Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Help Wikipedia

Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg

For starters, it's pretty acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Landsmannschaft_Zaringia_Heidelberg Could you remove the word "draft" please. Wname1 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether Draft:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg meets en:Wikipedia's standard of notability, as I don't have access to any of the sources cited (and I know very little German). But the translation needs some work. E.g. "Fuchsband", "Vandal-Band", "couleur", "percussion", "rippon", "Bursche", "beat", "Mensur", "hit", "Diemerei". "Mensur" and "percussion" are wikilinked, but apparently to different senses of those words. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is your third attempt to create an article, and the other two, while accepted, still have tags indicating quality problems, I recommend you submit this draft to AfC and see what a reviewer thinks. Because of backlog of drafts, could be months before reviewed. Work on improving the draft. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible on Wikipedia to use a short Mensur video even though you don't know who made the Mensur video? Wname1 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be copyright infringement. And, do not bold comments. David notMD (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the current article acceptable? Wname1 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wname1 I am not a reviewer. The next step is to submit the draft. There is a backlog of thousands of drafts waiting for review. It is not a queue, so could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months before it is reviewed. If Declined, the reviewer will provide reasons why. Fix those, then submit again. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In comparison, these articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsmannschaft_Schottland and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_Saxo-Borussia_Heidelberg were probably simply accepted quickly. Although the Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg already looks sufficient for the start in the comparison of the 2 other articles. Wname1 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the article Draft: Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg now acceptable for removal from the Draft: Now? Wname1 (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Wname1 The draft has been submitted to Articles for Creation, for review by a Reviewer. I strongly recommend letting this process go forward. Given backlog, it can be days, weeks or (sadly) months for a review (the system is not a queue). Do not remove Comments. If Declined, do not remove the Declined notice before resubmitting. You have an option of by-passing AfC and converting this to an article directly. I recommend against this choice. All such are reviewed by New Pages Patrol, a separate group of reviewers. Their options are accept, return to draft, nominate for deletion (AfD) and Speedy Deletion. Lastly, the fact that other stuff exists does not guarantee acceptance. Among the millions of articles, there are tens of thousands that do not meet current standards. The examples you gave were created years ago, without having gone through AfC. That said, I believe Zaringia is notable, but the draft needs more work. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the used terms are explained under Couleur. "Perkussion" is a metal thread woven into the sides of the ribbon/band. Kallewirsch (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I had replaced "percussion" with "mantling" on a guess. Should be fixed. David notMD (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Upper band with perkussion in silver

I think that doesn´t hit the point. I placed a photo for example with two ribbons. The upper one has silver perkussion and is worn by normal members (Bursche), the lower one is without and worn by newbies (Fuchs).Kallewirsch (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Perkussion" is not defined in the Couleur article. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats why I explained it here. In the german version of the couleur article there is some more information. Not too long to use it for mechanical translation. Kallewirsch (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

See if perkussion now used correctly in article. David notMD (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Very good. The perkussion is the reason for the small stripes shown on images of the colours, have a look at this list. Most of these terms are rarely used outside the community or if, with a different meaning. Maybe a glossary or a list of these as an article at WP would be helpful. Kallewirsch (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to show a video from year 1913 on Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg page. This is a Sabre Mensur between Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg and Cheruskia. Do you know a video expert person on wikipedia? I tried it on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard, unfortunately it doesn't work. Thanks, Wname1 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have 6 or 5 such different videos form year 1913

File:VTS 01 2.webm

Mensur, 1913, Heidelberg, Zähringer

I accepted the draft. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the acceptance. Unfortunately, this user still exists: User: AntiCompositeBot / NoLicense on the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VTS_01_2.webm. How can this be clarified? Sorry I made a mistake, now it's right. Wname1 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag

DGG What should I do to remove the AntiCompositeBot? Wname1 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How can I publish in the main namespace an entry that is both in my Sandbox and in Draft?

After creating the Gianfranco Continenza entry in my User:Max Peltuinum/sandbox, as suggested to me, I moved it to Draft:Gianfranco Continenza. Since I think it is a good entry, how can I go about publishing it on the main namespace? Should I move the Sandbox or the Draft? Thank you.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Max Peltuinum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems Draft:Gianfranco Continenza is waiting for a review. I suggest working on something else until a reviewer gets to it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thanks for answering me. But I noticed that the counter in the Draft, since March 2021, continues to warn me that it will take 5 months or more because there are (still today) 4,151 submissions, even if about 4 months have already passed! I don't want to shorten the time, but I don't think it's right to have to wait indefinitely.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you say you "moved it to" draft, but you didn't, you copied it to draft. So there are now two rival versions of it. Having two versions of the same draft can lead to confusion – of anyone who wants to help improve it, of a reviewer, even of yourself. I would encourage you to delete, or at least blank, the version in your user space. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Perfect. Thank you! I thought I had done the "move" operation correctly. I cleared the sandbox. Can I do something to publish the Draft in the main namespace?--Max Peltuinum (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, in answer to your last question: I am not surprised that the draft has remained unreviewed for four months. and can advise you on how to make a review more likely. This is not "official" advice, it is based on my understanding of how things work.

Reviewing drafts is done by volunteer editors. It is a dull and thankless task. I would not be willing to do it myself; but I have great respect for those who do help Wikipedia in this way.

Imagine yourself in the position of a reviewer. The main issue with almost all submissions is whether the subject is notable; so she will need to check that there are several reliable independent sources with significant discussion of the subject.

• She finds a submission with no references. That's a quick fail.
• A submission with ten references. She starts checking them. Four of the first five are to sources which help to establish notability. Unless there's something else seriously wrong, that's an accept.
• A submission with five references. Only one of them helps to establish notability. That's a fail.
• A submission with 100 references. Four of the first six help with notability. That's an accept.
• A submission with 72 references. Some of the sources are inaccessible to her, of the first six that she can check, most are mere listings with no discussion and one is based on an interview with the subject and so not independent. She could wade through the rest of the references looking for evidence of notability; but she's not an automaton, she's a human being, and most likely she throws the submission back in the waiting list and finds a more productive use of her time.

You could encourage a faster review of your draft by making it easier for a reviewer to find the sources that establish notability (if there are any in there). You could do this by removing most or all of the references which have no discussion, or are not independent, or are to unreliable sources. Maproom (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Thanks so much for the tip. I think I have deleted all the references that the "checklinks utility" reported in blue (connection issue). No dead, suspicious, status or warn results. Can I move the draft to the main namespace? Anyone who wishes can contribute on the main namespace. I don't understand why the entry, of good quality, has to remain in draft to be revised almost exclusively by bots (I don't see many humans in the revision history). I fully understand that proofreading is long and tedious, which is why anyone can contribute anywhere, not just on drafts.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you've removed 6 references, and retained 66. That will have very little effect. If you actually have some good sources, and are serious about wanting the draft to be reviewed soon, I suggest you remove another 60. Maproom (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:First of all, thanks for reporting. I had entered all those references because this was suggested to me by the helpdesk on March 12, 2021 when I asked for help before moving the sandbox to the draft (I had actually only copied, thinking instead of having moved it). Then I even added others because there was a reviewer who did not find in the sources the confirmation of an assertion (but, in reality, the sources I cited already confirmed the assertion). I have now deleted half of the references. I am afraid to delete them all because there may be a reviewer who again disputes the absence of sources on some specific assertion. Anyone who deems it appropriate will be able to clean up, but I dare not undress my entry for the above reasons. Do you think that's enough to move the entry to the main namespace?--Max Peltuinum (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, you have a very common misunderstanding. A reviewer has told you the sources aren't good enough to establish notability; and instead of finding better sources, (maybe because you can't find any, maybe because the reviewer's report was poorly worded) you have found many more sources of even lower quality that the ones you started with. To get your draft into an acceptable state, you will need to find several (four will be enough) reliable independent published sources, in Italian if necessary, with in-depth discussion of the subject. Can you find four such sources? Maproom (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom:Thank you so much for your help. However, I note that not many living Italian guitarists are mentioned in at least 4 books, in various specialist journals with national and international circulation, and in the newspapers of various Italian regions. Even fewer among them are those of the jazz/fusion area that are known in Italy, Germany, Albania, Slovenia and the USA. As for references, before creating the draft I asked the Helpdesk for advice, and I was suggested to include references for each statement: that's why I entered so many. The reviewer who pointed out to me the absence of references regarding the Tower Records ranking had not noticed that in reality they were already present and were also of unequivocal quality (national and international magazines, newspapers and specialized websites). In any case, for greater confirmation of the assertion, I had added other sources without deleting the previous ones because it is not true that they do not confirm the assertion, and it is not true that they are not qualitatively suitable. For reasons that obviously I cannot know, the Tower.com website does not keep an archive of the rankings of its 2008 (or other years) sales, but on the other hand no record company website where records are sold has a similar archive. This kind of information can only be found "de relato", that is “through an indirect testimony”: in the present case it is constituted by an avalanche of articles that have appeared in specialized journals. As for the quality of the sources I have cited, I do not agree with your opinion: the ones I have kept are all of an excellent level, independent and authoritative, and can be consulted in any good library as well as (when they are not exclusively paper) on the Internet. I fully understand that over 70 references (suggested by the Helpdesk) may discourage many willing, but the 35 I have kept are necessary to attest to the encyclopedicity of the voice. On the other hand, reviewers should check if the biographical musician meets "at least one" of the criteria listed by Wikipedia (specifically, it meets 7!), If the entry does not violate the Wikipedia pillars and is sufficiently referenced, but not it seems to me that they are required to replace the community by preventing the publication of an entry that complies with the rules, judging independently whether a reference is authoritative or not: moreover, anyone can delete the references deemed redundant, or add new ones if lacking. All that clear, can I move the draft to the main namespace so anyone can contribute to it? Thanks for your invaluable help.--Max Peltuinum (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Max Peltuinum:, the draft only reaches the standard Wikipedia requires of an article if it cites several reliable independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. I have only checked a few of the sources, and none of those qualified (for instance, the first one I have access to has no discussion at all. I asked you above if you could find four acceptable sources; and you haven't responded. Maproom (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

.

@Maproom:First of all, the sources must not be detached from the sentence they refer to, as you did, otherwise they mean nothing. What you have taken into consideration is a "yearbook of music", that is of musicians, music conservatories, theaters, etc. (it is a very important publication in Italy) and certifies that Gianfranco Continenza founded the CMA: you can find it written to page 71 of the pdf. This is the purpose of this source. Secondly, I am not aware that national or international magazines need to be attached because anyone who wishes could consult them in any library (these are "serious" sources). In any case, even if I am not entirely convinced that it is ontologically correct according to the Wikipedia criteria, for the sole purpose of responding to your exhortation, in some references I have included the url to the respective pdf (if I wanted I could do it for all references, but I don't think it's necessary at all). Check the nos. 2, 5, 10, 17, 19, 20, 31 and 35.Thank you!--Max Peltuinum (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What was the rule that tells to cite the original article instead of yahoo, msn article(like for reuters)

On this talk page with Yae4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tor_Phone Greatder (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: Welcome to the Teahouse! I think WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT might be applicable. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I remember reading an WP article, but I can't remember the name --Greatder (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How to report someone who is adding various misrepresentative statements with references that cannot be checked

There is a person whom I've been interacting with repeatedly who continuously keeps adding content (regarding Islam) that promotes his own personal beliefs (as checked from his user page) with shady references that cannot be easily checked. For example, he keeps intentionally adding the idea of Iblis being a fallen angel as being a part of Islamic beliefs at the very top of a list with a reference from some French book without any ISBN or online link. The overwhelming of the 1.6 billion Muslims alive do not believe in this. He does not add clarifications as to which sect believes in this and does not make distinctions between the sects. The article Dajjal is a very good article in this regard which clarifies the beliefs of the different sects whereas the article Iblis is the exact opposite. The ideas are so convoluted that a reader will not be able to understand which sect believes in what clearly. Wikipedia is one of the most widely used encyclopaedia websites if not the most widely used one. Is it supposed to be some platform for self-promotion of such individuals? Such absurd mix-up will confuse people. Furthermore, he does not even seem to understand the English language when he is opposed but can clearly make legible edits on Wikipedia. I am a Sunni Muslim and such ideas are misrepresenting us! He keeps claiming that I am influenced by Salafism while he himself seems to promote what would be considered as clear-cut heretical ideas to Sunni Muslims. I am frustrated to such an extent that I cannot express it in words... Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: welcome to the Teahouse. The first and primary place to discuss the content of an article is that article's talk page, in this case Talk:Iblis. Please remember to assume good faith, that it, assume that editors who don't agree with you are nevertheless here to improve the encyclopedia. Your posts to Talk:Shaitan#images are a bit too confrontational and focus on the other editor and (what you assume to be) that editor's personal beliefs and opinions, rather than on whether specific sources or content meets Wikipedia's policies. If you are not able to reach a consensus on the article talk page, there are other venues to request third opinions or dispute resolution, but you can't do that before even trying to discuss it on the article talk page. Remember that there is no requirement that a source be available online, and that in itself does not make a source "shady"; also remember that ISBN is a relatively modern feature, and a book published before the 1970s will probably not have an ISBN. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Someone who keeps accusing me of Salafism is going to be confronted in such a manner. The accusations and confrontation regarding beliefs started on the side of the person being spoken of with me being on the receiving end. I hope that can also be seen very clearly. S/he does not even seem to be capable of differentiating between the theology of Sunni Orthodoxy and that of "Salafism". The other editor does feature that belief on his user page as a "fact" about Islam. It does matter because he is biased towards that understanding and his editing reflects that in that he preferred to feature that belief in the Wikipedia page about Iblis as well. In doing so, he is misrepresenting both Islam and Sunni Muslims on a platform like Wikipedia. The wikipedia article is not his personal blog where he can present things however he wants. He did update the citation with an ISBN after the previous reversion. No, it's not dated before 1970 and the book seems to be by a modernist reformist of Islam. His beliefs do not represent the mainstream and accepted beliefs of the Sunni Orthodoxy. The difference should be made clear in a nature similar to that of the article Dajjal so that the audience understands whose beliefs these are and are not misinformed!
Check:

1. https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/107284/is-iblis-really-from-the-jinn-why-is-iblis-blaming-allah-for-leading-him-astray/
2. https://islamqa.org/hanafi/mahmoodiyah/53564/who-is-satan-3/

- Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about template (idea?)

Good day. Is there a template where I can see my most recent contribution? I want to specifically put one on my user page. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 17:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: I don't know of a template, but you could put a link to your contribution history Special:Contributions/SsSsSølarRadia_-75. You could also propose it if you have more detailed thoughts of just how the edit would display. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@SsSsSølarRadia -75: Possibly {{UserContribs2}}, but it is a little confusing to me. RudolfRed (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Probably not that but thanks for a suggestion. Close, but not really of what I was looking for. Here is what I got in mind as a template doesn't exist. A box, border thing that surrounds what is inside. The template would automatically show the user's most recent contribution in the template, with a link to that contribution. The words that make up the link would be the contribution's reason.

You can use {{Special:Contribs/SsSsSølarRadia -75|limit=25}} Zoozaz1 talk 02:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a very neat idea, Zoozaz1, that I've just experimented with on my own User Page. However, it generates the list as it was when the edit was saved and doesn't subsequently update when the page is visited after a subsequent edit elsewhere. Hence it doesn't quite do what SsSsSølarRadia -75 wanted: the behaviour would need to be more dynamic, like {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{formatnum:{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}|R}}-0}}}} which gives the current number of articles (as 7,023,723) and will increment automatically. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought it updated automatically; if you look at my sandbox it should include this edit. Zoozaz1 talk 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Amusingly, after reverting my own change to my user page, I looked at the OID for the version where the page includes that template[1]. In invoking the OID, one sees the current list of recent edits, not the list that was saved when the edit itself was made, so this type of template is actually able to mislead about what was on a page in the past! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1:. This is really weird! As you say, the template updates automatically when placed within your (or my sandbox) but the identical template placed on my User Page does not: it persists in the state when saved to the page. I thought that this might be something to do with browser caching but that seems not to be the case as the two versions are now different even after closing and re-opening my browser. On the other hand, invoking the OID (above) 'does the update and gives the latest version! Any thoughts? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That is bizarre. I really don't have a clue as to why that's happening. Zoozaz1 talk 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Further observation leads me to a possible answer: it takes some time for User Contributions to be updated on the various servers that the WMF use. Hence, while you can invoke the true current set using Special:Contributions for a given user, it takes a while (up to 20 minutes in my trials) for a given new edit to be reflected by using the template on another page. So, bottom line is that Zoozaz1's suggestion does indeed provide what SsSsSølarRadia -75 wanted, with a possible lag when implemented.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have implanted the template to my user page. Yes, the template is causing a delay for the most recent one, but it sure does work! | Also unrelated to this topic, but do you guys get notifications from my new messages? No one was responding by the hour from my previous. -Solarrrr... Send a message to Solar? Tappy tap tap! ⏰Time: 19:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Linking copyrighted materials on Internet Archive

Recently, I had nominated Mariner 1 for G.A. and the reviewer recommended changing several of the citations to include links to copyrighted materials on the Internet Archive (and, indeed, commercially available material). I have trouble with this practice as IA is rather liberal with what it puts online, and though they are great organization (to whom I've donated quite a lot), I have trouble endorsing their abuse of Fair Use.

Has there been any consensus on this? --Neopeius (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Neopeius, I don't know of any discussions on this, but that's not to say there haven't been any. I think this is a topic where reasonable minds can differ, and I certainly don't think it should hold up a GA. I would note that I did a quick check of the Aviation Week 1962-02-05 source for a copyright notice, and I didn't immediately see one. If they weren't printing copyright notices in that magazine, it is legitimately public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CalliopeJen! :) There is a copyright notice on page5. That alone does not guarantee copyright for items published before 1964 unless copyright was renewed, which the LoC suggests it was. In any event, best to err on the side of caution. --Neopeius (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

which came first the chicken or the egg

 Josh168mcfc (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Josh168mcfc, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a forum for asking for help about using and editing Wikipedia, not for questions unrelated to those topics. That said, the egg came first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I asked Siri and he noted that there are egg timers, but no chicken timers. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:565:D9B3:211B:F1CD (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazon sells chicken timers. GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Josh168mcfc. Try looking this up in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The article you want is here: Chicken or the egg.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

What the?

Why when I reverted this IP users edit it gave me the longest edit summary ever? 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure I did not accidentally add the extra zeros yourself? Anton.bersh (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh: I didn't add them. I just pressed the right arrow key and it gave me the longest edit summary ever. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@JennilyW: Then I recommend you file a bug report as described on Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. Wikipedia is powered by Wikimedia software, which (like any software) has some ocasional bugs. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated Wikipedia entry on Dharampal as part of the centenary celebrations

Let me preface the question by stating that this is my first attempt to dialog with the Wiki community and I am here to understand and solve a problem related to the publication of an entry as given in the subject.

My student, Aishwarya Sudheendra had, over the last few weeks, made changes to the Wikipedia entry on Dharampal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharampal) with a version that we believe is more complete in terms of a summary of his life and work, appropriate references, and a photograph sourced from his daughter, Gita Dharampal. However, it appears that her edits have been removed. I also remember hearing that she was given a warning that persistence with its publication would lead to being barred from the platform.

I would like to know what the objections to the content she uploaded are and how one may go about resolving each of the objections. I plan to do this myself hopefully with helpful suggestions and hints from you. This task is very important to some of us (numbering around 80 or a 100) who - as students of Dharampal spread over India - are celebrating 2021-22 as the birth centenary year of Dharampal through a series of articles, seminars and the like across different platforms. As part of the celebrations, it was felt that an updated profile of Dharampal in Wikipedia would go a long way in promoting his work on India of the past and his vision for its future.

I request your help in helping me navigate these editorial waters till completion.

Dr. JK Suresh Jksuresh (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jksuresh, welcome to the teahouse, the edits contains Copyvio issues https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1027012907&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Justiyaya (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand more on my last reply, Wikipedia doesn't publish text taken/copied from a copyrighted source, but using copyrighted works as a citation, and explaining the information in the copyrighted work in your own way is allowed. WP:COPYVIO probably offers a better explanation. Justiyaya (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks for responding so speedily to my SoS. I do hope I can provide a lengthy response later. At this time, a quick glance at the copy violation tool's output (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1027012907&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0) seems to indicate that the violations are classifiable into three types which I have described below. While some of the text needs rewriting, it may be noted that some of the problems may also have been an outcome of the fact that this article has been worked upon by several people, some of whom are authors of the cited works or editors of their compilations (e.g., Gita Dharampal, M.D. Srinivas, C.N. Krishnan, etc).

I will certainly come back with a more comprehensive response that takes into consideration all the violations that are indicated in the next few days’ time.

I do hope that I will continue to receive your inputs to resolve all pending issues completely.

Types of violations cited by the tool

=====================================

(a) commonly used phrases and clauses to describe a person. Examples:

(i) “…thinker, historian and political philosopher”,

(ii) ”… of the cultural, scientific and technological achievements of Indian society on the eve of the British conquest”

(iii) “Gandhiji’s call for Individual Satyagraha in October 1940”,

(iv) “…At the time of Partition, he was put in charge of the Congress Socialist Party centre for the rehabilitation of refugees from West Pakistan, and came in close contact with Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya and Ram Manohar Lohia, as well as with numer¬ous younger friends, such as L.C. Jain, in Delhi. He was also a founding member of the In¬dian Cooperative Union set up in 1948.”)

(b) Excerpts from Dharampal’s works that are rephrased and therefore not placed within quotation marks. Examples:

(i) “These schools were described as teaching a sophisticated curriculum, with daily school attendance by about 30% of children aged 6-15 years. Interestingly, the majority of students belonged to communities who were classed as Shudras or even lower. Further, in some areas, for instance in Kerala, Muslim girls were quite well represented.”

(ii) The British Origin of Cow-Slaughter in India (2002),[ii] besides providing historical evidence about the genesis of mass cow-slaughter under British auspices, presents extensive documentary material about one of the most significant resistance movements in India against kine-killing by the British during the years 1880-1894.[iii] By highlighting the participation of prominent Muslims in this mass protest as well as by emphasizing the crucial fact that it was the British, and not the Muslims, who were the main consumers of beef, Dharampal is able to dispel one of the deep-seated myths perpetuated to reinforce divisive colonial strategies.[iv]

(c) in respect of the list of published books. Example:

(i). 1. Dharampal, Panchayat Raj as the Basis of Indian Polity: An Exploration into the Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly (with a foreword by Jayaprakash Narayan), AVARD, New Delhi, 1962; reprinted in: Dharampal, Collected Writings, Other India Press: Mapusa 2000 (reissued 2003 & 2007), vol. IV, pp. 1-95; also in Dharampal Classics Series, ed. J.K. Bajaj and M.D. Srinivas, Vol. 1, Rashtrotthana Sahitya: Bengaluru and Centre for Policy Studies: Chennai, 2021. Translations into Gujarati and Hindi in Dharampal Samagra Lekhan (11 vols.), ed. Indumati Katdare, Punarutthan Trust, Ahmedabad 2005 and 2007, respectively. Jksuresh (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jksuresh, I have not read the additions made by AishwaryaSudheendra, but I have glanced at them; and at least some of this material looks worthwhile if it is not problematic in terms of copyright. (Immediately above, Justiyaya says that it is problematic.) The addition was most recently reverted by Njd-de, who commented "These additions still need reliable sources as references". Again, I haven't examined the sources, but I have glanced at the descriptions of some of them, and these look worthwhile. I'll assume for now that they were cited competently and honestly (that they indeed say what they are represented as saying). A very obvious problem is that the [technical] method by which they are cited is hard to use and avoided in English-language Wikipedia. To explain by example: What an editor intended to be the fifth reference was indexed with ^[5]. This resulted in a superscripted "[5]" but no link from it: the reader had to guess that it would be explained below, scroll down to see it, and then scroll up again. There are various approved ways to add references, but one that's commonly used and fairly easy to understand is exemplified by <ref>Dharampal, ''Civil Disobedience in Indian Tradition: With Some Early Nineteenth Century Documents'' (Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan, 1971), p.37.</ref>. What comes between "<ref>" and "</ref>" is automatically turned into a reference, numbered, and positioned. (Any renumbering that later is required is also executed automatically.) ¶ As for the image, this edit says that it was deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a "Copyright violation". NB deletion as a "Copyright violation" is not something that only happens to clear violations of copyright; it also happens to material that seems likely to violate copyright. I don't know how the image was described when it was uploaded, but it must be absolutely clear that there is no copyright impediment. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding for me Hoary, I'm now genuinely unsure if the edits count as copyvio. here it shows 93.4% similarity, but it is possible that the tool got it wrong somehow. Jksuresh, if there are no copy right issues with the text, there is still major manual of style of issues, I would suggest (again if you're sure there is no copyvio issues) adding more citations, cleaning up the text in general, then republishing the edit. Justiyaya 11:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am amazed at the speed and clarity of response, for which I am very thankful. I will indeed run over the text with a fine toothcomb, ensure that the style issues and IP concerns (if any) are adequately addressed, and then perhaps get back to the business of submitting it again for publication, perhaps after a few days. Thanks once again, Dr. JK Suresh. Jksuresh (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Does my draft follow WP:NPOV?

If yes, can someone please approve my draft? And if no, please tell me the errors. Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, you have (or someone has) submitted it. The template at the top tells you "Review waiting, please be patient." So please be patient. As for "NPOV", I notice "prestigious Fifth Avenue" and "emblematic store": these are examples of what is what's called peacock prose hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have removed such terms from the draft as said above. Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: please do not edit your posts when somebody has already responded to them. Your first post above said "can someone please submit", and after Hoary's response you changed it to "can someone please approve". Since you have submitted the draft, it is currently waiting for review. NPOV is still an issue, and even more of an issue is the fact that parts of is are impossible to understand. Did you use a machine translation when you translated ? Never add machine translated text to Wikipedia unless you then revise the text very thoroughly. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tati is selling bazaars? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As per the mistakes pointed out by users Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Bonadea and Hoary, I have revised my article and edited all that content I feel was difficult to understand or wasn't cited properly. I am still a bit anxious if it has mistakes. (I'll take care of the point that I don't edit my posts when somebody has already responded to them.) Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that Teahouse hosts are not necessarily AfC reviewers. I agree the English is still awkward in parts, and needs work, while waiting for a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting also that we have only a handful of active AfC reviewers and many thousands of drafts pending review (with several hundred added to the pile each day), so a lack of response is generally nothing to do with you or your draft. It's just that we're very overwhelmed as reviewing is a very difficult task that brings you much negative feedback and little reward. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Making audiobook for articles

I want to make audiobooks for other articles similar to this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asteroid_Belt.ogg Where can I find the rules/protocols to follow while making these audiobooks for Wikipedia? Astroriya (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

Please delete this file: File:Jeannette Charles.jpg, as it is against Wikipedia's non-free media policy. Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 09:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Explicit, it looks like. — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

report of edit warring at PIT maneuver

There must be some simpler way to report edit warring than to try following the directions at WP:Edit warring ... or perhaps this explains why people prefer to continue edit warring rather than seeking a resolution.

Anyway, I'm reporting edit warring at PIT maneuver. The offending user is User:AthensBureau, whose edits adding unsourced content have been reverted by 4 other editors. This has been going on since the unsourced content was added by User:Athensfbi in this pair of edits from 1 May 2021. Please stop the insanity! Fabrickator (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fabrickator I have blocked the user. Twinkle makes the edit warring report process easier. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: WP:ANEW is the appropiate noticeboard for edit-warring. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with biography article

What should I improve in this article, I thought I found enough information and link to prove it's legitimate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oleksii_Levchenko  Anna Bedlam (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Anna Bedlam, we read at the start that he's "Ukrainian actor, blogger, radio and television host". How is he in any way remarkable as an actor, as a blogger, or as a radio or television host? (The article doesn't appear to say.) Where is the in-depth coverage, in reliable, independent, published sources? (Incidentally, does he prefer the Ukrainian form of his name or the Russian form? It looks as if you've provided the former in Roman script and the latter in Cyrillic script, although I may well be making a mistake.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a much stricter condition than "legitimate"—we only host articles on notable topics, a jargon word for depth and substance of coverage in reliable independent sources. Find as many sources as you can about the person. Make sure that the article conveys why this person is more important than the majority of actors, bloggers or presenters, who are not notable. What awards have they won? What have newspapers written about them? Did they found a successful enterprise or invent a specialist technique or style that has caught on? — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of edits regarding hydroxytyrosol

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

---

I would like to discuss and understand why the content of the Hydroxytyrosol page is being controlled by a single editor and why very conservative edits are being continually deleted. I do not understand why material which is judged to be factually correct and subjected to peer review in high quality journals is being rejected. I do not understand why material which is relied upon by medical professionals in online drug databases is considered 'speculative nonsense' and being removed. I do not understand why material published by the National Cancer Institute within the US National Institute of Health is questioned by a Wikipedia editor and then removed without even providing any comments. The approach is offensive and has resulted in there being very limited infomation on this compound in Wikipedia.

I have tried to make improvements in good faith, without ever having any commercial agenda. I find it disheartening that I am being accused of having such an agenda. If you care to search my edits of that page, you will find that I have not made any such edits. I have never tried to add anything of a commercial nature. There seems to be a policy of alienating people that try and be helpful, rather than cooperating to produce a high quality page which is useful to the general public. Jbtuk (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Jbtuk (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jbtuk, this is a content dispute. The right place for such discussions is the talk page of the article. I see that Zefr has opened a discussion there, and you haven't responded. Maproom (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you have added was rightfully reverted as not complying with WP:MEDRS, which has been explained to you. I see that extensive explanations for Zefr's actions were made at User talk:Jbtuk, including more than one warning, all of which you have deleted. As Maproom wrote, the proper place for a discussion on the article is the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, that Jbtuk and User talk:WackerHBT2 (who has only been editing the article in question) have both been asked to reply to a query about conflict of interest. J deleted the query from own Talk and W has so far ignored it, while both have been adding disputed content to the article in question. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I started by posting reasonable requests to that persons page directly and I got no response. He then posted messages to my page that he was going to 'report' me. There seems to be a complete bias in your approach. You are happy to ignore the comments that I make to him, but you then say that he has reported me. I am really confused when somebody who adds genuine content in good faith is 'reported'. Perhaps that is why the page is so bad. Many people have tried to add content, but they are upset by being 'reported'. Your approach is against the very principles that I thought Wikipedia stood for. Your approach drives away contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbtuk (talk • contribs) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by definition a trailing indicator of scientific accomplishments. Your desire to add descriptions of ongoing research, or any results from what Wikipedia considers premature research - including in vitro research, animal research, and the results from individual clinical trials - does not conform with Wikipedia policy. Many academic researchers who are used to the idea that all research results have value are disappointed to learn that Wikipedia has chosen to be consistently conservative as to what it allows as content. You also made a not very veiled threat on Zefr's Talk page, which Z moved to your Talk page (and you deleted): "If necessary, we will be asking authoratitave presentations to mentioned the disinformation on Wikipedia, which has been provided by non-experts such as yourself and to discredit it." Hence being 'reported'. Persist down this path and the consequence can be being indefinitely blocked from editing specific articles, or from all editing. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely no understanding of what this 'conflict of interest' stuff you've posted is about, nor do I have any idea of what a 'Talk' page. To be honest, the whole exercise has been an unpleasant one and I have decided to abandon making any more contributions to Wikipedia. It is just too much effort and then you get accused of doing things. Please mention ONE commercial post that I made and explain to me why content from the best cancer research institutions in the world are rejected. This is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbtuk (talk • contribs)

I will use small words: If you are a researcher who has conducted scientific research on hydroxytyrosol and you want to edit the article Hydroxytyrosol, that is a conflict of interest. A simple statement to that effect should be placed on your User page. WP:COI provides a form, but its use is not required. This applies even if you do not intend to cite your own journal articles. A conflict of interest does not require a financial involvement such as with a dietary supplement company that markets hydroxytyrosol. As a PhD nutritional biochemist with a career in industry (now retired), I had myself made COI statements as needed. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Can't find essay

I'm looking for an essay on not using in the world in articles, but can't find it. ―Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess it could be seen as WP:FLOWERY in some contexts. It's not uncommon: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I believe it was by EEng, and I think one example contains eagle scouts? ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks, that was it! ―Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Reinstating an article

The Wiki article that relates to myself has been removed for some reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqar_Mohammad (there is no article relating to me {Waqar} in this page anymore) 2A02:C7F:CC41:9300:500C:A5DA:B956:1542 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the outcome of the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Mohammad. Wikipedia only hosts articles on topics which are "notable"—a jargon word referring to the number of reliable, in-depth, independent sources available. The community has decided that this condition is not met, and so we won't host a biographhy of you. (It's not meant to be a personal slight or an insinuation that you haven't achieved great things; we're just an encyclopedia with a very specific scope.) The page has been redirected to List of Warwickshire Cricket Board List A players, where you are listed. — Bilorv (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There are several players listed on that page who's biography remains on Wiki despite having exactly the same details and sources etc as mine. Happy to add additional details to make my page worth another review, so how would this be possible?

Please read WP:OSE. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to pitch in and help, you are welcome to help us identify other inappropriate articles for possible action. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Rather than remove another 10+ articles from the same page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warwickshire_Cricket_Board_List_A_players (which you can do if they don't meet the policy) it would be better to make these articles more worthwhile and useful to Wiki readers. I would suggest the option of reinstating the deleted article (Waqar Mohammad) within that page and giving the opportunity to present better content within that article and the others on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:CC41:9300:A577:4BC0:E8C1:29B3 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Better content would require sources, but the article was redirected because of a lack of them. Are you able to suggest any? Wikipedia's notability requirements dictate that we need substantial, independent coverage, which in your case could be profiles in newspapers or perhaps cricket magazines. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so the suggestion is to include the content that used to be at Waqar Mohammad in that list, and do the same with the other non-notable pages and redirect them? This does seem like a reasonable way forwards. In the case of the former article about you, very little of the material actually appears to have been sourced, so we can't include that without better sourcing, but I've added a sentence to the list. I would suggest that you could redirect and move some content to the list on any players with similarly-little sourcing as Waqar Mohammad had—but looking down the first few, they're all at least slightly different situations sourcing-wise. I can't implement all of your suggestion in full because it would literally take me several hours, and I'm not going to bump something off my high-priority list for this. — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my query. I have a few links I could immediately find below, but can share more and obviously add textual content that would be of interest to read and share. Please let me know how this can be achieved in order for the article to be reinstated once approved: ESPNCricinfo Player Profile https://www.espncricinfo.com/player/waqar-mohammad-17899 Player stats (selected games) https://staffordshirecricket.play-cricket.com/player_stats/batting/12452?rule_type_id=179&sub_tab=batting_summary&tab=batting Player stats (selected games) https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/earlswoodcricketclub/teams/98092/player/waqar-mohamed-969142/19043 Player stats (selected games) https://waterorton.play-cricket.com/player_stats/batting/4526569?rule_type_id=179 Wazir Mohammad (father) Pakistan's oldest living cricketer https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/803728-wazir-mohammad-pakistans-oldest-living-test-cricketer B'ham Evening Mail newspaper article https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoMe2qThpkcaiW4pJzEwtzfuEXgL Extensive profile on CricketArchive - but this is subscription only Thanks again.

The problem is that most of these are just lists of statistics, which is routine coverage rather than the sort of in-depth biographical coverage required by WP:NBIO. The article about Wazir Mohammad is the sort of coverage that helps demonstrate notability, but it's about Wazir Mohammad. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but these were references and sources that you asked for. As I mentioned above, I can provide the written content that would warrant inclusion but don't know how to have the article reinstated in order to add said content. And still don't understand the basis on which around 10 profiles on the same page are still there if the criteria applied to the article in question is applied equally in those cases. However, as already said before, I'd rather have this article reinstated correctly - in line with making it interesting - than just delete more articles. I just need the access to add the content!

Strange coincidence or not?

I've noticed that the items in the 'Did you know...' section of today's Main_Page - Friday 3 July, UK edition - all have a strong connection to Israel and/or Jewish culture.

They are:

- an elephant in Israel conceived through artificial insemination
- a Jewish cantor saved from a Nazi firing squad
- a street in Jerusalem
- a nurse at a hospital in Jerusalem
- a band that plays rock and bluegrass with Jewish lyrics
- the actor Topol who played in 'The Fiddler on the Roof'
- a verse from Psalm 85
- an Israeli midwife known as Bambi

Is there any specific reason for this or is it simply an almost incredible coincidence? 85.210.138.34 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there 85.210, no this isn't a coincidence. In memory of one of the most prolific, if not the most prolific, contributors ever to WP:Did you know's passing in March, Yoninah, all hooks today are related to Jewish culture. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Thanks for the clarification, Berrely.

It's also English edition, not UK edition. en.wp does not have separate editions for America, Canada, England, India, Australia, etc. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the information, Jéské Couriano.

Question from a new editor

Hi I am a new editor and I am a little confused as to the procedures for editing. Specifically, how and when to use talk pages. Also I was wondering if I need to know coding to edit on here because I'm really confused at all the requirements and things that seem like coding to me. And sorry one last thing, am I supposed to create my own user page or something?  PurpleIsTheBestColour (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@PurpleIsTheBestColour: Welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your questions:

• Talk pages for articles are used to discuss how to improve the article and address any issues that get in the way of doing so. They are not places to discuss the subject generally.
• Articles can be edited with the visual editor, but keep in mind that it doesn't work on every page here; learning how to use wikitext will be beneficial for you.
• You are not obligated to create your own user page; if you're thinking about making one, give this page a to learn more. Some long-time users don't create one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PurpleIsTheBestColour, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your question about Talk pages: if you want to make a change that you think is going to be uncontroversial (eg correcting a spelling mistake (but be aware of WP:ENGVAR) or an obvious error, adding well-sourced information, or adding a missing source) you can go ahead and edit the article without discussing it on the Talk page. But if you think your change may be controversial, it's a good idea to open a discussion on the talk page first. If you do make an edit and somebody disagrees with it, they will usually revert your edit, and you can then open a discussion with them: see WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk)

Every editor has their own Talk page. This is for making article-related comments to that person. You are within your rights to delete content from your own Talk page, but do not edit and leave up what other people have posted, nor change your content if someone has subsequently posted. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating references can by difficult for beginners. I recommend WP:Referencing for beginners, and practicing in your own Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about coding. There are all sorts of bits of mark-up text that appear in articles, but a lot of help is available. One of the most commonly found, most important, and most useful bits of code-like mark-up, is the material found between <ref> tags. But you don't have to write this yourself! At the top of the editor, you will see a line of tools including, at the right-side, "Cite". Make sure this is selected, and then on the second line, at the left side, you will see "Templates". You can click on this, and choose whether your source is a book, a web-page etc., and a window will pop up in which you can enter as much information as you can, and the system will write the proper reference "code" for you. There's a preview button so you can check it looks sensible. For other templates (things in curly brackets) I find it can be helpful to look for an example as used in another article, and copy it, modifying the details as necessary. (In any case, if you're making larger edits, or contemplating writing a new article, it's a really good idea to find a good-quality article on a similar topic, to use as a general guide. It will show you the sorts of sections that should be included, and how the whole thing should be formatted. If you don't get it all right, don't panic. Quite often a bot or a friendly, experienced editor will add bits that ought to have been there, or correct minor mess-ups. The main thing is to make sure your basic text is good, and backed up with reliable references). Elemimele (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References without links

Is it permissible to include a citation without a link? I have a reference I want to include but cannot find an online version of the article to link it to.

ProfessorKaiFlai ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is, ProfessorKaiFlai. References do not have to be available online as long as they have been reliably published; and even if they are available online, a URL is often a convenience, not an essential part of the reference. See WP:CITE. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Good news, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorKaiFlai (talk • contribs)

Is it okay to add links to support groups re: a syndrome?

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia (evidently). I created the following Wikipedia page for a condition called slipping rib syndrome. I am trying to build upon it with as much knowledge and information re: slipping rib syndrome as I possibly can, so others who possibly have the condition can get all the information they need. I figured, it may also be beneficial for those who may have the condition to add additional resources as to where they can get support, which there is a reddit and a facebook page dedicated to this condition. When I added these in, I received a big red notice stating Facebook isn't a reliable resource. Would adding these links as I did to the page still be appropriate on Wikipedia? Also, any insight/advice regarding the article and what I have done so far is appreciated. Thank you all! Jebbles (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jebbles and welcome to the Teahouse! Draft:Slipping_Rib_Syndrome#Additional_Resources is what's usually (not always) under "External links" here. Content like this has it's own guideline, WP:EL. On the face of it, this seems to be WP:USERG opinions/comments by interested netizens, and IMO that's not good enough for inclusion. WP:EL mentions "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material" and while it's possible your links have that, it seems a clear risk that they don't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for replying! I'm hoping this ping works. So inputting the subreddit and facebook group for external links would not be appropriate in a wikipedia article? Would the same apply to a forum about slipping rib syndrome? I also want to clarify for other comments: the subreddit/facebook is NOT being used for reference. The article was also declined because it has too many empty sections and because of incorrect style (I thought I had 5 months of wait!), I'm reading the MOS page but it is overwhelming as I am new to everything here on Wikipedia. If I would like help/assistance editing the article before I resubmit with more information, would this talkspace area be the spot where I can ask on people to help edit it to make sure it is the correct style? Thank you again. :) Jebbles (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jebbles:. You might like to read WP:MEDRS, which explains why Wikipedia insists on higher standards of sourcing for articles related to medicine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jebbles: I suspect that the subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article. But you'll need better sourcing to establish this. (A link to a Reddit page would probably not be acceptable in any article; certainly not a medical one.) Maproom (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To and?

In this bit acting as both a sequel to and spin-off from the series should there be a comma after the to? Govvy (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy hi! WP:RDL takes these kinds of questions, FYI. Teahouse is more "please respect ENGVAR when editing Wikipedia" kind of place. IMOHO as a non-native, because there are only two items, there shouldn't be any commas there even if you were using oxford commas. That said, I am not even sure whether these are just items or clauses. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Without further context, a comma isn't needed as it's a two-item list (and it's one clause). I presume the confusion comes from the prepositions attached to the nouns? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: Though a comma after to is not necessary, if you did decide to include one, a comma after from would be needed as well. Deor (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about an infinitive attached to a verb, but my English is not the best. Govvy (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason it reads peculiarly and feels as though it might need a comma is because after 'to' the reader expects immediately to find what it's a sequel to. So you feel you need a comma to simulate the pause that someone would make in reading the sentence aloud. But in this case you could perhaps circumvent the problem by writing ... acting as both a sequel to the series, and a spin-off. If you don't feel happy leaving the spin-off like that, you could end ..., and a spin-off from it. but I don't think that's strictly necessary. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Logos

The Lahore museum page is using an image of this logo. I want to upload several museum logos but what resolution should the image be at for it to be considered fair use? Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 15:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

JSeb05, go ahead and upload (non-free file, This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use etc). A bot will come by and fix unacceptable resolution, example: [3]. Note though that the articles for which the logo is intended must be in mainspace already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

JSeb05, See WP:Image resolution "At the low pixel count end of the range, most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels),..." S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Slavery image wrongly titled

This image: with the text: "Adalbert of Prague accuses Jews of the Christian slave trade against Boleslaus II" is wrong as it is actually this: "St Adalbert of Prague pleads with Boleslaus II for the release of Christian slaves, Gniezno Cathedral door".

Please change the text below this image from the article as it is wrong, biased, and misleading. רונן סיגן (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@רונן סיגן: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to discuss that over at Talk:Slavery with interested editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Transfer from Sandbox to Publish Article

I've written an article in Sandbox and now want to Publish it. I've looked all around and instructions say to find the dropdown column above (between the star and Page, and there should be a dropdown column with the word Move. I have no such dropdown column nor any word "move". This is very frustrating. Can someone help on this. I'm new to Wikipedia Article writing and boy, they don't make it easy. Thank you, JLK Jeffrey Lee Kaufman (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeffrey Lee Kaufman: See Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft for your options, however, I can tell you that if this would end up in mainspace, it would be quickly moved back. Wikipedia may not be used as a source for Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffrey Lee Kaufman. An account must be autoconfirmed in order to move draft articles to the main space. That means the account must be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits. Your draft is not ready for the encyclopedia because it fails to show that this record label is a notable business. You cannot use one Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article. Read WP:CIRCULAR. Please also read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffrey Lee Kaufman. I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time: but I'm afraid that that is the common experience of new editors who plunge straight into one of the most difficult tasks there is in editing Wikipedia. They don't make building a house easy either, or playing a concerto. Creating a Wikipedia article is perhaps not in the same league as those; but it is much harder than it looks, and in my view a new editor trying to create an article is like a music student who has had a couple of lessons, and tries to play a concerto. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before they try it. As well as being less stressful for them, this will actually add far more to the total value of Wikipedia than most first attempts at new articles do. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Before I put this in article space.

Before I put this in article space I've been working very hard on a new article about maid abuse. Soon, I am going to put it in article space. Before I do, however, I'd love a bit of feedback on it so I may improve it more. It's here in my sandbox. Helen (let’s talk) 18:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks nice Machinexa (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: Presuming references 1 & 7 are two websites pointing to the same article, I suggest you combine them with all the info about the journal. References 5 & 8 are bare URLs - you can add citation templates. References 9 & 11 have incorrect |last=|first= values. You could also wikilink each organization mentioned in your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@HelenDegenerate: Yes, it's not bad at all. I suggest emphasising in the lead the geographic prevalence of this issue, and subsequently remove and move over some of the preponderance of fine detail from the Singapore section of Domestic worker. I felt there was also a bit too much listing of the multiple ways one can beat, chastise, torment or abuse a domestic worker. Other than that: good work.Nick Moyes (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, you refer to the "Human Trafficking Hotline", but you don't make it clear what country or countries this hotline operates in. Likewise "the country’s Employment Act": what country? Maproom (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Maproom I just looked it up, and it is the United States hotline. I just put that part in. Thank you very much for helping me. Helen (let’s talk) 21:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Searchbar

Did someone change something to the search bar on Wikipedia? Results are not showing up as well as before. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Could you explain what you're experiencing or what has changed in a little more detail please? Meanwhile, I had a recent discussion with another user on this topic, and so I will return with a link to it shortly. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie Back again: Please have a read of this recently archived discussion to see if there might be anything relevant in it to what you're experiencing. Other than that, I'm not aware of any significant changes to the Search facility. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically, sometimes I don't get drop-down options in the Wikipedia search bar at the top right, but only for certain things. I'm on macbook right now. Perhaps the issue has something to do with my common.js, but I have only noticed a problem since a few days. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question About Sources Being Misrepresented

On the "Economy of China" article, I noticed one of the underlying sources on state-owned enterprises is being seriously misrepresented in the article's contents. I haven't done any real editing before so I don't just want to go ahead and make the change, so I'd rather bring it up and discuss the inaccuracy within the article's Talk page first but I'm not 100% sure what the M.O. would be. I'm not experienced with Wikipedia's standard operating procedures and discussing potential edits, so I thought I'd ask here first.

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China Quote: "State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China's market capitalization in 2019[29]" TyleriusMaximus (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@TyleriusMaximus: Posting your question on the article's talk page is a reasonable course of action. You could quote the Wikipedia article, quote the reference, and point out any discrepancies. You could also suggest an alternative wording for the Wikipedia article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphan tag

I have taken care of the orphan page. could the tag be removed now please? LSwiki092018 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC) LSwiki092018 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

LSwiki092018,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I got declined. Can you help

 Courtesy link: Draft:Evans Appiah

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Fiifiblack (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fiifiblack, I see you have made a common mistake for many new editors on Wikipedia and tried to jump right into article creation with an autobiogrpahy. Wikipedia is not social media and we do not accept articles about just anyone. We try to only allow articles which have shown through reliable sources that other have noticed and decided to write in depth about the subject. If there are not in depth published sources about the subject then the subject is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Currently your draft looks more like a CV then an encyclopedia article and probably does not meet the inclusion criteria.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no information that suggests he meets Wikipedia's idea of notability, thus not justifying an article. I suggest you stop working on this, and instead post a tag at the top asking for an Administer to delete it. David notMD (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Userpage appearing as Wikipedia article?

I think that userpages are not supposed to look like articles in Wikipedia (per WP:FAKEARTICLE). In looking for author-links today I came across this page [4] which looks like it would be an article on Lynn B. Wilson. Is there a process to notify the user about potential issues with their page? DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: I wouldn't call that a "fake article"; it looks like an infobox on themself and a bunch of references to copy-paste into whatever they're working on. It's basically just like any other user page that has information about the user itself, just formatted weirdly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the rapid response.--DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Help. I misspelled my Project Name and I don't know how to edit it.

I'm still pretty new so imagine my horror when I realized I misspelled my project name. How do I fix it? Thanks. --Tchula65 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Tchula65 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The name of a draft is largely irrelevant; the reviewer, if they accept the draft (which would require you to submit it first), will move it to an un-typo'd title as part of that process. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Returnshp [sic]

That said, I don't think this would be accepted, as it's written less like an encyclopaedia article and more like a marketing pamphlet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I pared content down to just facts. This topic has been around since 2008 but not well utilized. The pandemic has given it a greater spotlight. --Tchula65 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Blatant inaccuracies on Dick Ellis

I have edited the Dick Ellis page as it is factually way off and it is important as this man may have been one of the first, if not the first Soviet spies, but the authorship of a book attributed, correctly, to Konni Zilliacus (on another page) is attributed to be written by Ellis as the reference to the proof, unspecified, by 'James Cotton,‘”The Standard Work in English on the League” and Its Authorship'.'

The trouble is I checked and the publishers records show Zilliacus got the royalties - and he was translating for the Soviets at the time.

He also did not learn Russian at St Edmunds Hall and the Sorbonne as their records show the contrary. He married his Russian wife Elisabet Zilenski in Constantinople in 1923 and he had been there for sometime. He barely dropped his bags off at St. Edmunds Hall - their records show he went to Constantinople almost straight away. They have no record of him at the Sorbonne.

Basically it would seem highly probable Ellis was a Soviet spy long before Philby and this is not stressed. It is quite important.

Previous corrections were removed without explanation. Wikihgd (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You were told in the revert's edit summary to take it to Talk:Dick Ellis. I suggest you do that and talk it out instead of coming here, because the Teahouse regulars here are going to tell you the exact same thing ParticipantObserver and I have. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikihgd First, remember to log in to your account, as it appears you edited Dick Ellis via your account and then again not logged in, appearing as an IP number. Second, discussions of articles go on the Talk pages of the articles not in the article (as you did). Third, you added content without providing a reference at the same time. Information may be true, but unless it can be verified via a reference, it will be reverted. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Proper procedure

1) Is it proper for a fellow editor to move another editor's mainspace articles to draftspace or to make a page a redirect instead of a full-status article without first nominating the article for deletion or redirect, adding a template to the article, or having any public forum whatsoever?

2) What should one do if they are accused of being paid to edit, when indeed they are a volunteer? Shari Garland (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

1 ) Yes. In fact, draftification is seen as preferable to starting an AfD, if the article has potential or the intent is to quarantine mercenary efforts. 2 ) I would take a very hard look at your edits and ask yourself why people would think you're a mercenary. What may not seem obvious to you is clear as night and day to us, especially as involves promotion and apparent conflict-of-interest editing. But even night and day can be wrong. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

2 ) Point out that your User page and contributions history show that you have created MANY articles successfully, without an suspicion of Paid or COI, and that it was just a coincidence you created the subsequently draftified Draft: Steve Pilot when it also offered for pay. And then nominate the draft for deletion, because it is clear that SP does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article about a live person. David notMD (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I still perform edits, I did previously if the article was suddenly protected under WP:ARBBLP?

Recently, one of the article in my Special:Watchlist has its protection changed from pp-vandalism to pp-blp and linked with WP:ARBBLP, the protection after a year. However, I have been editing on Wikipedia for couple of years and not seen this protection before, at least on article within my watchlist. Hence, I would like to know if I can continue to edit the article as usual while following the various guidelines? I almost edit the infobox (mostly cleaning the syntax and correcting, mostly untouched if everything is in order), career section (if there is new activites, in which add it as prose), discography (adding new songs/albums, adding/editing the chart ranking or adding missing source), filmography (adding new shows or correcting the styling or adding missing source), and awards and nominations (adding new nominated or won awards with reliable source or correcting the styling or adding missing source). Fyi, I'm not involved in the WP:ARBBLP nor was it added due to my activities, checking the history log, it was likely changed to IP violating BLP policies. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: I don't know which article you're talking about, so I don't know the context. However, I'm pretty certain that you don't have to worry about it, and you can treat it as any semi-protected article (unless it's fully protected) and carry on editing like you usually do. As long as you are constructively editing the article, the page protections aren't about you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Hi, thanks you for the reply, no worries I have been constructively editing the article just curious about such changes as I never seen it before. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: The only possible protection levels are at WP:PP. It looks like the only difference is the reason for protection, which is from vandalism to BLP violations. I have no context, so I can't tell you specifically why, but the reason for page protection shouldn't have any effect on you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Noted, thanks you. This is the article in question, in case you needed it (apologies for not linking it earlier). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: If you look at the logs for that page, it says that the last protection expired on June 8. A lot of BLP violations happened after that date, and it was re-protected. It's at the semi-protection level, btw. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Ah I see ... noted, thanks you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to Sort an AFD after nomination?

Hi, Can anyone help me to teach how to sort an afd discussion if that is already marked for deletion? Is there any tool? Can we do this using Twinkle or page curation? for example i recently marked this page for afd but forgot to sorting. GermanKity (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@GermanKity: There seem to be a couple at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting#Scripts_and_tools. However, I have not personally used any of them. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ganbaruby, Thank You for a good answer here. And i did it.GermanKity (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this topic notable?

Can I create an article on the list of noble lords of Genlis (like this article on list of English monarchs)? The page is under work in my sandbox, you might take a look at it. It is a translation of a section of the French article on Genlis. Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, as a ferinstance, I read within your translation: Savoyen (Savoinus) de Janly: He is the brother of Jean and his name appears in the sales charter of the Loiche mill by his little cousin Ermengarde in 1235. What reason do we have to believe this; and really, why should anyone (beyond a tiny coterie of obsessives) care? (This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of genealogical trivia.) Can't you prune the merely trivial and boil down what remains and is verifiable to a length that would allow it to fit easily within Genlis, Côte-d'Or? -- Hoary (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Firstly, I'm not yet done with my article, so there will be many errors. And about this one, I kept it because I felt I cannot skip people out of a lineage. Now that you say I can either add on better information or just remove it, I'll do so. (Also, may I ask what "beyond a tiny coterie of obsessives" means?) Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

So I went to my sandbox to edit it as mentioned above. But I realised that majority of the people mentioned in the article have only lineage or such relation metioned as a note. For instance,

• Denise de Tenarre: She married Guillaume de Vichy, squire, Lord of Agencourt.
• Maurice I, Lord of Janly (Genley, Genleio): He was a witness in the act of foundation of the Abbey of Tart in 1132. He was the father of five sons: Hugh, Guy, Theodoric (Thierry), Ponce, and Solomon - and of a girl whose first name is not known. (This person is the second mentioned person of the first house, how do I even remove his name)

Also note that these lords/ladies are from the 11th century, so finding more information will be very difficult. Excellenc1 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, it's not necessary to demonstrate the notability of each small ingredient of an article. But from what we know about these people, they seem utterly unremarkable. (They had names, they married, they reproduced. Well, all your ancestors reproduced, and all mine did too. Most of mine were married, and all had names.) I suggest that you skip any mention of people who show no sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have removed names with content from my sandbox which do not appear to be notable. Not so perfect though, the content is edited to the requirement. (You might want to give a look at my sandbox). Thank you! Excellenc1 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, we can disagree about what constitutes "notability". So let's put aside sane definitions of notability and concentrate on the Wikipedia use: more or less "written up in reliable sources". You write for example:

Hugues (or Huguenin) de Janly: He abandoned the name of Montmorot and instead used Janly. He was mentioned in 1297, with his mother, then a widow, during the act of the donation of Bouzeron to the canons of Saint-Léger. In 1325, Hugues, damoiseau, entered into a contract with the abbot of Saint-Étienne de Dijon, Ponce de Courbeton, to preserve the legal and seigneurial rights over the men that the abbey possessed at Janly. He asserted his feudal rights in an act of the Tuesday before Easter in the year 1325, in which, Hugues de Janly, knight, (he was therefore armed as a knight in 1325) made semondre his vassal Guill. In 1325, Hughes made a transaction on trial with the abbey of Saint-Étienne about justice and their rights to finagle Genlis. In 1347 and 1349, Hugues receives the receipt of certain sums to which he affixed his seal (which is a fretté to the chief in charge of three cinquefoils). This seal, which is that of the lords of Janly, provides a proof that Hughes adopted the arms of the old lords, and the chief of these arms emphasizes that the Janly are already vassals of the powerful Vergy, then lords of Mirebeau. In January 1355 and March 1356, Hugues attended the States of Burgundy in Dijon. He was a very rich lord; in addition to the seigneury of Janly, he had the seigneuries or estates in Uchey, Beire-le-Fort, Ouges, Pluvault, Saulon-la-Chapelle, Mailly, Gevrey, Barges, Volnay, Saint-Loup, Lux, Givry and Mellecey. On May 5, 1345, he sold the land fiefdom owned by Marguerite, daughter of Guillaume d'Aligny, on the island of Mailly to Pierre d'Épernay. On March 29, 1359, he was a part of the armed escort accompanying Cardinal de Talleyrand-Périgord to Chalon with Hugues de Montjeu, Jehan de Champdivers and Jehan de Recey. Hugh of Janly had five children: William I, the young Hughes, William II, Huguette and Alips. He died before 1363.

(Let's also put aside questions such as whether this bloke was named Hugues, Hughes or Hugh.) Perhaps you intend to add references later, but anyway none are there now. What can't be sourced can't be asserted. So much for Wikipedia-style notability. And as for notability in a normal, non-Wikipedia sense of the word, some of this might conceivably be of interest if it weren't so abstract: "In 1325, Hughes made a transaction on trial with the abbey of Saint-Étienne about justice and their rights to finagle Genlis" (what "transaction"? whose rights? were there really "rights to finagle"?). -- Hoary (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to pile on, and we are supposed to be friendly here... but what is a "transaction on trial"? Is this a transaction about justice or a trial about justice? What does "Hughes attended the States of Burgundy" mean? Yes, clarification would be helpful. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Links to World Gazetteer don't work

Hi all, World Gazetteer is used as reference for city population sizes on pages like List of countries by largest and second largest cities, List of highest cities, List of cities in Ghana and many more. Links to World Gazetteer don't work and archived links on Wayback Machine don't work too, a message "Sorry, no offline reader allowed. You can use the download function." is returned. A message on Talk:List_of_countries_by_largest_and_second_largest_cities#World_Gazetteer_as_source indicates that the links don't work since at least 31 July 2019. Maybe www.citypopulation.de can be used as an alternative source, but it seems it contains less data. There are a lot of links to World Gazetteer, so I'm asking here how to proceed. Difool (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Difool. I believe the information you're looking for can be found here. A citation to a reliable source doesn't need to be available online in principle and it can still be cited as long as it's (1) considered reliable (2) used in proper context and (3) been published and is reasonably accessible. When a link to a cited source becomes "dead", it doesn't automatically lose it's value as a source; of course, it's great when everything cited in a Wikipedia article is available online, but that's not always the case. So, if you think the World Gazetteer has no value as a reliable source and you can replace it with a better source, then that probably would be OK to do; just leave an edit summary explaining why and perhaps follow up with something on the relevant article talk pages further clarifying things. However, you can also leave the citations as is, add a Template:Deadlink to them, and then add another supporting citation. If only one or two articles are going to be minimally impacted, then the first approach would probably be OK; however, if as you say WG is being cited in lots of articles, then it might be best to seek additional input at WP:RSN, a relevant WikiProject talk page or even maybe WP:RSX before going about and mass removing lots of citations from lots of different articles. There might be someone out there who's able to find archive versions of WG somewhere, even if they're behind some sort of WP:PAYWALL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I've once removed the COI tag from Renu Raj which was placed by GermanKity, see. Someone else also removed the COI tag before me, look. But German kitty is doing the same process (tagging undisclosed payment tag) again and again. This is vandalism, right? 27.59.238.4 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not vandalism if the user believes in good faith that the tag is correct- and if it is correct, the user with the COI should not remove it themselves until the article has been examined. If you believe that the tag is not needed, please start a discussion with them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any references in Renu Raj that show that she's notable. Some sources are just listings, or statements that she's been promoted; others are based on what she has said. We need independent discussion to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331dot and Maproom,Thank You for your comments here. I have strong feelings that ip address user (27.59.238.4) is the sock of User:Idhachu (creator of the article Renu Raj) who have already blocked as a sock. And i have doubt why this user is so keen to remove COI/UDP tag. I am also agreed with you Maproom, the subject is struggling for notability and the same must be discuss. GermanKity (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to posting this accusation here, IP 27.59.238.4 has posted a similar note on the Talk pages of more than one Administrator, accusing Germankity of vandalism. My thinking is that the IP should be warned. If persists, investigated for sock. Separately, I agree that the article does not establish notability for Renu Raj - basically a government bureaucrat - and should be AfD'd. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: @GermanKity: @David notMD: @27.59.238.4: the article is now at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renu Raj. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

G4 Speedy deletion mistake

Can you rewrite "Nina Aquila: Legal Eagle", because my page was deleted and they told me there's a G4 from the old one who previously deleted. I'm not reposting any page or something, I just making new and original pages. I was depressed like this. Fortunewriter (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't rewrite it, because it's already been deleted again, so we don't know what it said. Anyway, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Aquila:_Legal_Eagle shows that the topic isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Maproom (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Rani of Jhansi

There is so much vandalism going on by IP addresses at Rani of Jhansi. Please protect the article. Peter Ormond 💬 09:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you not edit WP:RPP? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@A little blue Bori: I don't know what level of protection is to be asked for. If you know, you can request there. Peter Ormond 💬 10:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's just IPs/new users causing the vandalism, then semi-protection or CRASHlock is called for, depending on how heavily edited the page is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Peter Ormond, I did it for you here, I requested temporary semi protection. I would suggest installing twinkle if you want to make more RPPs in the future. Justiyaya 10:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hi, Thankyou for inviting me to the Tea House, and thankyou to KylieTastic for reviewing my first submission. I am ofcourse totally new to this and not sure if I am using Wikipedia correctly but have a keen interest in contributing to Wikipedia! I am struggling with references. Especially where there might not be many to use...how do I get around this? Thankyou in advance!

FlowerMoon593 (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The review and the Comment at Draft:Holy Coves, both by experienced editors, strongly suggest that there has not been enough written ABOUT the band to establish their notability. Documenting there existence and albums is not sufficient. If you cannot find published articles about the band, there is no "get around". David notMD (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, FlowerMoon593, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find the essay WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability informative. More generally, I think it is unfortunate that so many new editors come here thinking that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating a new article. It is often not, and most new editors can add hundreds of times as much value to Wikipedia by addressing shortcomings in existing articles (especially lack of references) than by embarking on the difficult task of creating a new article before they have learnt what that takes. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism at Talk:Shem HaMephorash

I started a poll at Talk:Shem HaMephorash. So far the whole section has been removed twice by other editors. Notices to related projects link to that heading. What can I do about this talk page vandalism? Skyerise (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any substantial removal of content in the history of that talk page, Skiyerise: what "vandalism" are you referring to? By the way, vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I now myself approve my drafts?

As of now, I have 9 drafts approved and for each of them the message in my talk page says Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. So can I approve my draft myself? Excellenc1 (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at your Talk page history, you have established a record of successfully creating drafts and getting those approved at AfC. If you feel that your quality is the same on your current drafts, then yes, you can move your drafts to main space without going through AfC. There will remain the possibility that when those get looked at by editors of the New Page Patrol, could be tagged for needing more references, reverted to draft, nominated for deletion or even Speedy deleted. For your specific example Draft:The Good Burger, I have doubts it qualifies for corporate notability. (WP:NCORP). Consider letting it go through AfC, to see what a reviewer thinks. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking For Wikipedia Page From Which This Equation Was Screenshot

Hello,

Looking for the wikipedia page from which this image was screenshot. All, to date, indications indicate that this equation exists somewhere in the realm of Lagrangian and double pendulum mathematics / physics. Any way to specifically locate the page, and original image, using this information?

Kind Regards,

Daisy1234 Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/183838731@N04/51287775604/in/dateposted-public/ 86.28.166.2 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a pretty specific question. You might have more luck asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics where editors who are interested in math topics are more likely to read it. Regards SoWhy 16:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure this is from Wikipedia? Searching for pieces of the syntax that would have been used to write this equation turns up nothing for me. Could it be from somewhere else? - Astrophobe (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Date of Death unknown

What do I do if I can't find a date of death? Thanks. --Tchula65 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Tchula65 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tchula65: If you can confirm the subject is dead but cannot find their date of death, categorize them under Category:Year of death unknown (if the subject has lived a long time ago and there is no reason to believe that such information exists) or Category:Year of death missing (if the subject died recently and thus information of their date of death should exist somewhere). If the year of date is know but not the exact date, use Category:Date of death missing. If you provide more details on the subject, we can maybe be of more assistance. Regards SoWhy 16:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The details are, I have a list of children born to my subject and can only confirm the date of death for one of the three from family genealogy records. Their respective birth dates are 1885 and 1889 so it is practical to assume they are no longer living. Is this the detail you are requesting? Thank you. --2601:242:500:C18:4919:301E:7270:45C6 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@2601:242:500:C18:4919:301E:7270:45C6: we would indeed assume that anyone born before 1901 is deceased (so we can assume they would have to be at least 150 or so here!) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Images missing

Hi, I have been editing my draft and when I clicked the preview button my images all disappeared??? Any idea why this could be? Also when i tried to insert them back into my draft it wouldnt allow it? I dont know what to do next :/ Thankyou in advance FlowerMoon593 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The images were removed by User:Theroadislong due to their questionable copyright status. See Wikipedia:Copyrights § Guidelines for images and other media files. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to added death age?

I was editing Harmoko, which he dies on 4 July 2021, but the age death on death date didn't appear. And how to added death age? Lkas123 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, to the Teahouse, Lkas123. You should use the {{Death date and age}} template. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Category

Can anybody create Category:Sreenidhi Deccan FC? It is for a football club in India that turned fully professional. There is also need to create all of the Subcategories for this category. I'm not doing it because it seems complex for me to do. Hoping someone will help me. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony:  Done based on Category:Chennai City F.C. and its subcats. Please start populating the categories Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 18:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to write about a company

please let me know how to write about a company 92.97.42.246 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do in Wikipedia. After you gain some experience in editing existing articles, try Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I create wikipedia article for my client?

Can I create wikipedia article for my client? Hablus (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hablus and welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: You shouldn't. Wikipedia is not for promotion and someone paying you to create an article will usually not end well for you or your client. I will drop you a formalized template on your talk page that includes more details on this. Regards SoWhy 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

delete draft in my sandbox

delete draft in my sandbox? I have a Sandbox article draft that I want to delete. How is that done? BrucePL (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi BrucePL, you should Request CSD per G7, by simply copying any one of these templates into the page you want to delete.

{{Db-g7}}, {{Db-author}}, {{Db-blanked}}, {{Db-self}} -- Justiyaya 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Please how can I publish this content

I paid a company to help me publish these profiles (https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/anydos and https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/annastasia-onyinyechukwuka-oraegbunem) on Wikipedia but is over a year now and they could not help me. Please could you help me? Thank you in advance for responding. 99.245.38.118 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You should never pay a third party to get something published on Wikipedia. If the subjects are notable, they'll be eventually written about by interested editors. I'm afraid your money was spent in vain. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts (volunteers) advise, but are not article writers. My own opinion, looking at those two websites, neither is Wikipedia-worthy yet. See WP:TOOSOON David notMD (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding page number to a source that is cited multiple times?

Apologies for any formatting issues! I recently added a page number for the [13] reference on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_Lobby_smuggling_scandal. However, the source is cited twice in the article, so the page number I added is only applicable for the 13.1 citation and not the 13.0 one. What's the preferred way to go about this? StalkerFishy (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@StalkerFishy: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'd suggest removing the page number from the actual citation, and use {{rp}} to display the page numbers right after the citation. An example: —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful. I appreciate the help! StalkerFishy (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

how does the teahouse function

how do i communicate with people ?? Auxcillia (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ask a question here, or make a request here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

GA problem

I was looking through GA nominees recently, and I accidently clicked on a page and signed up to review Mariner 1 when I didn't mean to. Is there any way to undo this action? I don't see a revert button... Kokopelli7309 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Kokopelli7309

@Kokopelli7309: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions § Step 2: Starting a review: "If you are in a situation where you absolutely cannot continue to review the article, please contact the nominator. Consider helping them find a new reviewer. If necessary, leave a note on the GA nominations talk page." Kleinpecan (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources in regards to esports tournament placings

Hey! I'm working on a draft article for the MC Championship series of Minecraft tournaments. So far I've just been collecting information from various sources. I do think I have quite a few good secondary sources regarding a lot of information about the topic, however, one thing I'm lacking in is sources that mention the winners of the earlier events. I feel kind of weird excluding them, however. Would it be acceptable to use a primary source for the dates and winning teams of these earlier events? I don't really feel optimistic about the possibility of a reliable secondary source covering these past events retroactively, however, I do know that the winners are always announced on the official Twitter, so there is at least some concrete documentation of the past winners.

Any insight here would be much appreciated. I'm still new to editing and I'm kind of anxious about the whole thing and wanting to make sure everything is as good as it can be, haha.. Serilly (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:MC Championship   melecie   t 23:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How to solve "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia."?

Hello there all, I hope you are doing well in healty during golbal pandemic!

Recently i published, a topic on wikipedia, But after few minutes, It was rejected by dear TheBirdsShedTears or Teahouse, Reason was Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Now how to remove that error, and publish to public.

I was prepared long topic, But becuase of some volaiton like Ads or Promoting words, I deleted lot of parapagh texts. so it become smaller topic. but everying is correct and i think there maybe no something wikipedia's againest policy.

Now, I need someone to help, I will share the topic again with him, And i would say to that if there are error you have the permission to remove or add extra words to my topic.

My Username: ImanSalvador ImanSalvador (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is about User:ImanSalvador/sandbox. Its content needed/needs a lot more work before being converted to an article, but description of an Afghan newspaper seems to me fully in accord with the purpose of Wikipedia. (Of course, I may be overlooking something important.) I invite TheBirdsShedTears to explain how the draft was/is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and why ImanSalvador should stop. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is Reliable Sources .... I think. I could not find any in a quick Google search. Also possibly better to start in language of the news outlet --> https://ps.wikipedia.org/ Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The newspaper only exists on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other similar websites. It is not even approved by Google Adsense. As I can see, it may take several years for the newspaper in question to meet the minimum requirements of notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User Pages

Can I please have a general idea about what to put on user pages? Thanks! IFvoltronwasadragon... (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)IFvoltronwasadragon...

Hello, IFvoltronwasadragon... Your user page is to tell other editors about your interests, work and plans for improving the encyclopedia. You can find out more at Wikipedia:User pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hello, where can I find Wikigroups or projects related to sacred art? Like for my Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Timothy_Verdon Xavierwraith (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Xavierwraith, You can browse for the Projects from the WikiProjects. To See the Full list, see the Bambot List. Thank you!!!Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

James Shigeta Actor

AWARDS AND LEGACY

In 2007 he set up the James Shigeta scholarship for Asian studies with the university of Hawaii 2406:3003:2005:4235:9451:6544:8880:7327 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you have a suggestion for the James Shigeta article. You can post your suggestion on the article's talk page - Talk:James Shigeta - along with a WP:RS, and ask for assistance updating the article. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Controversies and criticism

Hello Every Major Sports League Controversies and criticism so i think this needs to be added for the NFL

Controversies and criticism Main article: National Football League controversies

The NFL has been involved in a number of controversies over the years and has received a significant amount of criticism.[145] Kartigang038885 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse @Kartigang038885, Kindly let us know if you have any questions. The above info is just a Paragraph. Thank you!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kartigang038885: National Football League controversies already exists as a separate article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kartigang038885: Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that you would like a new section added to the National Football League called "Controversies and criticism". You can be bold and create it yourself, or you can make a suggestion on the article's talk page: Talk:National Football League. Be sure to provide a reliable source that can be used for reference #145. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

External links

Draft:Gopinath Ravi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gopinath_Ravi This is my draft. I am creating an article for a model. He is famous personality in Instagram. So can I attach his instagram account in External links? Is that approved? Kamesh Aravind P (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse @Kamesh Aravind P. Yes, you can add the External Links like Instagram, Youtube, IMDB and others. If possible, adding them under a separate Heading would be good. Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kamesh Aravind P: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's more guidance as to what is acceptable as external links here. What Jocelin Andrea said would go under links to generally avoid. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info @Tenryuu 🐲, will rectify the next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelin Andrea (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with refill in regards to page: The Sentence is Death

Created the page: The Sentence is Death. Shortly afterwards it received the tag that it was using bare URLs. There is only one bare URL, but when running refill I receive the error message: “Redirected to homepage”. What do I do now? Thank you. Anastasios999 (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Anastasios999, you have cited the first Reference correctly by using the Template:Cite. But the others are just used as bare links; which means you have only referred to a bare site without adding info about it. The first one was cited well. See WP:CITE for more info on citing references. Thank you!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Writers

Dear Writers, I have written my first article on Wikipedia and wonder how long it will take to be published?  Lilly Antonia (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Lilly Antonia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history has no contributions(other than this post); but if you have a draft ready to submit through Articles for Creation, it could take up to 5 months to be approved and formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If you link us the page, we can give you more information, but as 331dot says the process is incredibly backlogged as we get hundreds of submissions per day, many of which take several minutes to properly assess, and we have barely a double-digit number of active reviewers. Reviews are done in no particular order so it could be 24 hours or 5 months. — Bilorv (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding the Voice or Translation Text to the name of my Draft: Kootapuli

Hi there, I would just thank @User:Dan art for their edition of my Draft:Kootapuli. I just would like to add the translated name to the Draft. I have already added it, but kindly anyone please check if that is fine. Thank you!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle needed on KS Wiki

Can someone Import twinkle on KS Wiki?

Can anyone here help me to get twinkle on Ks Wiki as we are struggling there to maintain the project. Since I here came across twinkle few months ago, it is really hard to maintain Ks.Wikipedia without twinkle. I will be really thankful if someone can help me with it. Thankyou. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 10:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Iflaq It looks like Twinkle can be setup for other languages, Wikipedia talk:Twinkle seems to be place to discuss this (I see you've already done this), and Wikipedia:Twinkle/Localisation has some code information about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302, Thankyou for taking time to put ears to my issue. I already had made a request at Twinkle talk but could not interest editors to make it happen. Since I am not pro at coding, I am requesting some one more senior in the field to do it. I will be very happy if you ping someone who will be interested. Thankyou. _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 10:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Doppelgänger accounts

When is the best time to start making Doppelgänger accounts? Kayree kh (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kayree kh: Welcome to the Teahouse. Are you concerned that someone may be trying to impersonate you? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I was just curious when was the best time. Kayree kh (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that WP:DG says that such accounts are not to be used for editing, I can't see the point unless your username is something which would be easily impersonated, which isn't the case here. You may have been thinking about alternate accounts (WP:VALIDALT), which can be useful if you regularly edit from a public computer, for example. If you do create such an account, Kayree kh, you should mark them with {{User alternative account|Kayree kh}}, so as not to be accused that the extra one(s) are sockpuppets. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Atheism Page

I would like to add [https:/atheistshelping.org/ Atheists Helping the Homeless] as an external link to the Atheism page. Is it allowable? Can you help me please?

 Satxjoe (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Satxjoe Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a purpose in doing so other than just wanting to tell the world about it(i.e. promote it), please bring it up on the article talk page for discussion. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of links. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

New term article rejected

I just created an article regarding a new term in the industry, there is not many external articles about it, but it has been talking a lot in the industry like in industry conferences. Is this kind of new term not acceptable in wikipedia? I have tried to link to companies pages that offering related products/services, but unfortunately my article got rejected. A bit disappointing since my intention is to bring in new updated information happening in the financial world and it was my first trial. Still want to learn why and hopefully do it in a better way next time. Awg2018 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Awg2018 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, new terminology generally does not merit a Wikipedia article, see WP:NEOLOGISM. This term must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing that it is in widespread use, in order to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means it might be able to be improved to the point where it was acceptable. However, a cursory glance shows it is in poor shape currently. For example it says Everyone in the finance industry knows.... Really? Do you have a reliable source that says that and could it even conceivably be true? Also, you need to read WP:SOLUTION and your first article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Everyone

I am new to Wikipedia. I want to know how to be a good Wikipedian? Katie Allie (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse @Katie Allie, you can starting contributing towards the wellness of Wikipedia by creating articles on your own interest. You can start editing articles and start creating articles when you become an autoconfirmed user. See Wikipedia: Your first article for more info. There are a lot more to go! Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to what Jocelin Andrea wrote, new editors find creating articles incredibly difficult, as they do not understand all the rules and guidelines. Such attempts are often declined for inadequacies or else outright rejected as having no potential for becoming an article. Better advice is to commit to improving existing articles. That can range from copyediting, to adding adequately referenced content, to removing content that is wrong or not germane, and monitoring articles for vandalism. Only with experience, consider creating an article. Newbies often find the tutorial at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure to be very helpful. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: ;@David notMD: Thank you both for your tips and suggestions. I will try to follow Community guideline first before editing any article. Although, I have recently edited the article Sword Art Online Progressive: Aria of a Starless Night but I am not sure that how much I have improved the article. Can you all review my edits? and suggest some addition and substraction on the mentioned link article? Katie Allie (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yidnekatchew Tessema picture, passed away 1987

Greetings! Question, i want to add a picture to his article, and i will be creating a sports section in Amhara people page including pictures of athletes. He was a Ethiopian sports icon. however it's not clear who holds copyright over his pictures, he died in 1987 that is more than 25 years, can i add a picture? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyright can be challenging to determine, and is something taken seriously at Wikipedia. The experts at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions would be better suited to help you with this. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Hello, do we have an option to archive our talk page discussions similiar to that of the these articles. Like some sort of script or adjusting preferences in gadgets? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pillechan Please see H:ARC#Automated archiving, there are two types of archiving bots available for use. You can compare which bots you would like using the comparison table. Both bots are quick and easy to setup, you can check out the documentation on how to setup for Cluebot III here or for Lowercase sigmabot III here. In case, you want the same bot used in Teahouse, Lowercase sigmabot III is what you want. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Need a Clarification

Hi there! So, I just got my second article approved. And the reviewer has left a comment of:

"Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer"

Does this mean that I can create article directly into Wikipedia's Mainstream without review? Or it does mean that there would be no review for my next article?

Kindly clarify the aforementioned questions. Thanks in advance!!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: It just means that you have the technical ability to create new articles directly in mainspace by clicking any red link and starting editing. Wether thats a good Idea or not is often case-dependent and depends on your skills and knowledge in the topic area, particular about the special notability criteria in some cases. You may still create and submit drafts to AfC, if you are unsure wether its ready for mainspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jocelin Andrea: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you choose to create articles directly in mainspace, the Wikipedia:New Page Patrol would review your article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given your past experiences (more article failures than successes) I recommend continuing using AfC. You should know that if your skip AfC, reviewers at New Pages Patrol can do everything from leave it be, tag that it needs more references, return it to draft, start an Articles for Deletion, or initiate Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you three @Victor Schmidt, @GoingBatty, and @David notMD. But I also have another doubt. I would follow what @David notMD suggested.

Is there any way that I or anyone can remove the messages of my article being rejected from my talk page? I just planned to start a whole new Talk Page. Thanks in Advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

For information on what you may or may remove from your user talk page, see WP:REMOVED. Note, however, that editors can see in the page history what has been removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jocelin Andrea: There is no mechanism to start a new talk page, but you can archive or delete messages once you have read them. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Subpages

Which tag are we supposed to place if we wish to delete a subpage created by ourself? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony: Try {{db-self}}. GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

How to delete/remove comments from my own talk page?

Can anyone please let me know the steps on how to delete/remove comments from my own talk page? Manalijain (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Manalijain. The simplest way is to edit the page and remove all the sections you no longer need. Your Talk Page is your own and you can remove more-or-less anything from it (the do's and don'ts are explained at WP:OWNTALK). Anything you do remove will still be available for others to see in the History of the page and other people will assume you have "read and understood" anything you do remove. Importantly, you must never edit someone else's comment to change its meaning but of course you can just revert any vandalism by "undo" on the vandal's edit. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Help on Article Neutrality

Hello! I am currently working on the draft of an article regarding James E. Stewart that has been declined for the following reasons:

"This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." & "This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

This draft is still written in a non-neutral fashion. On the one hand, the subject probably does satisfy general notability. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that the current submitter will be able to write a neutrally worded article, whether in the year 2021 or the year 2022 or any other year. This draft is being declined for now rather than rejected, only because the subject probably is notable. Before resubmitting this draft, either ask for advice at the Teahouse or find a collaborator. If this draft is resubmitted in approximately its current form, it will be rejected."

I had submitted the article for review previously and received the same reasons, so I went back through and got rid of what I thought were any non-neutral/peacock phrases, but it seems I didn't completely. If someone could read the draft and explicitly point out the parts that are non-neutral, I would be most grateful.

Thank you! JorodHistory (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:James E. Stewart. Deor (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Major weakness is that all but a few refs are to the book about Stewart. Surely there were newspaper articles about him? These do not need to accessible online. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Change signature

I want to change my signature. Can someone help me to change? also can someone suggest me some signature? I lack creativity in creating my own signature. Katie Allie (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Katie Allie (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Katie Allie, welcome to the teahouse. What two colo(u)s do you like most? -Justiyaya 18:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justiyaya: rainbow colour and yellow colour Katie Allie (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Katie Allie: These are my designs, some of them might be hard to read because they are in yellow. (These are not signatures by users, these are designs)

KatieAllie (Hard to read, taken partly from the design here)

KatieAllie

KatieAllie

Bold versions probably better in readability

KatieAllie

KatieAllie

Use source editor to copy the design that you like and paste it into your preferences.

-- Justiyaya 19:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I start a business with your tea House on my place location

Buisness  Galib8076 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your business. RudolfRed (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Galib8076, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it is against our policy to use this platform for commercial purposes thus it is not possible to use Wikipedia for business(of any sort) you are however welcome to become an editor here just like myself. We are sorry if this wasn’t the feedback you may have anticipated. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the point of SNGs?

I've started opening some deletion discussions and I've come across WP:SNG occasionally, but I don't understand what the point of them is. For instance, WP:WEBCRIT says "that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" and further states that "These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying web content about which Wikipedia should probably have an article. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website." That sounds a lot like the page in question would need to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Similarly, WP:RPRGM states that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone," which again seems to indicate that the radio program would need to meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG. WP:BOOKCRIT is similar too as most of the criteria would almost necessarily lead to the topic also meeting WP:GNG. Are there actually cases of pages meeting an SNG while also not meeting GNG? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, the answer to the latter part of your question is yes, a professor or academic can meet any criterion from WP:PROF (an SNG) and not pass GNG and it would be sufficient for a standalone article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, the purpose of SNGs is to give editors an various easy to use tools to determine when articles in a broad topic area are highly likely to pass the GNG or, in some cases, WP:BASIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and Cullen328: so generally SNGs aren't used to determine whether an article deserves a stand alone article but on rare occasions it can. Is it possible for a subject to meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:RPRGM and receive a stand alone article without simultaneously meeting GNG? These are the SNGs I come across most frequently and I just want to know if it's even possible for this scenario to occur. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, In simple terms without much verbose, an SNG AFAIK is used to support GNG or rather serve as an alternate route. Some SNG's expressly state that if a criterion from that SNG is met they quality for a standalone article. I mean, see WP:NACADEMIC. Celestina007 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: In my side of the Wikisphere, WP:NSOCCER is a pretty good example. The requirement is just played... in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues, which results in a huge number of stubs. It probably goes without saying that I'm not a fan of that SNG. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Editor's rights for the English Wikipedia?

Hello everyone, I would like to add an article to the English Wikipedia but until now I have full author's rights only in my German "home" (in case this page is accessible for you - here is my global account information). As the two projects work on very similar principles: Is it possible to be granted author's status directly? Thx! ReMü77 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ReMü77. You will be autoconfirmed and able to create articles when you have made three more edits on English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@ReMü77:(edit conflict) I have to disagree on you, the english Wikipedia and the german Wikipedia are quite different. For an example, on the german Wikipedia, buisnesses with 1000 staff members are presumed to be inclusionable, while we don't have such a rule here. As these projects are quite differnt, it would be unwise to let you create a new article directly in mainspace. You are however more than welcome to create a draft using the article wizard. I am going to post a welcome on your talkpage in a minute. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

emails to a User

A few times I have received emails that appear to originate from within Wikipedia. I can't seem to find out how to do this. I think there are times when Users would like to contact each other offline. How is it done? BrucePL (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Emailing users. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BrucePL: See Wikipedia:Emailing users. If you've provided an email address in your preferences, go to someone else's userpage and you'll find a button saying "email this user", which is located on the left hand list of links under "Tools". This only works if the other user provided an email address to Wikipedia and did not disable this function. A word of caution: Wikipedia works best through public communication (that is, through Talk pages) for transparency purposes, and I know of many users that would much prefer messages about Wikipedia to be on Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone approve the edit request on Talk:Pikachu#Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021, pretty appreciated if someone made it. 180.194.134.226 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a backlog at CAT:ESP and your request is not very old, please be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)