or articles a person writes, not interviews with that person, not fan sites, blogs, or wikis, an not the sites of the person's employer, or business affiliates, or friends, or family members. Critical reviews of a creative person's work are often good, by independent critics, published in magazines, books, or newspapers, whether in print or online. Sources do not need to be online, or in English, although if they are, so much the better. Unless several such quality sources can be found, there cannot be a valid Wikipedia article, and nothing an editor can write here will change that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition to the "Coronet" article. How do I know it's been saved?

I was reading the article about the schooner yacht "Coronet" and tried to add some info b/c her builder was my great, great, great uncle. I've finished the addition, but I'm unable to find any verification that it's been submitted. How do I submit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swan4368 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Swan4368 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history shows no edits other than the above. You need to click "Publish changes"(which simply means "save changes") to submit your edit; it will need to be sourced to an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To expand a little on what 331dot says, Swan4368, I'm afraid that unpublished information, including personal knowledge and experience, cannot go into a Wikipedia article: our policy of verifiability says that everything must be based on a published source. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Supreme Court Case

I wish to add a Court Case that was first written about by a newspaper called The Star (Auburn). This court case made its way to the United States Supreme Court and is still cited today concerning the subject of Judicial Immunity.

What title can I use within the wikipedia page of the newspaper to add the history of this case. This case has its only wikipedia page.

Thank you for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tostrow (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tostrow. I'm a bit confused by your question, especially as you haven't helped us as you've omitted both the article name and link to the newspaper reference. There is already a page on The Star (Auburn). So you could write something along the following lines: "The case was first highlighted in (insert date) by a report in The Star (Auburn)" - and then follow it by citing the actualy reference to the newspaper article, or to a reliable sources which verifies that the Star was the first newspaper to bring the issue to wider attention. Does this help, or am I misunderstanding your question? (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.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tostrow. I'm not sure, but I think you're asking the reverse of what Nick answered: I think you are wanting to add some text to the article The Star (Auburn), about an important case which was first reported in that newspaper, right? I'm guessing that the case in question is Stump v. Sparkman: if so, you would link to that Wikipedia article simply by putting it in double brackets ([[Stump v. Sparkman]]); but in order to add anything to the Star article about it, you would need to cite a secondary source that said that the case was first reported in the Star. (While it would be possible to cite the Star's report on the case directly, if you have the necessary bibliographic information, doing so without a secondary source would be original research in my opinion). Does this answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Can i get references from Japanese websites to make an English article on a Japanese thing? Jtarvin (talk). 3:21 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: you can cite Japanese-language sources here. The important thing is that the source passes our standards for reliability. If you can find an English-language source that's just as good, you might consider using that instead, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: How do I make references? Jtarvin (talk). 3:21 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: Check out WP:REFB for how to do references. RudolfRed (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rudolfred: What if I can’t find any references? Jtarvin (talk). 11:23 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jtarvin. If there are no references to a subject, then it fails notability, and it is impossible to write an acceptable article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Colinfine: I don’t see any references in the Brave series article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtarvin (talk • contribs) 2019-10-23T18:07:14 (UTC)

You're right, Jtarvin, Brave series was tagged as lacking sources five years ago, and in an ideal world, either somebody would have added some sources, or it would have been deleted by now. You're welcome to nominate it for deletion if you think there are no sources to be found (I'm not interested enough to look myself). If that article were created or submitted for review now, it would not be accepted; but other stuff exists is never accepted as a relevant argument here.

By the way, thanks for pinging me; but pinging doesn't work if you don't sign your post (and you got my username wrong). --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I choose not to have it deleted. I want everybody to read that article because the Brave series is a very good, yet obscure franchise. And sorry for not signing. Jtarvin (talk). 12:22 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Do references just have to say where you got the information from? Jtarvin (talk). 12:40 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jtarvin, and welcome back to the Teahouse. When you cite a source in a Wikipedia article, you are telling the reader where the information came from, and you are also telling the reader where the information can be verified often a source is also a good place to look for additional information, but not always. Therefore a ciataion should include enough information that a reader could find it in a library,, a bookstore, or online, or in some other place. (Author, title, publication date, and publication name are usually wanted if possible, and page number for a printed source.) That is why all reliable sources must be published -- personal memory and unpublished letters and the like will not do here. see Referencing for Beginners for more on how to cite sources in articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So if I wanna write an English article on a Japanese show, can an article on said show from the Japanese version of Wikipedia be a source? Jtarvin (talk). 12:57 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if the source is reliable, and if a Japanese-fluent editor could find and read it, it can be used. Note that reliability standards vary between different Wikipedia editions, so the fact that the source was used in the Japanese Wikipedia does not automatically make the source acceptable here. If you are using citation templates, it is possible(and often a good idea, although never required) to include a translated quote from the source for the benefit of English-only readers. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC) @Jtarvin: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: Just to clarify, lest one of us has got the 'wrong end of the stick', you can use sources that a Japanese article has used, but you may not cite the actual Japanese Wikipedia article as your source here on English Wikipedia. That looked to be what you were suggesting by your follow-up question. Believe it or not, we do not regard any user-generated website as 'reliable', and that includes English Wikipedia, Japanese Wikipedia, or any other language version. You should also not just take 'on trust' the fact that a reference utilised on another article actually supports the statement you are making. You really should check that source for yourself. Nowadays online translation tools make that task a lot simpler. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Here are some of the only footnotes I found on Wikipedia Japan’s Baan Gaan article, and I do not kid:

1^ The family cannot confirm the situation in the play 2^ Spherion is already in captivity 3: Like Exkaiser and J-decker, it consists of a car and a large truck. 4^ Like the Great Goldran and Genesic Gaogaigar, Great Baan Gaan has big avian wings. 5^ Some media forms call him Magnum Bomber.

I’m paraphrasing but are these poor excuses for references and footnotes? Jtarvin (talk). 11:12 24 October 2019 (UTC)

When to remove a "dubious" tag

I just read the article on Ring Laser Gyroscope and agreed that a statement about the maximum dither rate indeed deserved the "dubious -- discuss" tag. I edited the section to fix the error and included my justification in a note (just after another note regarding the dubious info). Is that OK? Also, I just simply deleted the "dubious" tag. Is that OK? IrlSmith (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IrlSmith. Errm...that looks a bit too technical for me (I gave up electronics when they moved away from valves and started miniaturising those pesky transistor thingies!) That said, it looks to me like you've taken the right approach by leaving a hidden explanatory comment. However, it is often better to leave an explanation of your rationale on the talk page, which makes it more visible. Having address a 'dubious' tag, it's certainly fine to then remove it. If someone disagrees, they can always reinstate it. Thank you for contributing. Just bear in mind that it's fantastic to have experts contributing to articles, but we still need references to support factual statements. It can be tempting sometimes just to write from one's own personal skillset, rather than collate and summarise publicly accessible information on that particular topic. Hoping this brief reply is of some help. Do pop back if you need any further advice or support. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about drafts

Is it okay to accept or decline a draft if your not extended conformed or higher? CaillouFan (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WPAFC/P. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What should I do with user pages that would qualify for speedy deletion, but the content is in the edit summary?

Quite a few times now I have come across a person who attempts to put promotional material on their user page that would normally qualify the page for speedy deletion, but instead puts the page contents in the edit summary and makes the user page contents a short phrase which doesn't count as promotion. Does the page still qualify for speedy deletion? An example of this is at User:Ansababdullak. Merlin04 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have this question as well. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Merlin04 and MoonyTheDwarf: edit summaries are generally dealt with via revision deletion. However, the rules are pretty strict, and it takes a pretty egregious violation to delete an edit summary. If it's borderline, I'd just ignore it. People who habitually abuse edit summaries can still be blocked, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Merlin04, and welcome to the Teahouse. Welcome back, MoonyTheDwarf. In general, content in an edit summery is not a good reason to speedy delete a page. Nor is it an effective form of promotion. Search engines do not index it, and most readers will never see it -- only active editors usually examine the page history. If the summary is actually defamatory, represents a personal attack or a violation of WP:BLP or is a copyright infringement, it can be removed by any admin via revision deletion, or by a functionary through Oversight. But this is for only the most egregious cases. And even then, it does not usualy support deletion of the page. The oversight page explains how to email the relevant team -- do not normally attract attention to the dubious contnet by posting about it on-wiki. If it is not quite to that level, drop a note on the page of any active admin. If there is a pattern of the same user doing this often, raising the issue at WP:ANI or WP:AN may be a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC) @Merlin04: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How are you?

Everybody asks for your help - but nobody asks how you feel. How are you today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelvinFlycht (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

KelvinFlycht, Hi! I'm doing good, thanks. (Not a host, just someone who has teahouse watchlisted.) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Method to search for patterns in wikitext

I'm trying to search for specific patterns of wikitext to help identify cases similar to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Beulashaikh/sandbox, to see just how long these pages have been being created. Any idea on how? Trying to search for [[the]] in user space, in this case.

Thanks --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.). This search uses Help:Searching#linksto: and Help:Searching#insource:. The linksto part is for efficiency. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)