Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230

Would appreciate some takes on this. I reverted the addition of some unsourced family and community history to Shelley, British Columbia, but am concerned that the article as it stands contains a lot of sourced content (local newspaper) about named and non-notable people of the recent past. Looks like WP:OR. I'm having difficulty sorting the actually notable events and people from the run of the mill content. Article has been tagged for possibly too much detail for two years. Any views on what could or should be cut would be helpful. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg: It may seem extreme, but I would take an axe to the entire list of people, using the essay WP:WTAF as a reason. These are lists disguised as prose, but for lists, it is generally a good practice not to list things that don't already have their own standalone Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tacyarg, the main author of that article obviously pored through the archives of a small town newspaper and added a stunningly large number of descriptions of trivial incidents. In my opinion, it is inappropriate and the vast majority of that content should be eliminated. Cullen328 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove at least 90% of it. Though I hope that person volunteers at their historical society because wow. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DMBanks1 appears to be in the practice of adding huge amounts of perhaps trivial content to obscure Canada articles. David notMD (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I have removed 66% of the page and linked to this discussion on the Talk page. There is probably room for further cuts and I have left the "intricate detail" tag in place. Tacyarg (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: You raise an interesting point which merits a response. I cheerfully admit that the Shelley expansion made in my earlier WP endeavours was excessive. At the time, it was my best effort at having at least more than a stub as the only online resource. As for the response by another regarding the small-town newspaper, I should mention that Prince George is actually a city. According to WP, it was incorporated as such in 1915, but being WP, I cannot vouch for the date.

However, as to my more recent efforts, although one might consider some less significant places or cultures as obscure or trivial, it is probably not ideal to express that point of view especially when largely unfamiliar with the context. The challenge we encounter when addressing stub articles is that there is an indifference in WP to allow them to be merged into larger articles despite attempts that I have made to do so. In expanding many articles beyond stub status, one finds there is limited low hanging fruit to add. Consequently, such an expansion is likely to contain content which would never even make the first draft of a more significant subject.

That being said, where the WP article is the only online resource providing a meaningful overview of a location, readers prefer the specifics of a location rather than the generics of a region, a common problem with many such articles in the KnowBC subscription encyclopedia. Also, some specific content has been added because its ultimate purpose is to be a feeder link on other existing WP articles. Could some content have been excluded? Absolutely! The reason it made it to the final draft without deletion was because it contributed to a grasp of the flavour of the particular place and region during the various eras. Furthermore, what at first glance may appear to be an overkill does reveal a story for the reader who wishes to gain a clearer understanding.

Although I have never resided in the BC interior or belonged to any historical society, through WP involvement I have extensively emailed or had phone conversations with folk who reside or have resided in these places categorized as obscure. As a WP contributor, I believe that it is part of our duty to let their voices be heard. DMBanks1 (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several experienced Teahouse contributors expressed opinions that there was far too much content. One then acted to do major cuts. A discussion on what belongs and what not could be taken up on the Talk page of the article David notMD (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the article being mentioned here at Teahouse, it had a median viewership of two per day. I am not saying that obscurity is reason to not make articles better, but still. David notMD (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: I am surprised the readership was as high as two per day. I would expect 90% of the BC-related articles would envy such a viewership. Since senior editors are indifferent to culling the countless BC stubs, I can only assume they do not share your views on whether a personal perception of obscurity is a relevant factor. Perhaps they are swinging too far in the direction of the more enlightened view that WP should be encouraging articles that have no international significance but foster a local cultural identity. At the city library where I reside, the librarians consider that if a library book is taken out more than 10 times during its lifetime, that is exceptional.

I possess a fair working knowledge of various parts of the BC interior. Whenever I read WP articles on such places, mostly they are nothing more than a jumble of a few ideas, often with limited relevance to the location and containing a range of longstanding inaccuracies. Until there are contributors willing to research and expand these articles with accurate, cited information, people are not going to expect WP has credible content to offer. DMBanks1 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the wikipedia snazz line code from department of fun isnt working for me. please help Allaoii (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask a question in a way that others can understand what you're talking about. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Allaoii, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about {{User:Listroiderbob/Snazz line}}? What's the problem you're having? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its not working for me Allaoii (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii, you've already said that it isn't working for you - in order for someone to help, you'll need to be more specific. Is it not showing up at all? Is only part of it showing up? If only part shows up, which part is missing? Can you try it out somewhere - maybe in your sandbox - and then post a link here, so we can see for ourselves what's going on? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

none of it is showing up it just puts the code on my user page i tryd using sandbox it also dosnt work Allaoii (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii, I've placed the snazzy line at the top of your talk page, as an experiment and example. I can't edit your user page, since I'm an IP, so can you try copying the code I used to your user page, and seeing what happens? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how do i get rid of the words? Allaoii (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii, the words are part of the template. You'd have to create a new template, without the words. This is a bit complicated - I'd recommend asking on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun, you've already been there, I see) how to go about it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks Allaoii (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the source editor, or use the "Insert > Template" button. The visual editor doesn't expand template code. WPscatter ^t/_c 20:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habiru has both BC and BCE, sometimes in the same sentence; in one of them BCE was changed to to BC recently. From a quick look at Teahouse archives I get the impression that the policy is to to use BCE rather than BC in articles like this. Is there a general policy about the use of BCE and CE rather than BC and AD? Presumably use should be consistent in all articles. Mcljlm (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to this section for guidance. Hope that helps! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That section doesn't appear to deal with my question, apart from "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article" which is logical.

Incidentally, I wasn't notified of your reply though I notified about totally unrelated Village pump and Teahouse page changes in threads to which I hadn't contributed. Mcljlm (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm, the lack of a notification was due to the lack of a ping by the responding user. See WP:PING. --Quisqualis (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Quisqualis. Does that mean it's advisable to ping in most replies?

Since my original question hasn't been answered would it be better posted at WP:Village pump Mcljlm (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm: Now that people can subscribe to talk page sections, pinging someone isn't needed as much to get their attention, but it's still useful to do so to make it appear as an alert () to differentiate it from notifications (). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm, I believe you have been pointed to the advice at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style regarding BC / BCE. If that material doesn't answer your question, you might want to post at the WP:Help desk --Quisqualis (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On notifications @Quisqualis I was referring to email notifications. Mcljlm (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcljlm I think that section is all we have to refer to, so I think the answer is "pick one," and if there is a contextual reason you feel one is more appropriate than the other, let that be your guide. Otherwise flip a coin. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:RETAIN, the answer is 'use whatever the article originally used'. The article in question looks to have been using BCE / CE around when it was started. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fusa Miyake is a scientist who discovered the Miyake Events. These are spikes in Carbon 14 levels in tree rings.

Miyake Events is an entry on Wiki. But, Fusa Miyake does not have an entry. I don't know enough to create a page but perhaps someone else can. Edwin Hustead (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: 774–775 carbon-14 spike   Maproom (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwin Hustead Welcome to the teahouse. Her most highly cited paper appears to be doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.41 but the senior author was someone else. She was the senior author on doi:10.1038/nature11123, with ~390 citations according to Google scholar. Can you cite about three WP:INDEPENDENT sources about Miyake as a person, as distinct from the work done? If so then WP:NACADEMIC might be met and an article could be drafted. You could put the best sources here for us to make a judgement. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here are some links about her and her work :

• A Q&A to her at APS
• Review at Phys.org about the article mentioned above
• Idem at New Scientist
• Idem at Scientific American
• As anecdote, she is mentioned in a study about vikings, at the New York Times and National Geographic

Also, she is co-author of a book about it (Extreme Solar Particle Storms: The hostile Sun, 2019). Cheers. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexcalamaro The problem is always to show notability. For that, interviews are no good, except for basic facts, while paradoxically, "anecdotes" in main-stream newspapers/magazines may be fine. The New Scientist and Scientific American sources are brief but do seem WP:INDEPENDENT. There may be source in Japanese, too, if they can be teased out. Reviews of the book in reliable sources would also help. Would you be willing to start a simple draft? Then @Edwin Hustead could chip in either directly or via its Talk Page with more sources. Folks at WP:WikiProject Women in Red may be interested, too. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to do a draft. I originally found the name in an article in Archeaology today so I'll include that.

Should I just respond here, or to your e-mail, or somewhere else? Edwin Hustead (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwin Hustead The best thing to do is to use the WP:AFC process (see that link for details). This will create Draft:Fusa Miyake (currently a red link as the page doesn't exist). Then others can chip in. We like to be completely open about what we are doing, so rarely use email. The Talk Page of the draft will be a good place for discussions if you get stuck with anything and I'll keep an eye out for that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - My name is Kevin McCrea and I manage professional recording artist Calvin Richardson. We need assistance updating the Influences Section by deleting the sentences below. If you have any questions, please contact me at (Redacted). Thanks.

...He also cites R. Kelly: "R. Kelly is somebody I really wanted to work with. He has run into some unfortunate situations as of late, but it doesn’t take away, for me, the greatness that’s there. I have always been impressed by his depth of creativity. When the opportunity was there, I didn’t do it. But he has always been someone I looked up to on the creative side."... Cre.kmccrea (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. McCrea, unfortunatly due to your close relationship with Calvin Richardson any edits you would make would be a clear conflict of intrest and go against Wikipedia's strict Wikipedia:NPOV rule. Also, definitely not a wise idea to advertise your phone number online. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @FishandChipperThe information currently posted needs to be removed for professional reasons. We are simply making the request to have some remove that please. Cre.kmccrea (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just remove something if you don't like it. The quote is well sourced and has no reason to be removed. Perhaps it would be best to advise Mr. Richardson on not making these remarks in the future if he wouldn't want to be quoted on them. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just 86'd the entire section as practically a copyright violation via excessive quoting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it's now become something of an edit war... please take it to the talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If so it's a patently foolish one, as the section was pretty much all quotes ripped from the same source (and it's trivial to prove that even without the copyvio-checker tool). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, and I can see valid arguments for removal (not including "it's professionally damaging", which, of course, is not really one of our concerns). Someone has already taken a stab at a rewrite, thank you Darth Mike! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. That is greatly appreciated. Cre.kmccrea (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to remove it again, it looks like someone put it back, thanks. Cre.kmccrea (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cre.kmccrea, if you want to present a policy based reason for removal, please use the talk page, Talk:Calvin Richardson. Also, please declare your status as a paid editor per WP:PAID. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cre.kmccrea: I only removed it because of the excessive quotes. As the section now is, that issue has been addressed. I will say it again: we do not care about what your client wants. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano Thanks Jeske, but respectfully, this quote is misrepresenting the way it was redrafted as an Influence. Below is the original quote from the story which is discussed as someone to make good music. This is not an Influence.

Is there an artist or producer who you’ve always felt you could make great music with?

R. Kelly is somebody I really wanted to work with. He has run into some unfortunate situations as of late, but it doesn’t take away, for me, the greatness that’s there. I have always been impressed by his depth of creativity. When the opportunity was there, I didn’t do it. But he has always been someone I looked up to on the creative side. Cre.kmccrea (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wording does as much to indicate he was an influence on Richardson's work than it does to say Richardson wants/wanted to collaborate with him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Calvin Richardson - the item appears to be reliably sourced, and no reason for removal has been given. @Cre.kmccrea, please discuss this on the talk page, Talk:Calvin Richardson. I will remove some unsourced personal information from the article shortly, per our guidelines on WP:BLPs. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is cited to https://qcitymetro.com/2018/10/15/n-c-music-hall-of-fame-inductee-calvin-richardson-shares-highs-lows-and-inspirations/. That being said, that entire section verges on an excessive quote and needs to be heavily cut down, if not eliminated entirely. And we don't care about what your client wants. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cre.kmccrea: In order to comply with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy, could you please tell us if you work for/paid directly by Calvin Richardson? Or are you employed by an agency and he is a client? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Llywelyn_Hall

Hello people. I wonder if you can kindly offer tips at improving chances of being published? Richiebloomberg (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richiebloomberg: People don't get "websites" here. See MOS:LAYOUT for starters. It shows how the sections of an encyclopedia article should be layed out. Also add an infobox; see Template:Infobox artist for usage instructions. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for an infobox; many editors (myself among them) believe that they degrade articles about artists (and many other subjects), as they give undue prominence to relative trivia and repeat what is anyway easily retrievable from decently written prose. The problems with this draft are elsewhere. It says very little, and much of what it does say is hard to understand. Example: his work features in numerous public collections such as The Last Tommy Harry Patch and Henry Allingham both veterans of WW1. "Features" means anything or next to nothing. ("Are in"?) And though this appears to give two examples of public collections, neither sounds to me like a public collection. Or again: Dan Llywelyn Hall became the 133 artist to officially paint a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II the portrait entitled Icon. Does "133 artist" mean "133rd artist"? What is the distinction between painting officially and unofficially? Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richiebloomberg as long as you have reliable references give more details about Hall’s work, to help persuade a reviewer that the artist is notable.

Your 2013 The Guardian reference about Mr. Hall being the 133rd artist to paint the Queen states that the portrait was commissioned by the Welsh Rugby Union to mark the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation, and that the queen sat for him for an hour at Windsor Castle. Your 2020 BBC website reference states that a gallery in Bath bought the oil painting of Harry Patch, and that the portrait of Patch was displayed at the National Portrait Gallery in 2009, and was featured in a BBC documentary. And your Royal Collection Trust website reference states that Study of Henry Allingham: ‘The Last Volunteer’ was presented to Queen Elizabeth II by the artist in 2009. Instead of just writing “his (the artist’s) work features in numerous public collections” (which sounds vague, and could be referring to a small venue that only a dozen people ever visited) you should be specific and say his work was displayed at the National Portrait Gallery, and that he presented a sketch to Queen Elizabeth. Show that his work has been seen in impressive circles.

What other work has Hall done? Can you find referenced information on two or three other works that have been displayed to the public? Can you find a newspaper or magazine article about Hall, giving his date of birth, where he studied, or if he won any prestigious art awards? I would advise you to do a little more research on Hall, to help show he meets notability requirements. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very kind of you to take the time to respond. We have edited the page a bit more now. I wonder if you might give it one final look!? Richiebloomberg (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richiebloomberg I'm not a reviewer, but the draft has been improved, and looks more notable to me. In your Public collections section there is a .jpg that isn't showing and, unfortunately, I don't have the time to try and figure out what the problem is. Best wishes on your draft being accepted. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have link to ballotpedia embedded in my name link on 2022 TN House candidate page so users can click to find out more information about me like my competitors incumbent link.

how do I get this accomplished? https://ballotpedia.org/Kevin_West_(Tennessee) 2001:5B0:241B:6168:7495:AEA5:6DC0:CC0E (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you want, Kevin, but it doesn't seem to be related to Wikipedia. If it indeed is not, then you'll have to ask elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you managed to add the Ballotpedia URL next to your name, but I removed it, as it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. External links are rarely permitted within Wikipedia articles - see that link for details. You have a conflict of interest in editing that article, and should not edit it directly: rather you should make an edit request, and an uninvolved editor will choose whether and how to implement your request. ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been wondering what the rule is for pages of songs which were obscure upon their original release but had a much more popular cover version. I noticed that some of these are written as if they were only about the cover (with the lead infobox being about the cover), even though the opening sentence suggests otherwise. For example, Nothing Compares 2 U was originally written by Prince for The Family, but the article reads as if it were by Sinead O'Connor. Clearly, the version on which the article is centered isn't just the most popular version, as Respect is centered on the Otis Redding version, with the Aretha Franklin version as a subsection further down even though it's easily more popular. WP:NMG says that "[n]otable covers can have a standalone article provided it can be a reasonably-detailed article based on facts independent of the original", but these pages clearly aren't exclusively about the specific covers (using Nothing Compares 2 U as an example again, Prince's posthumously released solo demo version is included as a subsection), so what determines this? ForeverStamp (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ForeverStamp There is some interesting and relatively recent discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 23#Really, a cover can never have an independent article?, which provides The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording) and the covers of We Are the World done after the 2010 Haiti earthquake as examples of a separate article for a cover version of a song. Whatever consensus exists looks pretty shaky, but the general idea right now seems to be that cover versions should be folded into whatever "main" article there is for a song, with few exceptions. Shells-shells (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if the original song isn't viewed as notable enough, should it only be mentioned? Girls Just Want to Have Fun is another example - is it correct the way it is or would it be better if the main infobox was about Robert Hazard's version and "Cyndi Lauper version" was a subsection? ForeverStamp (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hound Dog (song) may not be a "Good Article" (capitalized), but it strikes me as a very good article, dealing adeptly with the (stunning) original, a far better-selling cover, and various other covers. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/madam, recently I have translated a another language Wikipedia page into English using Wikipedia:Content translation tool (reason: the page was not available in English) and the page was reviewed and it was successful and the page got published in the mainstream. I have also added relevant English citations to the translated content rather than the other original language citations.
My doubt here is:
1. Does it lead to copyright violation for not giving credits to the person of the original language creator?
2. Am I supposed to reward credits to the original creator?
3. Am I actually required to take permission from the original creator before translating?
4. If I am supposed to give credits since I violated the rule, what is the remedy available for me now?

I am really worried since it was my first Translation. Please guide me, Thank you 456legend(talk) 08:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: you can put {{translated page|1=<language code>|2=<article name>}} on the talk page of the article. by the way, what page is it? lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 12:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight it is this page Teegala Krishna Reddy 456legend(talk) 12:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: you have attributed the translation in your edit summary, and that is sufficient. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 12:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight Thank you too for the response. 456legend(talk) 12:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend. To understand what you're required to do when translating articles for publication on English Wikipedia, please see Help:Translation#License requirements. For what to do to fix situations where attribution wasn't given, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry Okay Thank you for your reply, I have just done that. 456legend(talk) 12:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello my page is made beautifully but i am unable to upload it cann u help me out its still in sand box User:Akshayparmar.gu/sandbox RASHID ZIRAK (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RASHAD ZIRAK Hello. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or tell the world about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. If you meet the notability criteria, someone will eventually write about you- though an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm creating a page on wikipedia for my first time about Sergei Varentsov, and I can't for the life of me figure out how to use templates. I'm trying to use a biography template, but it says that you have to substitute it. How do I substitute my content into the template? SherlockHolmes23 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SherlockHolmes23: what template are you trying to use? lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 12:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SherlockHolmes23: You are using VisualEditor. Most template documentation is written for the source editor. See Help:VisualEditor#Editing templates, or switch to the source editor to add a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fine if I left a message on your talkbox after I'm done writing the article, as it is currently very much a work in progress. For now, I've simply just ignored the use of templates apart from a wikibox, and I'll try to use the source editor to see if stuff goes better. Sorry if I don't reply quickly, because I'm GMT+8 SherlockHolmes23 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SherlockHolmes23: I suggest to keep posting here at the Teahouse. If the section has been archived or it's not about using tempates then start a new section. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created a draft and then another copy paste article (that is wrong, I learned). Now what I have to do please? Can I remove the Article I created as e copy or I have to remove the Draft and to let the Article?? I am talking about ORDO Store. It has and a draft page also. P.S. I am a new editor on Wikipedia:-) Nrt0011 (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that you created Draft:ORDO Store, which was Declined and then Rejected, and also ORDO Store, which has been nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attempt to remove the article. The AfD process takes 7-10 days. At the end, an Administrator will decide to either keep or delete the article. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good thank you @David notMD. So what about the draft page please? Nrt0011 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nrt0011 What is your association with Gru088? 331dot (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was Rejected by a highly experienced Reviewer, which means that in that person's opinion, the draft (similar/identical in content to the article), has no potential to become an article. One option is to abandon the draft, meaning stop all editing. At the end of six months it will be deleted. I leave to others to explain a process for faster deletion. Separately, answer 331dot's question, as it is suspicious that Gru088, as a newly created account, has taken an active interest in your article. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you @David notMD and I have not any personal interest with this article. All this is because that was my seconde article I created and I really worked so much to edit and create it, to make it looks correct and collecting as much informations as its possible. For these reasons I would like if my work is in compatible with Wikipedia standards. @331dot I don't know anyone here I swear and also I don't know @Gru088. I don't know what this Editor have made and I don't know how to do this because I am new here and I don't know many things except editing articles and trying to add new articles. Nrt0011 (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nrt0011 It would be very unusual for a new account to find and edit an existing article at random. Is this article or draft being discussed off wiki somewhere? 331dot (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Maybe there is anyone in interest with this one, I really don't know nothing about this. I have not share in any place outside Wiki this Article, never. Nrt0011 (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gru088 has been asked on Talk page why four of five edits in a new account are about ORDO Store. Separate from that, the article is heading toward deletion and the draft was Rejected, so I recommend stopping all efforts to create an article about ORDO, and move on to other topics. I also recommend that you use the AfC process rather than directly creating articles, until you have more experience and AfC success. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is my family business and i wanted to edit something on it. it is on its job and without wiki. i just want to edit something was there. Gru088 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i having problems submitting my article to the draft. Draft:Mile 17 - Wikipedia also it seems dificult to write an article need some help and also how to navigate Wikidata.

Ecobrown (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mile 17 was submitted and Declined for lack of valid references. It appears to be an intersection on the N8 road, not a named town or city. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been reading about the policies of Wikipedia (eg. WP:BLP) , and I'd like to ask, is there a simplified version of the policies that experienced editors use? Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dinoz1 In my experience, delving into policies is a poor idea. You'll get much more of an introduction of what actually matters by adding this Teahouse to your watchlist and occasionally looking to see what others are asking about and being helped with. There is a tutorial you can access from Help:Introduction but I don't know whether it is any good as I haven't tried it. You will also get a lot of ideas about policies by looking at the Talk Pages of articles with many editors; in the case of living people, that would be almost any well-known politician. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dinoz1 (chat?) 13:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last week someone suggested I could post my links here for them to be checked for notability. Could someone please let me know if these 3 are strong enough for my article to be approved? Thank you.

[1] [2] [3] GlobalAaloo (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GlobalAaloo I assume this is in relation to WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1168#Buzz_words and the article is Draft:Center for Central European Architecture. @Tigraan was the one who suggested supplying the references. They all seem to be in Czech (?) which I can't understand; the second one asks me to log in, so is unhelpful! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GlobalAaloo. The first one almost certainly does not help because as far as I can see it is about the two people, not about the Center. Furthermore, it is just short biographies of them, without a named author, so it must be presumed that it is not independent of them, and so is of limited use, and no use at all for establishing notability, either for them or for the Center.

The second one I can't read, for the same reason as Mike

The third one may possibly be helpful. But it appears to be mainly about a particular exhibition, with only a paragraph about the Center. Reading the Google translation, it looks to me very much as if that paragraph is based on a press release, and so is not independent. So, while bits of information from that article may be acceptable for an article, it does not seem to me to contribute to establishing notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teahouse reader,

I have submitted the article 'Radiosands' for review 6 months ago, and have been waiting 6 months for approval but there has not yet been a review. The same article has already been published in the German language here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosands I would be happy to link the English translation of the German page to the already existing German page. You can find the draft page of the English version here: Draft:Radiosands

It would be very helpful if the English page could be reviewed soon.

Many thanks for your work! Artandarchives (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artandarchives Perhaps triggered by your post here, the draft has now been reviewed and declined. There are a few comments from the reviewer that you should take care to try to resolve before re-submission. Note that the draft has not been rejected and may well be capable of improving to the required standard. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the draft had been waiting 3 months (since July), not 6 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to know if you have an idea of a wiki-tool that can be used to monitor co-ordinated edits aside organisers using outreach dashboard & the Hashtag tool. Jwale2 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwale2 If you want to investigate suspected coordinated editing, there are tools such as this one. Otherwise, you may have to rephrase your question. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is referring to an edit-a-thon or some similar (legitimately coordinated) event. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this should be simple but I'm having trouble inserting an image into a biography page. Advice? Candice Wilmore (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Candice Wilmore, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to be included, the image must first be uploaded either to Wikimedia Commons or locally to English Wikipedia. The image also must be compatibly licensed, or meet the WP:FAIRUSE criteria - most pictures you find on the internet are not. What image are you trying to insert, and where did it come from? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo I took, as a photographer for local events. Where do I upload? I don't see that, thanks so much. Candice Wilmore (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Candice Wilmore. If you took the photos yourself, then in principle you would be the copyright holder and could upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons under a free license if you want. Now, I say "in principle" because what take a photo of can in some cases be protected by copyright on its own merits, separate of the copyright you create when taking of photo; moreover, in still some other cases, taking a photo of something may not generate a new copyright if its not deemed to involce any real creative input on your part. For more on such things, take a look at c:Commons:Derivative works, c:Commons:2D copying and c:Commons:Own work.

Uploading a photo to Wikimedia Commons is not really too hard of a thing to do; first you will need to have a file of the photo available on your computer or some other device that can access the Internet. Then, you can use c:Commons:Upload Wizard to upload the file. Before you do so, however, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:License revocation for some general information on what it means to upload a photo to Commons. Bascially, you'll be making a version of your photo available for others to freely use in whichever way the please at anytime they please without needing to separately seek your permission. You still will retain copyright ownership over the photo and can require reusers of your photos to acomply with the terms of whatever license you choose, but it will be your responsibility to enforce the terms of whichever license you choose. In addition, once you release a file under such a free license, you can really change your mind and take it all back at some later date.

FWIW, I'm not posting such things to discourage you from uploading your photos because many Wikipedia articles can benefit from photos (particularly high-quality encyclopedically relevant photos), but you should understand what it means to do so. There's no way to restrict the use of your photos to only Wikipedia or only in certain ways under the terms of the free licenses that the Wikimedia Foundation accepts, and some people only find this out after it's too late and they find their photos being used on some other website or by some other party completely unreated to Wikipedia.

Now, if you or someone else (with your permission) has already posted these photos somewhere online or published them in some print publication, you should also take a look at c:Commons:VRT#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT? to see whether any of that applies to your photos. You can still uploaded such photos, but some further verification of your copyright authorship might be needed. If after reading all of this, you still want to upload your photos, you should try to upload as high a resolution of the photo as possible without its original Exif data since low resolution scans or photoshopped versions of photos often get flagged as possible copyright violations and may require further verification.

One last thing, everything I posted above related to Wikimedia Commons is related to the copyright status of the photo. Wikimedia Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright status of the content it hosts; it's not really too concerned with how such content is used on Wikipedia or by other thirs-parties. Image use on Wikipedia needs to be done in accordance with Wikipedia:Image use policy and sometimes there can be disagreements about the contextual relevance of an image to the subject of an article. So, much like with respect to textual content, there can be disagreements among Wikipedia editors as to how to use images in articles and such disagreements are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki user talk page is User talk:Toreezy00, my Draft is Draft:Torikatelyn, I am reaching out because I created an article about myself as a singer, I including the links to my songs, and was told I need non primary sources, how can I find non primary sources on an article about myself? How is that possible? Toreezy00 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toreezy00 You are advised not to write an article about yourself, because it is nearly impossible to be neutral when writing about yourself. But more importantly, your article did not cite any sources at all. A non-primary source is like an article written about you, or a significant mention of you in a book. You'll need to add those to the article, if they exist. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toreezy00: Please see WP:RS for detailed info about identifying reliable sources. But it'll be very hard and very frustrating trying to write an autobiography unless you have much more editing experience. As an example, anyone can create songs and link to them, or post YouTube videos. We need to show that someone working for an independent third party media outlet felt the songs and the musician were notable enough to write about. You'd be better off working on a less restrictive social media platform such as Facebook. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toreezy00. To enlarge on what Pyrrho says above, articles in this encyclopaedia have to demonstrate that their subject is "notable", which boils down to sufficient material having been published about them by people unconnected with them in "reliable sources", which the article must "cite." This is because Wikipedia only summarises what has already been published elsewhere, so that everything in an article can be verifiable, at least in theory, by anyone who reads it.

Most of an article should consist of information summarised from independent reliable sources (which excludes their own or their relatives' and friends' social media, published or broadcast interviews with them, and publicity material released by their management or record label, for example). An individual's personal knowledge about a subject (whether it's themself or somebody else) that hasn't been published can never be included in an article, because it can't be verified by readers. Also, if the subject is still alive or only recently dead, the more stringent rules of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply to the article, for their own (and their relatives') protection and privacy.

For a singer, the particular requirements for notability are covered in WP:Notability (musician). The vast majority of singers and other musicians in the world have not been sufficiently written (or broadcast) about to meet these requirements (although some may do so in the future as their careers progress – see WP:Too soon).

So: are there at least three separate pieces each of at least several paragraphs (or equivalent) that have been written or broadcast about you in newspapers, magazines, journals, books, TV programmes, or similar "reliable sources"? If so, their information can be summarised in different words – except for short, marked quotes (to avoid copyright infringement) – to form the basis of a draft article, which can then be built on by adding further material from other similar sources, all of which must be cited. If not, then regrettably it's probably too soon for a viable Wikipedia article about you.

Remember (or be advised) that Wikipedia forbids promotion of any kind, which is another reason why articles about singers, musicians and other artists are almost never successfully written by themselves or anyone directly connected with them. Remember also that the subject of an article has no control over its contents and is strongly discouraged from editing it directly (except for totally uncontroversial facts), so anything reliably published about them can be added to it even if it is not to their liking.

I hope all this is helpful, and good luck with your career – if it continues to be successful, sooner or later enough will be published about you that someone else will undoubtably want to write a Wikipedia article about you.

[Edited to add . . .] I also notice that the photo you have uploaded to Wikipedia Commons and added to the article has been nominated for deletion. In brief, copyright in a photo nearly always resides with the person who took it, not the subject, even if the subject commissioned it. Your description ". . . birthday photoshoot" suggests it was taken by a professional photographer (whose name is apparently in its metadata), not yourself, so you cannot upload it as "own work" and cannot release it under a CC licence (as Wikipedia requires); only the copyright owner themself can legally do that (thought you could ask them to do so). This is a matter of international laws, and Wikipedia has to abide by them, even though it makes obtaining suitable pictures much harder. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Toreezy00. Here at Wikipedia, we strongly advise against writing an article about yourself. This is due to the fact that neutrality is extremely hard to uphold when writing an article about yourself, which is stated above. However, an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We document the good and bad based on reliable sources, and as said above, will always strive to be neutral. Now, aside from this and doing a quick google search, I have not found any reliable sources to support that you indeed have the level of notoriety required for an encyclopaedia. So, all of these combined, it is reasonable to think that your article was denied due to a lack of sources and a probable lack of neutrality. Ray 01:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently revised the Delivery Solutions page and was wondering if someone could take a look and let me know if they think it is good to publish? Or if there is more revision needed? Thank you so much! Draft:Delivery Solutions Carolinecllw (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolinecllw It looks like it was deleted for blatant promotion, so no, it was likely not "good to publish". I recommend you check out this page for more information on why that might be. Hope that helps! Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But after that I completely revised and have a new draft. Is there a way for you to see it or does it have to be published first? Carolinecllw (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolinecllw, where is this new draft? I don't see one in your edit history. If you wrote it somewhere else, then yes, you have to publish it on Wikipedia before any of us can see it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor 199.208.172.35: if you click on the link in Carolinecllw's post, you'll be taken to a page where the fact that drafts of that title have been deleted twice as unambiguous promotion. Hence there is nothing remaining for you to see. When drafts like that are deleted they also disappear from User edit histories. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull, yes, I am aware. The OP seems to be saying that they've written yet another version after the others were deleted, possibly offline, which they haven't "published" yet. I'm trying to get clarification. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they should put it at Draft:Delivery Solutions, like the previous versions and yes, @Carolinecllw that's where it should go. Click on the red-link and you'll be allowed to create the page with your new version. However, beware that if the new version is not substantially better and less promotional than the previous ones it too may be deleted and the article title WP:SALTed so as not to waste the time of the volunteers here. You should also read WP:SOLUTION to understand why certain language in articles is not appropriate. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WIkipedians,

I'm working on improving the article for The Mac Weekly student newspaper. It was deleted in 2018 because it was very short and deemed not notable enough.

My rewrite was just re-deleted because it didn't contain enough secondary sources. I've since added some, could someone review it and give me feedback before I try publishing again? It's in my sandbox, I'm not sure if/how drafts work: User:Sockwell162/sandbox.

Also, there are a lot of sources for the notable alumni section, most of which are from the paper's archives. Is this ok? If not, what should I change?

Thank you. Sockwell162 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sockwell, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be surprising if a student newspaper had garnered enough attention in reliable independent sources to establish that it was notable. I haven't looked at your multifarious sources in detail, but I notice that a good number are citations to the paper itself. Not one of those is capable of playing any part in establishing notability. Most of them should be removed, and any information sourced to them removed from the article (See WP:PRIMARY for the very limited kinds of information which can be sourced to primary sources). Looking at a couple more - the Scarlet and Black is a student newspaper, so unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source and in any case the article doesn't say very much about The Mac, and what it does say based on an interview with The Mac's editor, so it is not independent. The ACP reference merely mentions the paper, and cannot contribute to notability. Alumni are neither here nor there - notability is not inherited. I haven't looked further.

The very first step in writing an article - without which it is likely that every single minute put into the article has been wasted time - is to find several sources, each of which meets all three of the following criteria: 1) the source is a reliable source; 2) the source is independent of the subject - neither the publisher, not the writer, is associated with the subject, and it is not based on a press release or interview from the subject; 3) it contains significant coverage of the subject. If you have three or more references which satisfy all these conditions, please point us at them; otherwise I recommend you don't spend any more time or effort on this. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockwell162, in addition to what Colin Fine has explained, my impression, having edited the article, is that the Weekly is not much different from the average student newspaper, most of which strive diligently for their own level of notoriety. --Quisqualis (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have hundreds of articles about student newspapers. Take a look at Category:Student newspapers and its many subcategories. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And many of them are seriously deficient in sourcing. ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a bio article for an academic.  I submitted the article, and it was rejected because my sources were not "reliable".  I asked why, and was told because they were connected to the subject of the bio.  So they told me one thing I could do is use Google Scholar to find articles he has written, and to see how many times they were cited.  He had over 100 scholarly articles published, and I did the search and they all came up, and I can see that each of them was cited many times by others.  I'm writing to ask how I can use this in my article in such a way that it's accepted.  Can I provide a link to the search results generally?  Or, so I have to just provide links to individual papers?

ElvisTheMan (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElvisTheMan. As I see it, the problem with your references is not really the reliability of the sources but their lack of independence from the topic. One obvious problem is that your sections "Early Life and Education", "Academic Positions" and "Personal" are unreferenced, and that violates the core content policy Verifiability. If you have not already done so, I recommend that you read and study Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and as you improve your draft, keep in mind compliance with that guideline. I recommend that you create a list of roughly three to five of his most widely cited academic articles, in a "Selected publications" section. On your talk page, you compared your draft to Katsumi Nomizu, and asked why that article is acceptable but your draft isn't yet. What jumps out at me is that he was a co-author of the influential and widely reviewed Foundations of Differential Geometry, he won the prestigious Humboldt Prize, and the Kulkarni–Nomizu product is named after him and another mathematician. These are persuasive claims of notability. That being said, the Nomizu article also has some obvious problems including unreferenced content and is only rated C. You should try to emulate Good articles and Featured articles instead. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per ther reviewer, Draft:Donald A. Walker needs more refs. However, referencing to his publications contributes nothing toward confirming notability. David notMD (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, I am not sure your second sentence is quite correct. Publishing something does not make one notable, true. However, having highly-cited publications does, per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes #1a. That guideline (notability for academics) overrides the need for GNG-level sources (unlike most WP:SNGs, which are guides to presume that GNG sources exist). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am corrected for having over-simlpified. David notMD (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Hoping to get some advice on how I could get my page accepted. Can anyone help out?

Thanks so much!

Lucas Lucasgorelick (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero "pages" on Wikipedia, only articles on notable topics, there is nothing in your draft to suggest that you are notable yet sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasgorelick: Please be aware there is no such thing as your page in Wikipedia. If your draft is ever accepted it will become the Wikipedia's article about you. You'll have no more rights to it and no more control over its contents than any other editor. Please see WP:OWN and WP:5P. --CiaPan (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned Draft:Lucas Gorelick up a bit, but the comments left be the reviewers indicate that you probably do not meet WP:GNG. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the (mostly unreferenced) "Work" section contributes to notability. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi..I edited my Edit Notice. But it still shows the previous one. Is there any way to refresh it. Eagle Site (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purge or bypass your browser cache. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagle Site: It will look the same - you changed the link it goes to, not the visible text. But if that's not it, then per above, visit [[4]] for Chrome. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagle Site: Responding here to a request on my talk page. You're being a bit unclear. I'm saying that you changed the code so the person goes to the right place when they click that link on the your page. If you look at the page, it will look the same, but the result of clicking is different. If it's a cache issue, here's how to clear your Safari cache. [[5]]. If you're still having problems, please clearly describe the issue. Saying "it still shows the previous one" is unclear, leaving us to try to guess the answer to the problem. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to echo what TimTempleton says. Being vague makes it incredibly difficult at best to actually figure out what's going on, as it could be any one of a number of things. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All, I submitted a page that was rejected on the grounds that it wasn't written from a neutral point of view. Following the advise given, I did my best to edit the page to comply with Wikipedia standards. I am a long time reader of Wikipedia but first time editor. This is my first article on Wikipedia so I am happy to receive any feedback on my revised draft from the more experienced users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kenneth_R._Leibler ProfMagicLunch (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ProfMagicLunch. Just a quick question and comment. First the question: are you connected to Leiber in any way? I'm asking this since it seems as if you have pretty much started editing Wikipedia for the purpose of creating an article about Leiber. While there's nothing wrong doing such a thing per se, often in such cases the person creating the article is somehow has more than just a casual connection to the subject they're trying to trying to create an article about. If you do have some connection to Leiber, it will be easier for others to try and help you and also lessen the chance of you running into problems the more transparent you are about any connection you have to him. Now the comment: please take a look at WP:REFPUNC since location where citations are added to Wikipedia articles is different from what the style you seem to be used. As for promotional language, drafts aren't typically declined simply because their language is promotional (and least not based on my understanding) unless we're looking at something that's extremely promotional, but rather because the WP:Notability of the subject hasn't clearly established. Promotional wording and style-related matters are often issues that can be cleaned up, but a lack of Wikipedia notability is something that is impossible to WP:OVERCOME. Often drafts have a better chance of getting approved by removing extraneous content not directly connected to the subject's Wikipedia notability because the AfC reviewer assessing the draft might have difficultly getting past all of the clutter to assess what's really Wikipedia notable about the subject. So, perhaps try doing a self-assessment of the draft and figure out what the three best sources are for establishing Lieber's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO. Build you draft around them and then add additional encyclopedically relevant and reliably sourced content after it's been accepted by AfC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProfMagicLunch, I have accepted Kenneth R. Leibler into the encyclopedia. After reading about half a dozen of the references, it seems clear to me that he is notable. I do not see any obvious problems with neutrality in your current version. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt feedback. I am glad to join the community of Wikipedia editors. I have been really impressed by the work you all do. ProfMagicLunch (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProfMagicLunch: Now that the draft has been accepted and you have declared a WP:COI with respect to Leibler on your user page, you probably should take a close look at WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and avoid directly editing the articles as much as possible from hereon. The nature of your COI is still a bit hazy, however; if WP:PAID applies to your creating of the article in any way, you're going to need to further clarify your connection as explained in WP:UPE because undisclosed paid (compensated) editing is against the Wikimedia Foundations Terms of Use. Some other things you might also want to look at for reference are WP:OWN, WP:LUC, WP:PROUD and WP:BIOSELF now that the article exists. If, by chance, you were contacted by Leibler or someone associated with him and asked to create this article, you should explain to Leibler (or his representative) that he has pretty much zero editorial control over what's written about him on Wikipedia. There are ways he (or they) can seek assistance if they find certain parts of the article to be "problematic", but all article content (positive or negative) is going to be assessed in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and not in accordance with the subject's wishes. Finally, please keep in mind that any COI you have to Leibler applies to all content about him on Wikipedia, and not just to the article about him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I was not paid nor contacted by anyone to write the article. My disclosure was that I personally know Kenneth Leibler and thought his contributions were worth documenting on Wikipedia. ProfMagicLunch (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

​ Thank you for clarifying things a bit. While you probably have a COI, it's probably a pretty mild one depending upon how close you are to Leibler. You should be OK in editing the article as long as you (1) always leave a clear edit summary and (2) place close attention to WP:BLP. If, however, anyone WP:REVERTs you because of your COI or because of some other policy or guideline reason, follow WP:COIADVICE and use the article talk page to discuss things. Right now the article has pretty much zero infromation about Leibler's background; so, any reliably sourced information you can add about that would be a good thing. Try taking a look for similar articles at WP:FA or WP:GA for some general ideas on what kinds of information is typically considered encyclopedically relevant and how to possibly incorporate it into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not well-sourced, reads like original research and doesn't make it clear why, or if, this house and garden is notable. There is a close version of the text at Lancashire Gardens Trust, which has some responsibility for the garden, but that text is dated 2019 whilst the Wiki article was created, essentially with the current text, in 2011. The text itself suggests it may originally have been written in 2007 as the history only goes as far as 2007 and there is a reference to "this very wet summer".

I haven't been able to find much online which could be added to the article, except the record of the Grade II listing and a mention in another biography of Leonora Carrington.

Where would you go with this one? Severe pruning feels like the best option to me, but I wanted to check I wasn't underplaying the possible copyvio issue. Tacyarg (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tacyarg, I agree that the wording sounds like OR, but it may be a plagiarism of somebody's OR. Your calculations related to dates (2007) are somewhat telling, and it may be hard to query the article's creator, who last edited in 2011. The sourcing is terrible, as there is little evidence that the sources are more than documents grabbed from the 2011 websites of the 4 companies listed. The article is TL, so I DR it, but it appears to be one of those English articles that belongs on its own server, for which some historical society apparently believes it needs a backup on Wikipedia.

I assume plagiarism is the answer, but it's a guess, as there's no clear evidence so far. In such a case, it's easier to hack it down to a manageable and encyclopedic size. If you are able to look at a July 1, 2011 archived version of the websites of those 4 property/architecture firms, you might find evidence of copy/paste, but the rewrite is simpler.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, PS: the 2019 book by Moorhead was added as a reference in 2019, suggesting to me that the article isn't based on it, and that somebody wanted a book mention in Wikipedia. --Quisqualis (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hear help is friendly at the Teahouse. I would be very appreciative of some help. I have been editing pages on and off for about 3-years. I went to an index page that had several persons with the same name listed but the person I was searching for was missing, so I decided to create my very first article! I'm excited. Here is the index page I saw (and interesting to note, a couple of those links lead to one-sentence stubs). And here is the draft I created. I recently submitted it for review. I am grateful for feedback, direction, advice, etc. Thank you! JD (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COURTESY: Draft:Jason O. Wilson (author) Declined three times and resubmitted. Comments left by rviewers. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read below. JD (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jdphiladelphia, and welcome to The Teahouse.

As David mentioned above, reviewers left comments on the page. I would recommend reading these, and the pages they linked, including the Wikipedia:Writing better articles page.

If these don't help, or you have further questions, you can ask the AFC Help Desk by going here.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read below. Thank you. JD (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very disappointing and discouraging feedback. Yes, the article has been declined by multiple reviewers, which is why I'm here at the Treehouse. I originally submitted the article a few MONTHS ago, in MAY 2022. That was probably my BEST work, my very first submission. In general, a reviewer tells me to do something, I do it, then the next reviewer gives me seemingly opposite feedback. One says TOO many citations. The next says too FEW citations. One said make the article LONGER. Another said make the article SHORTER. I went to a chat group here on Wikipedia (I forget the name) and a very kind soul went through each citation with me and explained which ones were legit per Wikipedia's guidelines and which were not (for example, one citation did not have a BYLINE) and I had linked to a source that was forbidden; I think it was IMDB). He even helped me find a new citation. So helpful! I resubmit the article. Declined again. At some point I asked if I should delete the draft and start over, and I was advised to keep going through the process.

By the way, on my Talk page, you can see where I RESPONDED to each REVIEWER advising them I have completed their suggestion(s). The most recent reviewers gave some good pointers, and once again, I have followed everything they told me to the LETTER to the best of my ability. For example, I read the articles they linked too. In fact, the article that @EchidaLives referenced above, I read it TWICE (which takes a lot of time), and that article helped me reorder the article to put the most CRITICAL and IMPORTANT info upfront in the first paragraph. And I submitted it once again.

Meanwhile, to be extra "safe," I thought I'd try the Treehouse to get an extra set of eyes before it gets declined again. Except, for some reason, the two people giving me feedback here in the Treehouse so far simply tell me to consult the feedback & article that I've already consulted. So yeah, so discouraging. Perhaps you can not see all my edits? Again, I think the very first submission was best. It's like there's been 12 different English teachers advising me how to write the article. Ironically, I majored in English in college and was editor in chief of my college newspaper. So I'm a decent writer to say the least (I also write poetry). Anyhow, I'm very disappointed and a bit frustrated. I have tried to keep my excitement about my first article getting published. The only encouragement is that I do see a few other people in the Treehouse having challenges too. Another encouragement is that I got a notification last night that I've made my 100th edit! So I was in such good spirits turning to the Treehouse to "cover all bases," and then I get the remarks that I did, basically, "read what you've already read." And respectfully, what does "COURTESY" mean, @David notMD? JD (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdphiladelphia On Talk pages in general and especially at the Teahouse, the more experienced contributors will sometimes add missing information so everyone else reading a post can see the background and a link to the draft or article in question. There is a template {{courtesy link}} that can be placed in front of such a comment, although in this case David notMD didn't use it. He just meant "as a courtesy to other readers, here's some useful extra information". Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks, makes sense. I added a lot more detail, so hopefully that helps others help me better as well. 👍🏽 JD (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "COURTESY" is shorthand for a communication to other Teahouse hosts, to brief them on status of a draft. David notMD (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you were right to scale it back from a 30+ referenced 'referencing bombing', but you may have over-compensated. As written now, there is no text nor references about his onvolvment in martial arts, nor how that factors in to his Cave of Adullam. And all of us stumble on adapting our knowledge in our own fields (you: English and writing; me: biochemistry) and Wikipedia's requirements for encyclopedic verification. Persist. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will work on that next, thanks for giving me something specific to work on. I aspire to get it published and hope it can organically grow from other editors. What is so wild is that another person with the same name listed on the index page has two sentences with no citations for their whole article. The darts player, for example. A darts player! And the triathlete has only one sentence. One sentence! Yes, his entire Wikipedia article is a single sentence. Add a black man into the mix (the article I'm drafting), and it can seem like (emphasis on seem like) there is suddenly a demand for more citations, more facts, better writing, etc. It can be tempting to wonder that. But in all seriousness, I realize the articles about the darts player and triathlete were created in 2017 and 2016 respectively (albeit both edited this year), and I see a note on both about being a stub. So those must have been added during an era when Wikipedia was less demanding. Truly, thank you for taking the time to review & respond. I am actually grateful to fix or improve anything a Reviewer points out and simply hope that doing so will eventually result in an acceptance instead of yet another a new Reviewer finding yet something different to improve, another hoop to jump through. I mean, articles can be perfected until infinite, right? Nevertheless, I shall persist. Thank you for the nudge. That is my word for the rest of the month: Persist. It just won't be tonight. Tired. Lol. Have a good night/day. JD (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've never written an article before, so I'm sure I have issues. I am trying to publish this stub: Draft:Glamour Shots

I keep getting rejected for my citations, but I have 3 news outlet sources including the NY times all with a focus on the subject. I know there are strict rules for publication, but Glamour Shots is a highly recognizable business name, and they produced a highly recognizable aesthetic that helped to define the 1990s. There has to be a way to make this work. I just wanted to get a stub in there to get started. Khabuda (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Glamor Shots!! It definitely was all the rage in the 90s. I hope someone helps you with your article soon. Have a good night. JD (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Khabuda. You really only have two sources. A photo gallery that accompanies an article is not a separate source. Plus, your draft is only two sentences long. An acceptable encyclopedia article should have better bones. and far more meat on the bones. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. Regarding your point on the length, I submitted the draft as a stub. Based on the Wikipedia article for a stub, I thought that one or two sentences would be enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub

Is what I have not adequate in length per those guidelines? The citations I suppose I understand. Khabuda (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabuda Hello there. For stubs, one or two sentences may be enough. However, these sentences do not show encyclopaedic quality. The writing style is more descriptive narrative rather than informative. The sources you also use do not establish at least small amounts of notoriety and do not meet WP:CORP guidelines and by extension, the general notability guidelines. Ray 04:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the NYT article is locked behind a paywall. But based on what I'm seeing here, only two (maybe three if I get to see the NYT article) reliable sources are here. Three is not enough to establish notoriety. In addition to this, the articles document the current state of the brand instead of actually documenting the history to support your claims. This is all. Cheers, Ray 03:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Khabuda. I did some quick research and found a Texas Monthly article about a newer version of Glamour Shots, but it contains a little history on the original business: https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/latino-glamour-shots-trend/ Also, one of your references mentions the number of Glamour Shots locations at the peak of popularity, so that number is something that could be added. Best wishes. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khabuda, according to the definition at WP:STUB, A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject.. I do not understand why an editor would set out to write a stub in 2022. I have been an active editor for 13 years and have written over 100 new articles. None of them are stubs and I never intend to write a stub. Maybe stubs were appropriate way back in the early days of Wikipedia but this project is 22 years old now and has over 6.5 million articles. What we need instead are new articles that "provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ray. Please note that the condition for accepting a draft article into Wikipedia is that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Notoriety is something different! ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/madam, my doubt here is what if the video that I have taken as source for uploading a image to Wikimedia commons gets deleted.....will my image also get deleted and will I become responsible? Thank you 456legend(talk) 04:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like it relates to Wikipedia. Rather, it's for Wikimedia as shown by the title. Please contact their help desk instead. Ray 05:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@456legend: See c:Commons:Help desk. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 05:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 456legend. It appears that you are uploading copyrighted images without providing any evidence that the images are freely licensed in an acceptable way. All Wikimedia projects take copyright violations very seriously, so be 100% sure that any images you upload are either in the public domain or freely licensed. Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 sir, can you show me the files that I have uploaded in a wrong way? I have provided all the sources for Wikimedia common files and the respective licenses are stating that they are reusable under creative commons and coming to the license of Bollywood Hungama they are acceptable under cc by bollywood hungama license. Please check them on the respective youtube video links I have given as source and reply me here (please tag me when replying) Thank you 456legend(talk) 05:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudhhr Okay sir Thank you, I will contact them. 456legend(talk) 05:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymond Kestis Okay sir thank you 456legend(talk) 05:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

456legend, when I go to the Bollywood Hungama website, it says clearly on the bottom of the home page Copyright © 2022 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved. "All rights reserved" is by definition incompatible with free licensing, where only the right of attribution is reserved. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 That is on the website but the Bollywood hungama provided this discussion on the ticket conversation:

Bollywood Hungama (formerly IndiaFM) grants permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this photograph, provided it is:

attributed to Bollywood Hungama;

from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page);

of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India;

taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer;

This permission does not extend to:

screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures, promotional posters;

photographs copyrighted by others;

and similar exceptions.

Ticket is CC-BY-3.0 license, via OTRS ticket:2008030310010794, under the mentioned above conditions 456legend(talk) 05:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Additionally you can check this on wikimedia commons category: Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama(this category is available on Wikimedia commons) along with the ticket. Also to mention about 14,500 files are uploaded using this license.

and I am following the mentioned conditions

1. I have mentioned the source link

2. using only events/parties images

3. no screenshots/wallpapers or posters uploaded by me 456legend(talk) 05:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

456legend, in my opinion, the copyright declaration on the website home page is authoritative. If this company wants to freely license their images, then they should say that on their home page, instead of saying "all rights reserved". There is a major contradiction here and that does not fly, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a message on talk page 456legend(talk) 06:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I got pinged by the discussion on Cullen's talk page, User_talk:Cullen328#Our_discussion_from_Teahouse, responded there in some detail, and got curious enough to follow back here. I'm a Commons license reviewer which is the mechanism we have for answering the original question asked here, "what if the video that I have taken as source for uploading a image to Wikimedia commons gets deleted.....will my image also get deleted"? Commons has a number of people that go and review the licenses on images from videos and other web pages, and mark them with a template that says "I verify that at this date, this image was actually marked with this license on this web page". That's called https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review. That way if the video gets deleted, we generally take the reviewer's word for it. It's a position of some trust, not quite as much as being an administrator (all Commons administrators are also License reviewers automatically), but still requires noticeable experience with telling when images are likely truly licensed, and when they probably aren't correctly licensed. You put a https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:LicenseReview tag on your image and in theory a License reviewer will eventually get to it. Of course, like so much on our volunteer project, the backlog with images waiting to be License reviewed is noticeable, so if you are really worried about specific videos vanishing, you can ask specific license reviewers to prioritize specific images.

Oh, the second part of the question "and will I become responsible?" - Commons definitely won't get mad at you because the source video vanished, that happens. In fact, Commons probably won't even get mad at you if you upload a few incorrectly licensed images in good faith - that are a number of people on YouTube and Flickr and other sites that put fake licenses on their images that they don't really own the rights to, and it can be hard to tell. We've got a whole list of Flick accounts we don't trust, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Questionable_Flickr_images, and that list grows regularly. We can only do the best we can. I've been uploading images for years, I've uploaded over 3000, I'm an experienced License reviewer, and even I occasionally make mistakes. Now if you make a habit of uploading copyright violations, especially after you've had it explained to you how to tell, then you'll get blocked. But if you make a mistake in good faith, you'll be all right. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preview warning: Page using Template:Tooltip with unknown parameter "3 = unicode"

This warning message is showing when I am editing my userpage. And no problem for publishing but it shows. What's this and how to fix this. Eagle Site (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Eagle Site! The error appears to be caused by the Gender entry in the Template:Infobox Wikipedia user you are using. Removing "Male" from there & then previewing removes the error. However I don't know why it is causing such an error message as you appear to be using it correctly. Using Female in the Gender entry also generates the same error message. Yet Male or Female settings are working, that's what produces the Male or Female symbol to the right of the "Wikipedian" title on that info box. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject will know why this is causing an error message. Hope this is of some use! LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You used the template correctly—the template itself had a problem, so I requested the problem be removed (request permalink). Thanks to Paine Ellsworth for fixing it. Since this is the Teahouse, I'd like to note that I would not expect most new editors to figure this out—reporting the problem here suffices. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a number of 'refimprove' come up on a number of articles I've created. I understand the meaing of these, but I am using a template copied directly from verified pages (and editing the links/references) where necessary. Is there anything else I can be doing to prevent this happening? Examples: 1989–90 Charlton Athletic F.C. season & 2007–08 Chesterfield F.C. season Talbot140690 (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Talbot140690 These tags are added by other editors, not bots, and you can see who added them from the page history. In the case of both articles you linked, it was @User:Onel5969 and you can ask them to explain why they did so either on their Talk Page or on the Talk Page of the article. Communicating and collaborating with other editors is at the heart of building Wikipedia Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Talbot, (and thanks for the ping Michael D. Turnbull), one of the pillars of WP is WP:VERIFY, so everything in your article needs to be supported by references. The issue with your articles, although they have been marked "reviewed", is that there is information in the large tables you've created which is not supported by the single reference. In the first article you reference above, for example, that single reference, while it does give the backup for the match and its score, does not contain information on the venue or attendence. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understand now, makes complete sense. Thanks both. Talbot140690 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I delete the empty article in Italian, this one is here https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Come_scrivere_una_voce/Utente_avanzatoauch ? The article also exists in English. Wname1 (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it:Aiuto:Come scrivere una voce/Utente avanzatoauch doesn't exist, Wname1; but if it did exist and you wanted to know how to apply to delete it, you'd have to find out at it:Wikipedia, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would Fig 4 from this journal be acceptable under our policy when used on the Cheracebus article? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Yes, in addition to that article being open access, it is licensed with what here we call CC BY SA 4.0, as you can see if you search for "Rights and permissions" at the URL you supplied. Hence (with attribution) you can upload the figure to Wikimedia Commons and use it in a Wikipedia article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Does this also allow us to split the images for the articles of the individual species where we don't yet have a better image? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the license allows any modification of the image you like, provided you attribute the original in the description of how you made derivative work, on the Commons page for your version. The fact that creative commons licenses allow this puts some people off licensing their work in the first place, as they have no control over the use to which it will be put. The only restriction is that you must license the derivative with exactly the same license as the original: that's what the "SA" in the license means. Note that if you are doing simple crops of a larger image, there is a good tool for that on Commons which will ensure the licensing is OK. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: Um, I'm not too sure about this. The caption of Figure 4 is "Titi monkeys, genus Cheracebus. Illustrations by Stephen D. Nash ©Conservation International", which indicates that the illustrations of the monkeys are copyrighted. To use the illustrations in a Wikipedia article, I think you'd have to get Conservation International (whatever that is) to agree to release them under an acceptable license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for how you might go about that. Deor (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That's why I'd asked in the first place... So, the journal article was published with CC BY SA 4.0, and includes CR material. Does the article being CC BY SA 4.0 imply that the article authors already received permission from the image owner to publish the images under CC BY SA 4.0? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: I would not assume that. If it were so, the attribution to Stephen D. Nash would have sufficed. I don't think that academic authors are always conversant with the niceties of copyright law, and they may have wished their own contributions (the overwhelming majority of the article) to be CC-BY-SA 4.0 without realizing that the copyrighted figure couldn't be included under that licence without the express permission of the copyright holder. On the other hand, they might have obtained such permission and not realized that including the "©Conservation International" notice conflicted with it. I myself am certainly not a copyright expert, and you may want to run the problem by the folks at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Deor (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll head over there and ask. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my edits was reverted, which is fair enough as I didn't thoroughly check my work. But, the editor that did so personally attacked me in the edit summary. It seems like This user has a history of doing this to other editors, so I'm not sure what I should do about it.. This is the diff, [6], and the editor is User:Wjfox2005. KaraLG84 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, your edit was correct in the first place. I misread the difference between edits. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wjfox200, regardless of whether the edit was correct, "please learn English" is arguably a violation of WP:CIVIL, so KaraLG84’s complaint has some merit.

Your other edit summaries of "What is wrong with you? Seriously. Get a grip." or "stop being a bootlicking cap-doffer" are definitely violations of the civility policy, though. I have read the page history for 2022_in_the_United_Kingdom, and I do not see any context that excuses those edit summaries. I note that another editor already warned you for the last of those on your talk page in early October.

Please be more polite in your interactions with other editors, even/especially those who disagree with you.

You have been editing for quite a long time, so I guess you already know that, but anyway... If you think someone is unduly pushing their point of view, try to discuss it (on a talk page, not via edit revert summaries) and if it fails, escalate on the appropriate forums (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for instance). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @KaraLG84: See Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility for future reference. Note that opening a thread about user conduct (at WP:ANI) is step number 8; I am concerned with Wjfox200’s abusive edit summaries (as outlined above), but I do not think it is needed for now. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks a lot @Tigraan. That'll be helpful. KaraLG84 (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding this one. At Hunter Biden laptop controversy, the first sentence states: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden," - there was a recent change that removed the word "allegedly" from the last part. It used to say "that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden". However, the rest of the lead, and indeed, the rest of the article, is quite clear on the point that reliable sources consistently describe the laptop's origin as unknown, and that it may have belonged to Hunter Biden at one point, and such ownership has never been proven.

How can we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, in the first sentence of the article, when the rest of the article clearly states that no one is sure if Hunter Biden owned it? Isn't this a violation of some sort of policy? Wes sideman (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman This seems to have been discussed extensively at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#RfC about ownership of the laptop and that Talk Page is the place to air any of your current concerns. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike. Wes sideman (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir/madam, I have recently created a article by translating it from another language Wikipedia into English using Wikipedia:Content translation tool. A 5 day old user placed a maintanence tag stating that it is promotional content. I accept that there might be some mistakes due to the translation tool that literally translates the content. I then immediately changed to normal tone removing any content looking like promotional. Can someone please review it? I feel the article needs more citations but it's not a promotional content. Please review the article: Kalpika Ganesh. And to mention this person who placed the maintenance tag is a 5day old user and when I checked his talk page there is already a discussion asking him what he is doing in the Articles for deletion area. So if anyone can help me in this please guide me. And also try to educate the person about Wikipedia. Thank you 456legend(talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please guide me and educate me if I am at fault. Thank you 456legend(talk) 17:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It looks like another contributor also disagreed with the application of a promotional maintainence tag, and removed it. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 17:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response sir.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 456legend (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors,

I'm Ben and I work for Grayscale Investments. I've been trying to seek help with improving a draft I created for Grayscale and am confused about how to proceed, and feel I've gotten some conflicting responses. I understand that I have a conflict of interest and editors are wary of those who are paid, but I have done my best to follow all the rules and write in a neutral way.

I have been told that because I have a COI, it is "unlikely" I could ever write an unbiased article. When I asked for specific tips on how to improve the draft at WikiProject Companies I was told that I would not be helped because of my COI. I've also asked for help at WikiProject Cryptocurrency and WikiProject Finance & Investment.

So I'm a little confused. I have tried to follow the rules, and been told both that I can't create something that follows the guidelines and it's my responsibility to write something that follows the guidelines but I won't receive help because I have a COI. What I'm really looking for is someone to point out specific language that is problematic or other issues with the draft. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. My original draft was deleted for "unambiguous promotion" before I could ask any questions of the reviewing editor. The draft I uploaded is virtually identical to that initial draft, only the short description has been removed. My goal is to make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure where to go to get feedback on the draft content itself. Any help or insight anyone could offer would be greatly appreciated. BenViagas (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BenViagas Appears you have properly declared your paid connection on your User page. Draft:Grayscale Investments was Speedy deleted in August. You have created a new, not yet submitted draft. I see that there is quite a bit of referenced content about Grayscale at Digital Currency Group, its parent company. Would any of that content improve your draft? If so, your could copy that, providing attribution to where you got it in an Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...largest digital currency asset management company in the world..." can be seen as promotional wording, even if true and referenced. Consider removing that statement from the lede and body of the draft before submitting. David notMD (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BenViagas I have skimmed the article and sources, and I can safely say you're one of the few editors with COIs that actually wrote an article from a neutral point of view. With a few exceptions. Stating that it is the "largest digital currency asset management company in the world", three times no less, can be seen as emphasizing a marketable status which can be seen as promotional. I suggest removing it. I also suggest removing "the first" in the SEC-reporting blah-blah-blah. Considering emphasizing that it is "the first" can be seen as promotional, so replace that with an "a" (which I will do personally, actually). Other than that, it's good. Ray 00:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If my account is banned from editing can I unblock it and if yes how? Luffyking101 (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Luffyking101 Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! You might want to read WP:BAN or WP:BLOCK as bans and blocks are referred to as different things on Wikipedia. Jolly1253 (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have had a draft Speedy deleted, but there is no warning on your account that your editing might lead to you being blocked, either for a specific time or indefinitely. Indef blocks can be appealed. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi i wrote this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Megan_A._K._Peters it was rejected because the professor's career is too young and their work is not yet notable enough. however i dont think the notable thing about this professor is their research (yet, anyway), but rather their founding role in major movements in open science and online education. there are several articles about the project, theyve been interviewed for several podcasts, and they just won the international open science award for it too. 2601:199:4303:5180:81DF:C43A:89F3:2B8 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2601:199:4303:5180:81DF:C43A:89F3:2B8! As is very common, you may be misunderstanding the meaning, in the context of Wikipedia editing, what Wikipedia means by "notable" and "notability." It is not a question of what or how many useful, praiseworthy etc. things a person has done, but rather how much about the person and their doings has been published in Reliable sources that are independent of the person or anyone connected to the person. This is often particularly difficult to demonstrate in the case of scientists and other scholars, because most published material is likely to be about their published scientific papers, etc. rather than the person themself, and much of it is published by institutions that they belong to, which can be used to confirm facts but not notability. Ironically, material from non-scientific sources, such as news journals and magazines, is often of more help notability-wise.

So, for example, it's not enough to cite a source confirming the fact that Megan Peters founded a movement (though the citation is needed to verify that fact): what is needed to demonstrate her notability is a cited source explicitly stating why her doing so is significant. It may be easy for us to infer that it was important, but this borders on WP:Synthesis, which is not admissible. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for what can help to establish notability for such a person.

FWIW, I think Megan Peters is probably notable (and in due course will undoubtably be – see WP:Too soon), but it may not be easy to find the appropriate sources to demonstrate it. Writing a Wikipedia article is hard, but Wikipedia has no deadlines, so please persevere! Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.157.244 (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined is less severe than Rejected. The latter means that the Reviewer believes there is no potential to succeed. David notMD (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Vyolltsa and I created and submitted an article in English recently. The article was declined and I understand it why. Just wanted someone from the community to either help me how to better work on it or can help me create it in English. The person I would like to have an article in English is notable in Albania. One of the well-known essayist and journalist in country. Thank you! Vyolltsa (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Elsa Demo. The sources are mainly in Albanian, which may limit those able to assist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vyolltsa. Have you tried asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania? You might find someone there who is familiar with the subject matter and can offer suggestions as to whether this person would meet WP:BIO for an English Wikipedia article to be written about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I asked a while back on writing an article about the book God Is My Co-Pilot, inspiration for the film God is my Co-Pilot. So I have two questions.

1) Where is the best place to find reviews or papers talking about a book that is 79 years old?

2) The Museum of Aviation in Warner Robins, GA has an exhibit on Robert Lee Scott, Jr. and his book. Will the film about him, his accomplishments, and the book, and the accompanying exhibit be considered an impartial source, therefore, useable for an article?

Thanks, A1139530 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A1139530, welcome back. If you didn't see all the replies to your last post, it's archived here, and has many helpful pointers to sources you could use. The film is not going to be useful in this case; perhaps a documentary published by a highly respected research organization might be useful as a source in some articles, but a 1945 Hollywood biopic is... very far from that, let's just say. Information from the placards at the exhibit might be more usable, but very hard for other folks to verify. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Film was made by the Museum about him and his life accomplishments. Would it however, be considered a bad source because he had worked for the museum for many years after his retirement from the Air Force? A1139530 (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring not the film that the book was inspired from, but the film that was made in the 90's talking about what he did, and his accomplishments. It is viewed upon walking into his exhibit. It DOESN'T (all caps to distinguish the topic of the informational film) is not the movie, but it discusses why he wrote the book, his accomplishments in war, and his life story. A1139530 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A1139530. In regards to the film documentary made by the museum, did any newspapers or magazines do a review of it? If so, a review would be easier to cite as a reference. Since Scott worked for the museum that might bias them to some extent, but if the museum has a good reputation it should be considered reliable.

As for finding reviews for a 79 year old book, some large libraries (both public and college) have bound copies of old magazines, and / or microfilm rolls of old newspapers, such as The New York Times. If you could find a source stating a newspaper or magazine reviewed the book on a certain date, that would make it easier to find the review, as opposed to looking through weeks of issues in search of one. If the book has a good reputation for accuracy there may be history books on military aviation that mentions the book, or may give a short quote from it. (If the new book does no more than list God is My Co-Pilot as having been written, that won’t be helpful, but if it states the book is important, or a good source of accurate information, that could help show notability.) Go to as many libraries as you can and check history book indexes.

Have you read the books listed in the bibliography of the Robert Lee Scott, Jr. article? They may give useful information about God is My Co-Pilot. Best wishes on completing your article draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the source that you gave me in your previous reply for the topic before my other Teahouse article. I will read your source when I get into my PC. I do not like editing on my laptop. A1139530 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know why the article titles on years, decades, centuries, and millennia use the BC/AD system of dates rather than BCE/CE. I've seen both conventions used in Wikipedia articles and am aware of the policy of MOS:ERA which says to use the one based on the context of the article as they are both correct. My question to you is why the article titles on years, decades, centuries, and millennia use the BC/AD rather than BCE/CE and who made the decision to use the titles? Interstellarity (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some help and advice regarding antifragility across species. I have some ideas which consitute as antifragile species but this was denied as vandalism (coyote and tree-of-heaven). AspiringAntifragilista (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AspiringAntifragilista, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at your edits, but it sounds from your question as if you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Original research is not permitted anywhere in Wikipedia. If you can cite a reliable source saying that such and such a species is antifragile, then it may be possible to add this information to an article about the species). Note however that citing a source is a necessary but not sufficient condition: you will also need to achieve consensus that this is suitable information to add. If there is a substantial body of work about antifragility, this may be straightforward; if it is a single researcher's idea that nobody else has yet picked up, probably not. (Again, I haven't investigated this: I'm giving you a general answer). ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Based on the details you've provided, it sounds like you want to write original research about antifragility, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. In order to justify the creation of an article or addition of content, you need to provide citations to reliable sources that back up the claims you are writing. For a complex subject such as antifragility, you would be expected to find peer-reviewed scientific publications. Google Scholar is a good place to start your search. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've had an article declined about the artist Elizabeth Rauchwerger. I'm hoping that there may be more people out there that know about her, hence setting up a Wikipedia page that people will hopefully add to. She's an artist who is still living and painting, and her works are held in several national collections, and at The Royal College of Art (where she taught in the 1960's). I believe that she had several articles written about her in the 1960's and 1970's, but I can't find them online, so have nothing to link to. What can I do to create a page? Richard A Voyce (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Richard A Voyce, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to write a Wikipedia article, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. This is called verifiability. If you can't find any sources, we can't have an article about it. We do allow offline sources if you are able to find any. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a publicist whose clients page was deleted and have no access to the previous page. Any leads on how we can get it back up would be great. Thank You . TBurrrow (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TBurrrow: Please follow the steps at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE first. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TBurrrow, welcome to the Teahouse. Once you've followed the above advice, you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. If you tell us the name of the article, we may be able to tell you why it was deleted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point being that some Teahouse hosts are also Administrators, and can see deleted articles. David notMD (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I have been doing work on the page Wolfe Glick and now have over 90% of the edits on the page. I took it from being declined twice to being a mainspace article. Is there anyway that I could this be credited as the article creator? I have done the vast majority of work on the page. Thank you! Schminnte (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Schminnte - can you explain what you mean by "be credited as the article creator"? On what page would you like to be credited that way? The editing history of the article itself cannot be changed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could be credited as the page creator in the page information on Wolfe Glick. Reasons are above. I just don't know if that's possible or not. Schminnte (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this article really belongs in Wikipedia. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, on that subject; it has been reviewed but is not being indexed even though the page information says it should be. Any thoughts? Schminnte (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been marked as "patrolled" by a new page reviewer yet, and it's still in the queue. DanCherek (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new article is NOINDEXed until it has been reviewed through New pages patrol. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte It is not technically possible for the page creator to be changed for the good reason that Wikipedia editing history deals in facts, not aspirations. Your contributions can however be seen at this Xtools page which summarises edits for that article. That is one of the link options at the foot of the information page. Incidentally, you didn't get the draft accepted by a new article reviewer, you just moved it to mainspace yourself. It may not survive the new pages patrol. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. This is only my second article I've ever got to this stage and appreciate all your help. Fingers crossed it passes the new pages patrol :) Schminnte (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte: I did a quick review, and it's unlikely the draft will be accepted in its present format. There's almost no independent third party coverage of the subject. It's mostly links to YouTube, and Pokeman gaming sites, but with little background about him. There's no context as to why he's notable enough for an article, as defined by Wikipedia. See WP:GNG. I did a search to help you out, and found [[7]] (unfortunately named as a blog, but it's something), [[8]] (a school paper but it's something), [[9]] (local interest but it's something), and [[10]] (also local only). Including those and other media sources should improve the sourcing, but I don't know that it will be enough. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline, IMO. There seem a couple of apparently esports-specific media sources covering the subject in-depth, though one is an interview. I think it would probably survive AfD. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll put these references in. I'm continuing to expand the article.

Schminnte (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Options for New Pages Patrol include accept, return to draft, nominate for deletion and Speedy deletion. Some editors (me, for example), will put on their User or Talk page the articles they have raised to Good or Featured Article, also listing the ones they created or significantly improved. There is really no other place for bragging rights.

AND, as of minutes ago, nominated for deletion. You can recommend Keep (once) there, with reasons succinctly given, and also work on improving the article while it undergoes the 7-10 days of consideration. At the end, an Administrator will make a decision. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to those following this thread. AfD nomination was withdrawn when new sources were added. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where I am supposed to report this, but this user needs to be blocked for name violations. User:Grand Pa's nutts. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Moops - there's a board set up just for this purpose, UAA. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will report them there then. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]