Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

Ongoing News Event: Casey White & Vicky White

Hi, I was wondering if the recent ongoing event of prison escape by criminal and maximum security prisoner Casey White, in which he's been helped by a corrections officer named Vicky White (no relation) would be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? The event has been widely covered by national and international news and thus far the pair have evaded being captured (in itself atypical), but at what point does that cross over to being considered notable by wiki standards?

Additionally, I assume if the answer is yes, the article would have to be about this event itself rather than either one of the people involved (tho Casey White was the perpetrator of a 2015 interstate crime spree and convicted of murder in 2022). What are the best practices and naming/titling conventions for something like that?

Coverage: NYTimes, CNN, Newsweek, CBS (national) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWhippet (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

SleepyWhippet (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@SleepyWhippet: Not something I've been following, but yes, if this does meet the notability criteria at NCRIME, the article should be about the event, not the people (see CRIME)). ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, what would a possible title be for the potential wiki Article? SleepyWhippet (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@SleepyWhippet As of now, a possible title could be "tragedy all around". Sigh... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@I hear you.., very disturbing and sad. SleepyWhippet (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe start with “Prison escape of Casey White” and if someone thinks up a better title we can move it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Or we could have an article about C. White, due to his "interstate crime spree", and include a section on the jailbreak? DS (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Tomoharu Ushida

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Tomoharu Ushida

Hi, recently my draft has been declined. I would like to ask anyone help me to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page. Thank you. Shalom777br (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shalom777br – All I can say is: revise it to meet the general notability guideline, and, since it's a biography, WP:ANYBIO. Traditionally, it means that all statements should be covered with reliable, secondary sources. In addition, multiple outlets must cover it significantly. You may also want to use {{find general sources}} and read WP:BLP since the article is a biography. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. By the way, do you want to write about Tomoharu Ushida instead of me, to delete my article and publish yours? Thank you for your attention. Shalom777br (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shalom777br Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would advise not to ask any specific editor to create an article. However, you can request one at requested biographies. Nobody may pick up your article, but there's a better chance than just asking somebody. Have a good day/night!

Asparagusus (interaction) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! I put my request at requested biographies by nacionality (Japan). Have a good day too. Shalom777br (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Shalom777br, posting at requested biographies would almost certainly be a waste of your time. ("Requested articles" is a depressing sight, studded with proposed vanity articles.) Your draft looks promising. I haven't clicked on any of the links you provide in the references, but some of these look promising too. I imagine that much of the writing about Ushida uses bland/gushy terms such as "excellent", "precocious", "inspirational", "perceptive", etc; however, some music criticism goes beyond this, saying what it is that makes a performance excellent, inspirational, etc. See if you can find some intelligent, informative criticism of his playing, and try to summarize this criticism and add it to your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. How about this one?

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/blogs/article/the-chopin-piano-competition-day-eight-what-s-in-a-name

Shalom777br (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This article has been created in multiple other languages Tomoharu Ushida. I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

After having a closer look, are you the one who creates the article in each version of Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]. Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in other-language Wikipedias doesn't necessarily mean it meets the inclusion criteria for English Wikipedia. Zindor (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in 30 other languages has 99% chance to meet inclusion criteria here. Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here). --Deansfa (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Deansfa Why is that not recommended? Is there a WP policy or essay on that? Just wondering. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Deansfa I am still curious. When you said "Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended" -- is there a policy or essay on this? Also when you say the article might be notable "Except if this article has been created in all these languages by the same person (which is the case here)". Why is that? I would like to learn. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I.P, i can see two reasons why it wouldn't be ideal. If there are issues with the version on one wiki it will bring those problems to all the other language wikis it is published at. Secondly, some subjects are treated in more depth in other languages, so a major aspect of the subject could be missed because only one language's sources are used; this can actually result in people being offended. This is a bit of non-issue when it comes to notability however because assessing notability by looking at whether it is included in other languages is an unreliable method (and i'm not sure why Deansfa is extolling the virtues of it). It's best to just assess against our actual inclusion criteria. Zindor (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know how to create a wikipedia page of a company in the field of virtual reality

There's a company i know which created virtual reality solutions and are experts in the ar/vr technology.

there are various news articles that has talked about how they are making change in the field Anirudhnairgp (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Anirudhnairgp and welcome to the teahouse! if you are connected with the company, please read Conflict of interest. wikipedia won't advertise your company, only tell what people outside it have already told (the good and the bad). making an article about a company you're associated it would be hard, since it may be difficult to create an article about something you're linked with while talking it in a completely neutral manner.

otherwise, to start the article please read Notability for companies and organizations, Reliable sources, and Your first article. the first guides you in what companies can be considered "notable" and thus eligible for a wikipedia article, the second guides on what sources and sites can be used in wikipedia, and the last guides you in actually writing the article. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Anirudhnairgp And it won't be a "page of a company," if that means something like a Facebook or LinkedIn page; it will be an encyclopedia article about the company. And anybody will be able to edit that article, and the company might or might not like the results. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for your response, while i realise the negatives and COI, what provides larger organisations like google to have a wiki dedicated to them ? is the information available constantly being corrected by some dedicated team as i hear some times the pages do get vandalised by some ill intended person Anirudhnairgp (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Anirudhnairgp! theoretically any company that proves itself notable can have an article regardless of size, and pages are made if someone unconnected to the company writes one for them (which is more likely the more well-known it is). also, many of us do constantly correct information and remove vandalism on the spot usually through Recent Changes and various tools, and since we require reliable sources, it's easy to see if a given edit adds reliable information based on the reliability and reputation of the publisher (for example, someone posting news from Reuters or The New York Times would be more likely correct than someone posting from sites passing along gossip) instead of having to chase the source first before being able to prove its reliability. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Updating of a Page

I have been tasked to update the Aventus Protocol page, but our new content makes reference to Aventus Network and your system is not liking this very much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventus_Protocol This is the response I have received and I am now uncertain on how to proceed

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Aventus Protocol, and I noticed that your username, "AventusNetwork", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company". Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC) AventusNetwork (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@AventusNetwork: Hello! The reason you received that message on your talk page is because your username is the same as the company name, which is something that is not permitted here on Wikipedia. In order to comply with Wikipedia's username policy, you should change it to (for example), John at Aventus Network. To request a change in username head to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and fill out the form there with the username you are changing it to. Once your username is changed, please read WP:PAID and WP:COI as it appears you have a Conflict of Interest with the company Aventus Protocol. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The account has been renamed (now JamieMitchell28). Unfortunately, JamieMitchell28, your edit replaced a well-sourced and formatted article with a poorly sourced and formatted one. The talk page of the article is at Talk:Aventus Protocol - once you've reviewed and complied with our policies on paid editing or editing with a COI (whichever is applicable), which have been linked above, you can make suggestions for updates on that talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jamie. I'm sorry that your employers (presumably) have given you an extremely difficult task. Please explain to them that Wikipedia's article is not theirs: not theirs to control, not theirs to update, and especially not theirs to insert what they want to see there. You are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page, for other, non-involved editors to evaluate and decide what change to make. Material that is cited to an independent source is the most likely to be incorporated, because 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) 17:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If any edits are made, I believe that WP is not interested in info about funding rounds. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Help and guidance needed for new page

can anyone help me to create a page, which I recently did Kbv2024 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kbv2024, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you be more specific about which article you're referring to? I see three drafts and one successfully created article in your contribution history. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

the draft name is yogesh lakhani Kbv2024 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Yogesh lakhani. I see it's been repeatedly moved between mainspace and draftspace. @Kbv2024, I took a look at the sources, and the ones I could read did not provide in-depth coverage of the subject. The draft says he won the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, but it seems he actually won one of the other awards mentioned here, which are not nearly as prestigious. The notability of this person seems to be in doubt and the sourcing seems weak. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a sock. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Kathy Barnette's Wiki page

Kathy Barnette is in a statistical tie for the Pennsylvania Republican senate primary. She is a notable person and is worthy of a Wikipedia web page, but it was taken down. Is there some reason it can't be put back online? 164.111.127.13 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The article was deleted per this discussion, which determined that she did not - at that time - meet our notability criteria for politicians. I see it's been repeatedly recreated, but apparently without improvement. The latest version will most likely be deleted soon; the article may be salted against recreation if this continues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse! Without digging too far I suspect it has to do with WP:NPOL. Merely being a candidate for a political office is not a notability claim. If the candidate wins the general election or is a major local politician that has received significant coverage in reliable sources then that may be a claim of notability. Look at NPOL and see if Kathy meets any of the criteria listed. If not then that may be your answer. --ARoseWolf 16:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. 164.111.127.13 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Page is technically still there, however it's a redirect and has been fully protected to prevent it from being recreated again. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Some coverage based on deletion:[4] Of course, WP:EPOCHTIMES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh joy. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know what it says because they want me to give them my email to keep reading. I'd rather not give a source that categorizes that as "censorship" my email. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf, try this one [5], it's not that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"the encyclopedia notes" No it doesn't. The encyclopedia isn't a living thing. It's an editor (or deleting admin) that notes that. I find it kinda funny how they are referring to Wikipedia as if it's a living breathing entity. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I tend to think of us as a sort of hive-mind. Also, whenever some media complains "Wikipedians deleted whatever!", for some reason they forget that that means Wikipedians also created the whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia's community is sort of a hive-mind. Also that is a very good point. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a new addition is needed to our Wikifauna: WikiBorg. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Or an expansion/clarification of WikiBee. --ARoseWolf 18:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll stick with WikiSloth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Help me! (Shatbhisha6)

Moved from User talk:Shatbhisha6 § Help me! 3

Please help me with... Please help publish my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swami_Avdheshanand_Giri, its been a year. I have not been able to understand what is lacking? I have tried to write it following wikipedia guidelines. What is lacking, why is it taking so long? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Drafts are reviewed in no particular order. Just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: The draft has been rejected... but the user who rejected the draft is a sock and blocked and globally locked. So I'm unsure if the rejection still applies or what. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:The draft was rejected twice and then declined by the same user a year back. so technically its been a year. Thanks Shatbhisha6 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhish6: You actually got it backwards. It was declined twice and then rejected by the same user. The thing I'm not sure about is if those declines and eventual rejection still apply since the user has been confirmed to be a sock. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. So how can I get my article published? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out above – it might help if you got rid of all the garbage references, including brief mentions, and reports of what the subject said. That way a reviewer would be able to find the good ones that contribute to notability. Maproom (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shatbhish6. Mostly by being patient. But in the meantime you can take Maproom's advice in the item just above and remove some of the pointless references. As just one example, the line Giri is also chairman of the Hindu religious organisation Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha is supported by three references. Looking at the first one, it contains the paragraph Avdheshanand Giri is the chairman of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Parmatmanand is considered to be close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Assuming that Indiatoday is reliable, then this is completely adequate to substantiate the statement. Adding two further references (which I haven't checked) adds absolutely nothing to the article, and (as Maproom suggests) may well contribute to a reviewer saying "This article looks like too much work, so I'll go and review another one". You may find WP:REFBOMB instructive. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I only added extra references, different editors consider different sources reliable. Even the top readership mainstream was dismissed by one editor as biased towards the ruling party, although the subject here is not a politician. hence I put as many references from different sources. If you see the way initial draft was literally trashed coz sources like India today and TimesofIndia were not considered reliable. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Shatbhisha6. If a reference is reliable, then it is adequate to verify a claim. If it is not reliable, it is worthless. There is no circumstance in which there is any point in adding multiple references for the same claim. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed the Rejected because it was by a sockpuppet. Be aware that Teahouse hosts are not necessarily also Reviewers, so asked for review here may get comments, but not a Review. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you so much, how seek a speedy review, please guide me on it. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6 You have been advised at least twice to be patient. There may be no way to get a speedier review. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a backlog of more than 3,000 drafts. The system is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good to know that's appropriate to do. I was tempted to do that but I was like "it appears the sock wasn't known as a sock for a while... would this be considered a legit rejection?" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf please have a look at User contributions for Kashmorwiki - Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi - Wikipedia, he was blocked on 4th May for abusing multiple accounts which is 10day after declining my page. and even later on other accounts created. In this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi/Archive - Wikipedia, on section 5 October 2021 of investigation, you will find comments from investigators how this account indulged in deletion of articles about 85% of times. Comparing the two sock accounts the investigator says " Both are frequent AfD nominators and participants. KW !voted keep 15.4% of the time and delete 79.4% of the time [67]; as of press time, KBP !votes keep 14.5% of the time and delete 85.5% of the time [68]. Their AfD participation pertains mostly (though not exclusively) to India-related topics." Another comment from one admin , "I also note that despite neither Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla or Kashmorwiki having New Page Patroller, they both did a lot of moving of articles from mainspace to draft [94][95] ".

His behaviour has not been constructive for wikipedia. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6: I know that he's a sockpuppet. Also, "His behaviour has not been constructive for wikipedia" that's why sock puppets are blocked, even if they make constructive edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf what he did on article was not contsructive, The subject is a well known Saint in India and he is the Chief of the oldest and largest order of Sadhus in India. He has millions of Sadhus and other followers. How significant he is among the religious figures can been seen through the fact that during Covid second wave Prime Minister of India telephones him to requesting him to conclude Kumbh Mela and it concludes within few hours. But Kashmorwiki declined the article citing notability as the reason. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC).

@Shatbhisha6: I really don't care about this sock. Or about the subject of your draft. I'm simply here to help give you advice. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolfi'm very grateful for that, coz i really need to learn how to craete good articles. This decline and rejection left me confused on how to go ahead. It hampered creating further articles. I would thankful if you could advise how to get this article published. Coz it has been a year. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6, it says at the top of your draft, "Review waiting, please be patient." It is in the queue. Please be patient. Do not keep badgering people for a speedier review, it's only going to hurt your chances. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm only replying to the response from @Blaze Wolf, when did I ask him to review or anyone for that matter ?! what is this intimidation for? I have my queries, is it a crime here to ask questions for better understanding? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6: Other people are allowed to respond to your questions, even if they are directed at someone else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf no issues with responses from whoever, but this response is initimidatory, the language "badgering" is totally unwarrented. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6, your post before this one is titled "Request for a review", and in this post you've repeatedly asked people to help get your article published, pointing out that it's taken a long time. I see you've gone to the talk pages of various editors with similar requests. Multiple people have responded with the same advice I gave you - be patient. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have, and all those requests were made on the same day, Some people respond some dont, if they didnt I never posted again, how does that amount to "badgering"? And the recent interaction is seeking advise, not "asking them to review". Hope you can assess that difference. Your language is initimidatiry and is against title=Wikipedia:BULLY&redirect=no Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shatbhisha6, I apologize if my language came across that way - I see you've felt bullied on Wikipedia before - but I was trying to help you see that your approach may be driving helpers away rather than encouraging them to stick around.

The article Swami Avdheshanand Giri seems to have been created, deleted and recreated many times over the years; that may be intimidating to reviewers. I imagine that your long list of sources, many of them not in English, are also a bit discouraging to reviewers (many of whom don't speak Hindi), so they may choose to move on to something easier. That means it may take a long time to get reviewed. There's really not much else you can do (unless you want to reduce the article's size by about 50% and confine yourself to your best references in English, but I doubt that's what you're looking for). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Living Person truthful information

Living Person truthful information being remove from the site. So what you do except please? 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia all information we put in article must be verified with independent, reliable sources. So if your edits about someone are being reverted make sure you have a good source backing it up. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be about Suresh Joachim. The IP has been adding unreferenced content to a biographical article, hence reverted. No content without refs. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@IP user, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting views, and where to next in discussions

Hi Teahouse volunteers

Wondering where the line is: I don't think I come across as bullying in my edits or discussion, but another editor has said they feel that. And now they have said WP:DROPTHESTICK to my last talk page post, so I'm loathe to keep engaging without checking whether I may be a problem without realising it.

Just hoping for some general advice on how to proceed. In general terms, would it be acceptable to try another, very conciliatory, approach, asking whether we can both ask other editors for their views? My last tp reply has been removed, so maybe that would be a step too far if I tried again? What do others think? I could genuinely use some advice. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Updated (trimmed) AukusRuckus (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, AukusRuckus, welcome to the Teahouse. We can certainly help, there's numerous remedies for situations like this. You're correct in thinking that you can ask an uninvolved editor to help out, you don't need permission to do it but just make sure it's done without the intention of bringing them in to support a certain viewpoint (canvassing). Could you provide a link to the discussion in question? I'm having trouble finding it. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights in Texas, it looks like. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I.P Zindor (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

AukusRuckus, i believe i understand now what's going on. I can see you're trying hard to be civil but it's the way in which you are addressing problems with other editor that is causing friction. Firstly it's the direct references to the editor such as 'why do you keep', 'Did you really?' and 'your identical claims' etc. In short, avoid making the discussion too personal, just focus on and address the content at hand. The second reason is that you're changing the article while the discussion is ongoing, this doesn't give the other editor a chance to step back. The use of 'bullying' was imo an unfair characterization but sometimes an editor will use a strong term as a way of asking for some breathing space. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The other editor shouldn't have removed your post and i've addressed that with them. I will restore it if you would like but i'll leave that decision to you, as you may feel differently about the post in retrospect. Going by the book the post should be restored and if you no long agree with parts then strike-them-through. Zindor (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Zindor; I appreciate the tips. I would like my talk page comments restored, please. I don't want to do it myself, in case it seems provocative.

However, having thought upon it for a day, I no longer see that there's any actual likelihood that the editor is genuine in their representations. One shouldn't try mind reading, but all we have to go on is what people say, and their past behaviour. Having reflected on my less-than-perfect response, had a good look at their history, and through WP discussions generally, I'm not as keen to take on so much of the responsibility for any misunderstandings, or sorting things.

For a start: The time between my Talk post (2 May) and the editor's decision to remove it (11 May), highlights the lack of any justification for WP:DROPTHESTICK as an edit summary. The 'stick' they want me to drop, btw, is me continuing to object to being called a bully, not my concerns with the article content. Rarely, if ever, does the editor address anything I try to discuss about what sources say. My overtures for discussion generally go unanswered; they continue on regardless with the edits I have queried. Otherwise, it's mostly radio silence.

Other than that, of the two us, I am the only one of us to initiate discussion. I have not made edits while discussion is ongoing. At least, not as I understand it.

What elicited their "bullying" ES was my restoration of 'failed verification' tags. I placed these first on 10 April; they removed them, without comment, on 15th; I restored same day, explaining why. They deleted tags again on 17th, no ES. Their next edit a few mins later reverted some formatting I had done to improve readability; this one had the "bullying" ES. That stung--a lot. All that painstaking formatting work: gone!, just like that. (For me it's a lot of work; due to visual problems, I edit with assistive dev, s-l-o-w-l-y; for other editors, may not seem like that much effort.) Cue my: "Did you really" comment, and my personalising in this one post. I took their actions personally, because they were a personal attack, so tried my best to defend myself, I felt, in a proportionate way. This in no way began the other editor's dismissive and belligerent attitude.

Whatever the case, thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I appreciate you taking the time. And sorry for the wall-of-text.<sigh> Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Updated: to "show my working". AukusRuckus (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the case, thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I appreciate you taking the time. And sorry for the wall-of-text.<sigh> Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: thanks for the reply, i'll restore it now. I understand, i also edit slowly but for different reasons. Tagging is more of a contentious thing than many people realise. There's an essay here about it. Personally i try to avoid placing tags, as they add confusion for the reader and don't actually fix anything. It's often best to either proactively fix the problem yourself or simply address it directly on the talk page, quoting any necessary text. If used in abundance, failed verification and other tags can be a bit pointy, someone might feel embarrassed if you tag up their work with them. I suspect that was partly the case here.

If they continue to use the term then do come back and let us know. I would advise taking a break from that article and when you do come back to it try to focus purely on the content as advised and avoid pinging the other editor unless absolutely necessary. All the best, Zindor (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Zindor. Yes, I'm not going to edit there at all. But I'm surprised there is so little activity on so many LGBT articles. Is there a project for that, do you know? It's not an area I am that familiar with, but thought it would be more actively edited than it seems to be.

About the tags though, they were my compromise! It was an alternative to removing a controversial and unsupported statement, both OR and SYNTH. It was a new, major claim, which the sources do not refer to at all (a legal opinion not canvassed in any source). My attempts to rephrase it to follow purely what sources say were reverted (without ES). My explanations on Talk, complete with quotes (from the sources the editor had supplied) were ignored. I did try several times before I added tags - but then I was scared to keep going and do the wrong thing. I wanted discussion and consensus, not an edit war. (BTW, the user changed my edits at first, not me theirs.) Like you, I much prefer to fix than tag, but I was trying to work with the editor. I did my best, but that'll do now! Thanks for your help, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I see, yeah you give an inch and they want a mile! That's why it's best to stick to a hard policy-based line on issues like that. It's really great however that you're seeking ways to resolve content issues, and compromise does have its place sometimes. I know how frustrating it can be when editors aren't prepared to discuss, it's often a signal that they know they are wrong, or the inverse, that they know for absolute certainty they are right haha. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies would be the most relevant and there appears to be some recent activity there which is a good sign as so many WikiProjects nowadays are like ghost towns. Zindor (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please help me with my page

Can someone at the TeaHouse with knowledge of creating Wikipedia pages assist me with mine, which although is almost complete, seems to be in limbo. The Page is for a Pro Basketball Player named Kylan Guerra. Thanks. 159.123.253.1 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Kylan Guerra, created by Ginger Rocky. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that the IP asked this same question back in November. See this link. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

After much advice given, the page has been updated with all the recommended improvements. Ginger Rocky (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ginger Rocky, there are still issues with the draft - the entire high school career section is uncited, for example, as is the personal life section, there's no cite for Performer of the Year, and the external links section should probably be removed entirely. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Tough to find High School cited info. How do I remove the External Link section without losing the Reference section? Ginger Rocky (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ginger Rocky, if you can't cite a source for something, then remove the information. How did you learn all of that stuff if you didn't have a source for it? I see you did figure out how to remove the external links section. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was a very good point, IP. How does the editor know something if thers is no source? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I was able to locate a citation from his High School days and added it. I also removed the External Links Section. Hopefully, this will help. Thank you for your guidance. Ginger Rocky (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't find the "Move" option above my Article.

Hi! I can't seem to Publish the Draft that I've created for my page. On checking online, it's stated that I could just have the page moved. I hope someone can help me out with this one. Thank you! Seeyaelf (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seeyaelf: Hi there! I see that you have created Draft:Rise of Elves. In order for the draft to become a Wikipedia article, you'll have to provide references showing "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer", per Wikipedia:Notability (video games). If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Template:Infobox video game as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist! Seeyaelf (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seeyaelf, the reason you do not have a "move" option is because your account is not autoconfirmed. You can submit the draft for review through our Articles for Creation process, but without sources as outlined above, a reviewer will not accept it (and if someone moved it to main space, it would either be moved back to draft or deleted). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I'll keep that in mind. I guess having solid sources will be my first priority. Seeyaelf (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Assistance with removing template

Hi There, I have been reading the wiki hows and tutorials with no luck. Would anyone be able to assist with removing the following template “This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification” on the top of our wiki page? We added more links and details to the page but I can’t remove this header from Gordon J. G Asmundson’s page . Thank you in advance 2607:FEA8:7AE1:BA00:C531:B88C:9C1:6877 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm concerned about your use of "we" and "our wiki page" (see WP:OWN). What is your relationship with Asmundson, and who is "we"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Gordon J. G. Asmundson currently claims, for example, that His pioneering work [...] and his shared vulnerability model of co-occurring PTSD and chronic pain have led to significant advances in understanding and treating [...]. Which reliable sources (of course independent of him) have described his work as pioneering, or that this and his model have led to significant advances? Until such assertions are solidly referenced, the template should stay. And yes, I too am intrigued by your "we" in We added more links and details, above. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article appears to have a rather curious history. See for example this pair of edits, and their edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary That would explain why there aren't proper references for the first six sentences of the "Background" section. Ironic that those additions strengthen the case for the need for additional citations for verification. The "pioneering work" sentences you mention appear to be copypasted from his AIBL bio. GoingBatty (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The article still lacks independent sources that discuss the subject. The template should not be removed, Maproom (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that 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. Citations to Asmundson's works are mostly irrelevant: we need citations to sources unconnected with him that discuss his work. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think one line is factually incorrect in an article. What do I do?

I think one line in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapur_Junction_railway_station is factually incorrect. This is the line:

> The Delhi–Meerut–Saharanpur line passes through here.

What should I do? How do I discuss with the person who mentioned it? Libreravi (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Libreravi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you can find a reliable source that proves that the line is wrong, be bold and change it! If any editor challenges the new info, discuss it on the article’s talk page. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @HenryTemplo. I don't know what kind of reliable source will list all the railway stations on a railway line. The person who wrote that line can just mention a train on Saharanpur-Meerut-Delhi line which passes through Hapur and that will be enough. For my claim that the line is incorrect, I have to show that any train of Saharanpur-Meerut-Delhi line does not pass Hapur Junction, which is true.

I think this proves my claim https://indiarailinfo.com/search/hpu-hapur-junction-to-sre-saharanpur-junction/347/0/340 as there are only three trains between Hapur Junction and Saharanpur Junction and none of them pass Delhi. Libreravi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Libreravi! The line was added by an IP nearly five years ago, so it's unlikely you will be able to discuss it with them directly. This section of the verifiability policy says Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed, so I would say that being bold and removing it shouldn't be a problem. I would recommend explaining why you removed it in your edit summary to make the page history easier to read. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@HenryTemplo @Perfect4th Thanks. I removed it by giving a citation and my detailed explanation in the edit itself. Libreravi (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant @Libreravi, great job! I’m definitely not an expert on Indian railways, so I’ll trust this source and your judgement on its accuracy. Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello

How is a info about a new endorsement not constructive? I kept it short and simple and on point, but someone removed it. Endorsements are an imoortant part of Gulf Kanawut's carrer. LoveStar12345 (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you provide a reliable source?

Asparagusus (interaction) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

LoveStar12345, Wikipedia is not for hosting the fan page of your favorite actor/client. As usual with Gulf and his co-star, the article required serious clean-up and likely needs more. Nothing should be added to the article without being supported by a reliable source. Anything added should also use neutral language. He is not skyrocketing to fame nor courted by brands.Slywriter (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

To editor Slywrite Didn't figure out how to respond to your previous answer. I know it's not a fan page and if you have take the time to check out, you would have seen I wasn't the one to add any flowery parts so watch how you talk to me. I understand I didn't provide any sources for the endorsements (the only part I ever edited here) and you deleted. But don't talk to me like I edited his whole wiki page. And I for sure am not a fan of his ex co-star, so I never ever visisted his wiki page, let alone edit it. Who are you to even talk to people you don't know like this, especially when it's easy to check what I have edited. Accusing me of what everyone did on this wiki page. Chill your horses please and since you are good at it, check your facts first before unleashing your frustrations on innocent people. Thanks, peace ✌🏻 LoveStar12345 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

LoveStar12345 If you are using full desktop mode, you may click "edit" at the top of this page, or there should be an "edit" link in the section header. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@LoveStar12345 As Asparagusus said, I am sure that your addition was removed because you didn't provide any sources for the endorsements. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to articles on Factor Xa, thromboplastin, and new article on thrombokinase

I recently submitted a new article on the enzyme thrombokinase that was rejected by Robert McClenon because the word is contained in the article on thromboplastin. The reason for the submission is that thromboplastin is NOT an enzyme as stated in the wiki article, but rather acts on the enzyme thrombokinase, now popularly known as Factor Xa. I want to correct the thromboplastin article, make an addition to the Factor X article, and insert a new article about thrombokinase, as shown below. This should clear up some long-standing confusion about these terms. How should I procede?

Extended content

Thromboplastin (TPL) or thrombokinase is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. and that functions in the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin in the clotting of blood. Proposed change: Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). Factor X proposed History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). At that time, those investigators could not know that the human genetic defect they had identified would be found in the previously characterized enzyme called thrombokinase. Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818. Thrombokinase new article: Thrombokinase, now commonly known as coagulation Factor Xa, is the pivotal proteolytic enzyme that converts prothrombin to thrombin. History: Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] In the mid-1950s American and British physicians described an inherited deficiency of a coagulation factor in humans, which they named after their patients Rufus Stuart and Audrey Prower. By 1960 the Stuart-Prower factor was being called Factor X, and it soon became clear that activated Factor X, or Factor Xa, was equivalent to Milstone’s previously characterized bovine thrombokinase. Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Leonard Milstone (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leonard Milstone Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest posting your suggestions on Talk:Thromboplastin to work towards consensus on how to proceed. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Leonard Milstone, you could also talk to the folks at WikiProject Medicine, who are more likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of enzymes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

How to add those "This user is" boxes to my user page?

I see many peoples pages having "this user is a *insert thing here* do-er. " or "This user supports *insert thing here*"

How can I do it? Is it hard to do it? Can only certain people do it? Smotoe (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Smotoe, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Smotoe, and welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone who would like to can add a userbox to their userpage. You just have to copy and paste the relevant code into your userpage. For instance, putting {{user en}} on your userpage produces the userbox that says a person is a native speaker of the English language. If you see a userbox you like, you can just copy the code for it to your userpage. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Smotoe (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perfect4th Is there a "generic" userbox template that takes a parameter for *insert thing here*, or does each thing you want to say require its own userbox to be created? From that page, it looks like each variation needs to be created separately. As a computer programmer, that just seems inefficient to me. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, IP user! As far as I'm aware, in general separate users have to be created seperately. The exceptions are those with numbered variants (such as those listed here) and those which use piped variables. These are a little more flexible; here's an example of one that accepts any input in its {{{1}}} variable. It is also technically possible, I believe, to specify what the input will display. I made this talk page message for fun for the World Cup; parameters {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} accept FIFA codes that display their respective country's flag. Similar principles can be applied to userboxes. Perfect4th (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perfect4th I see that example with the numbered parameters. If the static text said "This user", and the template had a parm, that would seem to take a lot of work out of using userboxes. Or, there could be no static text, and just a parm. Although, could that lead to "unacceptable" or out-of-policy userboxes? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, a userbox with the text "This user {{{1}}}" would be fine. Figuring out how to vary the color/image would take a little more work with a couple more parameters, but I know of no reason it wouldn't be possible. Perfect4th (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Roman Catholic scholarship getting strangled

Is this normal? . . . There's this group of 3 editors who claim to have a consensus against me, that (by my characterization here:) I'm basically not allowed to use any Roman Catholic [RC] theological sources, even in an RC-specific article. Despite a week of conversation, they have, not just reworked, but totally rolled back all my edits over the last month ((1) here, (2) here, (3) here, & (4) here), #3 of which was made merely to satisfy them. In the meantime, Wikipedia, by its silence, thereby makes readers think that there is absolutely no basis for belief in the Immaculate Conception, before the Middle Ages, when this is radically not true, as my attempted (but removed) chart demonstrates. Against my Church Fathers [CFs] & medieval sources, . . .

• They say (← Clickable) That anything before AD/CE 1900 is a primary, not secondary source, that WP articles should rely only on secondary sources, and that I can only include primary sources if I also include their definition of a secondary source.
• I reply that Secondary Sources can go back to CE/AD 300, according to these 2 sentences . . .
  • "The book [written 150 years later] and the journal article [written only 2 years ago] are secondary sources."
  • "For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica."
• They say That those are just essays, not policies, and that their consensus carries more weight than an essay, so they can disregard those two essays. In so doing, they exclude 1500 years of Theological debates' arguments from inclusion within Wikipedia, and restrict articles to only statements from recent theological works, although 10 popes and an entire school of modern theology (the traditional RC one) eschews the new stuff as "Modernism", and holds that the older a source is, the more weighty it is, even, in the case of some CFs' statements, sometimes equal with scripture.   Nevertheless . . .
• I grudgingly acquiesce by trying to add CFs' quotes, piecemeal, one at a time, including with each one a recent theological work, that cited and discussed that Church Father's quote.
• They say that my recent source is "biased", coming as it is from an ardently RC Theologian. In so doing, they suggest that including RC Theologians' statements in an article about an idea believed only by the RC Church is "not how WP works," and that, for balance, I should also go "find . . . [statements in the CFs] disproving" the Immaculate Conception, or else I'm committing either WP:OR, or "Confirmation bias".
  
  Really? . . . Isn't this just religious censorship? How on earth are we fulfilling the WP:RNPOV policy, which says,
  In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Octavius2 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Octavius2 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see there's been a long discussion here. Wikipedia does indeed work by consensus, which seems to be against you. You could take the matter to WP:DR (dispute resolution), which is a long, formal process for hashing out complex disagreements. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yuk, no, not there, nor here. Try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, expressing the issue more succinctly. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah @Johnbod & @199.208.172.35, I already took it to the DRN, but it was closed as "out of scope." They suggested that I take it to the WP:RSN, as you said, Johnbod, but I didn't, as RSN seemed inactive, and a long shot, dealing only with modern news ("Perennial Sources"). But I'll try it there, since you suggest it, also. Octavius2 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Octavius2: Please stop your weird formatting of posts with pink/yellow and raw HTML markup, it makes your posts hard to read. You can use wiki markup to make bold, italics etc. but do it sparingly. Links appear in color in any reasonable browser (usually blue) and people know they are clickable.

I encourage you to read carefully Jdcompguy's post at DRN which is my opinion goes to the heart of the matter. The fact that certain (famous) theologians took certain positions is not proof that those positions were mainstream among the Church (whether the rank-and-file believers or the high clergy); you need a source independent of theologians to assert that. With that in mind, I do not think RSN (which is active) would help much.

On your talk page, you say it's not my job as a single editor to hunt for, or worry about such possible competing view; others can do that. I believe this is exactly where you have it wrong. You seem to think Wikipedia works as a disputation. For those unaware, a disputation is an adversarial system (somewhat resembling a modern court of law) where two persons defend conflicting views (based on scriptural authorities), and the hope is that truth emerges from the debate; the opponents do not even need to truly believe the position they defend, just to be able to adequately present the arguments for it. But Wikipedia is not an adversarial system aimed at discerning truth; it is a collaborative project aimed at documenting pre-existing knowledge. Wikipedia will never take position on whether (for instance) the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is correct or not, it will only document the history of that doctrine and position of various major Christian churches.

Ideally, you should edit in a way that nobody should correct you. In practice, that is hard; your own biases get in the way of writing a dispassionate summary, you tend to write more about subjects you know and care a lot about; but you should definitely try to minimize that tendency, not to amplify it and wait for the counterargument to come. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

To JDCompguy's claim - Well, I disputed here and here JDCompguy's claim that my "sources do not make the assertion[s] themselves." JDCompguy wants explicit terminology, when, in reality, many of these terms overlap. You wouldn't remove a Physics claim, just because it posted some other rearrangement, or subset of the equation used in its source, would you? No, you'd import your background knowledge of basic algebra, and tolerate it. Well, that's how Theologians operate, too, to a degree: We understand that Lack of Original Sin implies (1a) Original Justice, (2a) Original Integrity, and (3a) Original Immortality. We also understand that these will manifest respectively as (1b) Righteousness, (2b) ordered passions, and (3b) incorrupt bodies. This is all introductory Theology101 background-knowledge. Therefore, if you can find ancient Christian sources that assert (1), (2), or (3), then that's evidence for Lack of Original Sin. Therefore I added an entire heavily-footnoted section (↖that 1st link) and chart, like basic Algebra, to explicitly lay out the overlapping of these terms. Of course, that was removed too, as supposedly WP:OR.

You're right:
It shouldn't be about (I.) whether the Immaculate Conception is right or wrong;
it should be about (II.) document[ing] the history of that doctrine and [the] position of various major Christian churches, especially the only one that believes in it; but
it's actually about (III.) completely banning the 1500-year-old Catholic Patrimony, and theological program, from Wikipedia, because, supposedly, Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, aren't sufficiently cool-headed/mature/neutral/academic -enough to be counted as Wikipedia secondary sources, the way that, say, classical historiographers like Livy, Plutarch, or Josephus are. I think it's just secret double-standard bigotry, by everyone who is secretly adversarial to the Catholic church. Octavius2 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't move this debate to the Teahouse, that is not the purpose of this space. Since DR has declined to handle things, continue either at the WikiProject, RSN or the talk page of the article(s) involved. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You wouldn't remove a Physics claim, just because it posted some other rearrangement, or subset of the equation used in its source, would you? No, you'd import your background knowledge of basic algebra, and tolerate it. It depends on the rearrangement. Generally speaking, maths/physics articles on Wikipedia about somewhat-complex topics are very lacking in citations. They are also incomprehensible to non-mathematicians/physicians. That creates a feedback loop where only mathematicians/physicians can read and edit them because it’s hard to understand the jargon and the "equation rearrangements", and the jargon and calculations do not get fixed because those who can read the article can understand how to do the rearrangements and do not see the need to cite a textbook for "common knowledge" [that is, common to anyone with a PhD about a related topic]. I suppose that few of them contain original research and that most of it is actually textbook-level stuff, but there is no way for a random reader to know that. That is not a good thing and you should definitely not emulate that aspect of math/physics articles in theology articles.

Also, what would be appropriate for a math/physics article presenting the current view of the subject, might not be appropriate for an article presenting the history of the underlying ideas. Everyone knows today that heat is a form of energy, and therefore "heat" and "energy" can be used interchangeably in some contexts; but 250 years ago, people believed that heat was a form of matter, and substituting "heat" for "energy" in one’s (modern) interpretation of historical documents would be inappropriate.

it should be about ... document[ing] the history of that doctrine and [the] position of various major Christian churches, especially the only one that believes in it - nope. If significant theological currents have opined on the matter, even if that’s to dismiss it as entirely unfounded for some reason or another, they should be included. For instance, it would be hugely inappropriate to give less weight to the Orthodox view on Filioque "because it’s Catholics who believe in it". Of course, that does not mean you should include those who did not have any opinion on the subject - I would expect that few Hindu theologians have opined on matters of Christian theology. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 09:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I said nothing about the Orthodox' disbelieving view, which I'm happy to include.

I was merely saying that the Catholic view should be FULLY included. Agree?

And the Catholic view is not just that it is true, but that it's a dogma, i.e, something that the Catholic Church is claiming is "found in divine revelation," i.e, maximally old, as in, passed down either thru Scripture or the 12 Apostles. Therefore I want to include a section listing evidence for its oldness, but I haven't been permitted to do that. Octavius2 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot say for the others, but you have grossly misrepresented some of my arguments. I did not wish to intervene, as it is your right to ask for fresh feedback on your editing from other people (even if you do so with hit piece headlines); but I really do not like to see my arguments being twisted the way you did. Veverve (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Trying to make Wiki Page public >> Draft:Allen Sliwa

Any suggestions on making this page public faster? I used a lot of his own words from an interview he did and reliable articles on him from strong sources to come up with my article. He has his own radio show in the Los Angeles market so hes well known in LA as a host for different LA Lakers shows and would like him to have his own Wiki page. Any advise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Perezcov2 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Perezcov2! I haven't looked over your sources, but the prose has a promotional tone. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, so sentences such as Allen even served as a mentor for the Aztec Mentor Program, a true and proud San Diego State Aztec. would need to be toned down. In biographies of living people, all claims need to be sourced, so you will need to add more citations. Also, Wikipedia articles typically refer to their subjects throughout most of the prose by the last name, so you may want to change that. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I am certainly working on my tone (much more neutral) and sources right now (getting rid of youtube / twitter / etc). Appreciate your time. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perezcov2: Also, just so you know, your signature is broken (The link to your talk page isn't functional). If you need help figuring out how to fix it let me know. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perezcov2 You mentioned that you used a lot of his own words from an interview, but I'm afraid we cannot accept them. Interviews with the subject of an article don't count - only what mainstream media have actually written about that subject, not their reported words in an interview. So work with only those please. Once you've found sufficient sources that demonstrate Notability, you can work on how the encyclopaedia entry (for that is what this is) actually sounds like. Right now, it's a fan essay, not a formal description based on reliable, published sources. I also struggled to get past the first sentence, to be honest. It might make sense to you, but not to me at all. viz: Allen Sliwa is a Chaldean (Catholic from Iraq / Middle Eastern) who is the Laker Pre Game / Halftime / Post Game / Post Game After The Post Game host in addition to being a co-host on the very popular Travis & Sliwa Show on ESPN Los Angeles AM 710 radio station. If you could write that in plain English, perhaps splitting it into two or three sentences, that might help. Not everyone lives in the USA and understands terminology like that, nor American state abbreviations - so write the m in full and use a wikilink for the first example of anything that could link to another article to help explain that term.

I notice another editor marked your draft for deletion as 'spam'. I've removed that template to give you a chance to find some good sources to meet these essential notability criteria. So, do be quick before someone else does it again. Hope that helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Very Much Nick, I am working on improving the tone and my sources right now. Very much appreciate your help. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perezcov2: I've gone ahead and cleaned up the draft to make it more neutral worded. I removed the entire section relating to his "Fandom" as it felt more like a conclusion to an essay than actual encyclopedic content. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Blaze Wolf! Anything else I can do to improve or work on this so that it is deemed publishable with an appropriate tone? Appreciate everyones help here. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Perezcov2: The thing that matters the most is that the content is referenced. Currently, a lot of the article is unreferenced which is not allowed for BLP articles (which is what this is). See WP:Referencing for beginners for help on how to add and find appropriate references. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you will work on adding reputable sources. Thanks again Blitz. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 18:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's Blaze but Blitz is close enough I guess @Perezcov2: No problem. Before you get too into creating the article, when you're finding refs, you should make sure that Allen Sliwa is actually notable enough to have an article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Perezcov2, there is no need to mention that he is a Chaldean Catholic. We only mention a person's religion if it is the reason that they are notable. Sliwa is a sportscaster, not a clergyman or theologian. Every factual assertion needs a reference and many are unreferenced. What is the best independent reliable source that devotes significant coverage to Sliwa? Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Separate from this, there is no "faster." There is a backlog of more thant 3,000 drafts. The system is not a queue. Reviewers pick what they want to review next. So, could be days, weeks or months before a draft is reviewed. Meanwhile, work to improve the draft. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Setting Up A New PAGE

I AM SO LOST. I REALLY NEED HELP LEARNING HOW TO SET UP A PAGE. I HAVE THE CONTENT WRITTEN AND IT'S FOR A LEGENDARY HIP HOP ARTIST. 2601:282:8080:C5F0:D4A9:5CEE:A29D:8018 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not yell(use all capital letters). First, does this artist or musician meet the notability criteria? Writing a new article (not a page) is the most difficult thing to do here. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of the phrase "set up a page" suggests that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media. It is different from them. The (very difficult) activity your are embarking on is writing an encyclopaedia article. This needs to be neutral in tone, and based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about them in reliable sources.

I'm afraid that it's very likely that the content you have written is unusable in Wikipedia: where did you get it from? If it's from things that the artist or their associates have published, little of it will be relevant to a Wikipedia article. If it's from fan-sites, forums, wikis, or social media, it can't be used. If it's your own observations and conclusions, it can't be used.

Experience shows that new editors who try to go straight into creating a new article generally have a frustrating and disappointing time, and often see much of their effort wasted. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@IP editor, the artist is legendary, and yet no one else has chosen to create an article yet? Hmmmm... @331dot, if the artist is legendary, truly they are notable! All those legends... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox Question

So, recently my sandbox pages were deleted because they looked to similar to an actual Wikipedia article & I never specified it was a fake television show. Would it be against the rules if I were to make something similar to that, BUT, I clarify that this is just fake? TatiVogue (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TatiVogue. What would be the purpose of such a page? If it's simply for your own entertainment, then as was mentioned the last time you visited, that would most likely fall under using Wikipedia as a free web host, and therefore not be allowed. Are you looking to practice editing/creating such articles by using "non-live" versions? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm using it to practice & familiarizing myself with the format of RuPaul's Drag Race articles, so I can be better at editing that. It wasn't for my own entertainment, it's just that I wanted to educate myself more with drag race WikiText, because I do want to be a Wikipedia editor. TatiVogue (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@TatiVogue, if you want to familiarise yourself with WikiText, there are many tutorials which will help you learn. You can use your sandbox for test edits, etc., but it seemed like you were using it as a way to make elaborate fantasy drag race competitions. A fun way to familiarise yourself with WikiText, yes, but not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am glad, however, that you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, and I wish you the best for that! Just bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a free web host. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! TatiVogue (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@TatiVogue, if I may make a suggestion, you could always work on practice articles of that kind off-line - in a text editor, for instance. Then, when you want to see how they look "live" on the wiki, open your sandbox, paste in the content of the file, and hit "preview." No need to go all the way to publishing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

TatiVogue, fake articles are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:FAKEARTICLE. There are countless ways that you can test wikicode in your sandbox space without mimicking an article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a free web host. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Major edit needed: how do I best approach this?

The Wikipedia article Hudibras, about a rather important seventeenth-century satire by Samuel Butler, is rather a mess: it seems to have been set up by someone who was really well-inclined but (amongst other gaps) didn't know very much about the background to the satire, misunderstood it in some significant ways, hadn't read any of Butler's other writings, had no idea that there's an excellent modern edition to refer to (all the existing references are to outdated editions published before 1850 but available on Gutenberg), and wasn't very good at organising the structure of their article to reflect the key points of the satire for the modern reader. It also has some rather misleading misstatements, one of which I checked up on a couple of days ago and then removed.

The entire article needs revision from top to bottom, and I would like (and have the background) to do this; but since I have limited time (am retired but a carer), I can't make all the necessary large-scale and small-scale changes in a few hours' work: it'll take a few days. What's the best thing to do? — write a whole new article in my sandbox and eventually upload it on top of the existing one, or revise the existing one over a few days? The latter sounds easiest for a novice, but how do I save my working copy of the in-process revision of the article without uploading it to the public page?

I've made quite a number of small edits to various Wikipedia pages over the last few years, but nothing on this scale — and I don't want to mess this up for you all!

Warmest regards to all, and warmest thanks for any guidance one of you can give me!

Golden Dorset (aka Michael!)

GoldenDorset (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If your going to make a series of major edits, may I recommend adding the {{under construction}} tag to the top of the page? You can also, if you prefer, do the edits on your sandbox, and then add them to the article. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Great! Sound helpful advice. Many thanks!

GoldenDorset (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend that you don't upload your copy on top of the existing one; this makes the page history difficult to read, and if you're first copying the source of the current article to your sandbox, attribution can get confusing. It's probably best to revise the existing one over a few days; you can use the template HenryTemplo suggested to let other editors (and readers) know what you're doing, as well as posting on the article talk page if you like. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Great! Sound helpful advice. Many thanks! Shall do.

GoldenDorset (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As tempting as it is to blow up an existing article and plug in all new, I advise an incremental approach. Perhaps a section at a time. And create a New section on the Talk page of the article explaining your intent. Many articles have past editors 'watching' the article for changes, and may take umbridge for massive changes all-at-once. I, for example, over weeks, reduced the length and number of references for Vitamin A by more than 1/3, then added to the article so that the end point was larger and with more refs than when I started. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

GoldenDorset, your revision has had a rough start. You made a deletion with the edit summary I have deleted a sentence which suggests there was a pirate edition of Part One in January 1662, on the authority of Nash's edition of Hudibras (1835). This must be mistake of Nash's: I assume that he had forgotten to allow for the mixed date: we would now read it correctly as "January 1663". Also, Nash gives his source as "Mercurius Aulicus", which ceased publication in 1644: I assume Nash meant "Mercurius Publicus". This is exemplary: it's fastidiously informative, probably more so than any edit summary I have ever provided in over a decade of editing. And what did it bring about? Seven hours later, Rollback edit(s) by GoldenDorset (talk): Unexplained removal of reliably sourced content (RW 16.1). Well, a charitable comment would be that this gives new meaning to "unexplained" (and to "reliably" too). If I were you and my improvement had been greeted in this fashion, I'd promptly decamp from Wikipedia, perhaps after leaving some choice hudibrastics on my user page. The history of the article Hudibras shows that it has largely been a creation of a single editor, one who stopped editing years ago. They're unlikely to take umbrage. Creating a sound, substantive new article is hard work; doing so while also retaining as much as is reasonable of what came before and explaining each deletion (not to mention having some of these laboriously explained deletions reverted as "unexplained") is something I'd find intolerably onerous. So I'd disagree with the comments above, and start afresh. However -- and there will be a number of howevers. Your edit history is good, but short. I strongly suggest that you practice your skills by making what you'll reasonably suppose will be minor and uncontroversial improvements to articles on Butler's other works (or closely related subjects), articles that even as they are seem at least fairly sound to you. See what reaction you get. If it's good, step up, making larger improvements. Et cetera. Only then consider creating a Hudibras article in your user-space ex nihilo. Also, I sense that you may be an expert on the subject. If so, excellent! (I wish there were more.) But as you guessed, there are "howevers": please take a good look at Wikipedia:Expert editors before you embark on anything ambitious. (Oh, and what's this new(ish), superior edition of Hudibras? Perhaps because it's drowned out by reprints of the old editions, it's hard to find at Worldcat.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@GoldenDorset Yes, we generally try to preserve attributions, especially when an article has many editors. Per @Hoary, it sounds like that's not the case with this article. Hoary's advice is good, as always. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

gallery of images

Hello, I was told I should upload images into a gallery of images and not individually.... unsure what this really means, but if someone could show me the steps to do so. I would like to upload a dozen images/scans of newspaper articles that support the article I am drafting. Thank you. MayKassem (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@MayKassem, that is a little confusing, can you link to where you were told this? As far as I'm aware, a gallery is a means of displaying images, not uploading them, and it would not be used to display scans of your sources - in fact, uploading them might be copyright violations. Citing a newspaper article simply requires entering the publication information into a citation template. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MayKassem, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, uploading images and displaying them in an article are two separate steps, and a gallery is a way of displaying them, not anything to do with uploading them.

But more serious is that you should not upload scans of articles. Unless they are very old (early 20th century or before) this will be a copyright infringment, and forbidden. Secondly, it should not be necessary. The purpose of citing a source is so that a reader may find and consult the source if they wish. Some sources are easy to find (because they are readily available online); but others are more difficult to come by. As long as a reader can in principle find them (eg by visiting a major library, or by subscribing to a paid-for online service), that is adequate. What is needed is the bibliographic information necessary to find the source: at a minimum, the title, author (if known), date, and publisher, and preferably the page number. See Referencing for beginners. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MayKassem. You have added images of two magazine covers to Draft:Nourhane, which you have claimed as your "own work". Are you the photographer? Do you personally own the copyright to these magazine covers? If not, you cannot claim them as your "own work". Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

these are indeed very old and rare. not 20th century, but prior to 1963 (which ends the copyright on images at +28 years in the US) and in Syria +10 years. we are well past those dates. thank you @ColinFine and @199.208.172.35 for answering my question. MayKassem (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Creating a new page: Political Candidate

Hello, I am working on creating a page for a political candidate I am working for. He is a candidate that is running for Governor of California and some of his opponents mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_gubernatorial_election#Declared have wikipedia pages but I do not know how to make one. Is there a way I can create a page for him or is that not possible? SKCteam2022 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@SKCteam2022: You can use the article wizard and read your first article for more information. Basically, Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally. I recommend you start making a draft and submit it to articles for creation, where experienced editors will review it. Also, there is a policy called notability. In short, if the subject has been covered in multiple reliable sources, they can probably have an article. And also, all encyclopedic content must be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 23:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOLITICIAN. Unelected candidates for office are rarely considered notable, unless there is unusually widespread coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, @SKCteam2022, please look at the rules regarding Conflict of Interest, as well as the username policy, as you might be violating the policy regarding account ownership (your username implies that it belongs to an organisation, which is not allowed, it has to be linked to an individual). Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

{{cite journal}} errors reported but citation looks and operates fine

Can someone explain the error in the two {{cite journal}} ?

I copied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL to my sandbox without any changes.

When viewing the article the cites look and function fine.

However when I Preview in my sandbox I see this warning:

   Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).

I isolated the error to both cites below but cannot debug further. Help!

* {{cite journal| last1 = Moniruzzaman | first1 = A. B. | last2 = Hossain | first2 = S. A. |year = 2013|title=NoSQL Database: New Era of Databases for Big data Analytics - Classification, Characteristics and Comparison|arxiv=1307.0191|bibcode=2013arXiv1307.0191M}}
* {{cite journal| first = Kai | last = Orend |year = 2013|title=Analysis and Classification of NoSQL Databases and Evaluation of their Ability to Replace an Object-relational Persistence Layer|citeseerx = 10.1.1.184.483 }}

Lirvaya (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lirvaya: I am not seeing that you copied anything into your sandbox. Can you please link to it so we can see the errors? RudolfRed (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Next time I will preserve and share link to my sandbox. Thank you for the tip! Lirvaya (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lirvaya. Neither of those papers appears to have been published in a journal. In any case the citations are missing the "journal=" field and ended up in Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. We have {{Cite arXiv}} for papers deposited at arXiv. For the paper at CiteSeerX replace "cite journal" with "cite CiteSeerX". However unpublished papers don't really belong in Further reading. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just fixed the cites, thanks to your tutelege. Lirvaya (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Help making a two-column bullet list

I want to split the following bullet list into 2 columns, with only the last 4 bullet points in the second column. Can someone please help me do that?

• The King of France.
• Duke of Guise.
• Duke of Mayenne.
• Grillon, Colonel of the Guard.
• Alphonso Corso, a Colonel.
• Belleure, a Courtier.

Royalists.

• Abbot del Bene,
• M. Monfert,

Of Guise's Faction.

• The Cardinal of Guise.
• Archbishop of Lyons.
• Polin,
• Aumale,
• Bussy,
• The Curate of St Eustace,
• Malicorn, a Necromancer,
• Melanax, a Spirit,

• Two Sheriffs,
• Citizens and Rabble, &c.

• Queen Mother.
• Marmoutiere, Niece to Grillon.

𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Ficaia and welcome to the teahouse! are you looking for something like this?

• The King of France.
• Duke of Guise.
• Duke of Mayenne.
• Grillon, Colonel of the Guard.
• Alphonso Corso, a Colonel.
• Belleure, a Courtier.
• Royalists.
• Abbot del Bene,
• M. Monfert,
• Of Guise's Faction.
• The Cardinal of Guise.
• Archbishop of Lyons.
• Polin,
• Aumale,
• Bussy,
• The Curate of St Eustace,
• Malicorn, a Necromancer,
• Melanax, a Spirit,

• Two Sheriffs,
• Citizens and Rabble, &c.
• Queen Mother.
• Marmoutiere, Niece to Grillon.

to copy this, check the source code - it uses the templates {{col-begin}}, {{col-break}}, and {{col-end}}. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

alternatively Ficaia, you could wrap the list around {{col-list}} which actually works better more often, although that also means giving up being able to say where the division would be: it would split wherever appropriate (usually in the middle) instead. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheers 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I insert brackets without moving a link symbol?

I asked a question at Talk:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. because of a problem I had there. But I have had it when I edited other entries as well, so I'll ask it here. I wrote at Talk:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: My edit of 01:40, 13 May 2022 provided a requested citation, with a link. I was unable to place brackets anywhere because it moved the link symbol (the box with the arrow) to the wrong place. I tried to change the first word, "the" to "[T]he" and to place double brackets around "Frankfurter" to change it to "Frankfurter" and to place double brackets around "Nardone v. United States." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Your ref was not properly formated, but the URL also appeared to be fatally flawed. I substituted a ref that does not actuall put those words in Frankfuter's mouth. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Add citation/source

What's the exact way of adding a news article link URL link or the like next to a statement that I add in an article? I'm sorry but I really don't know how, at least from a technical standpoint without simply linking the URL after it, which obviously isn't the right way. Hgh1985 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Hgh1985! you could learn how to cite over at Referencing for beginners, but the template would be {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} wrapped around the <ref> tag. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "wrapped around" part of the otherwise excellent response above. What you want is <ref>{{cite blah blah blah}}</ref>. An oddity is that if you want to cite a discrete part within an edited volume (e.g. a paper written by one author within a book edited by a different author), then what you need is {{cite encyclopedia}}. (I used the latter template just this morning, for something within a mere booklet of less than 20 pages.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Huh, today I learned that {{cite encyclopedia}} exists, and that I've evidently screwed up a couple of references hereabouts. Thanks Hoary! 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: One doesn't need to use {{cite encyclopedia}} in such a case; see "Citing a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor" in Template:Cite book#Examples. Deor (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Deor, I sit corrected. Thank you! -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Balaklava Wikipedia Page

Looking for changes to the Balaklava South Australia wiki page so the second line is not about Meth users but rather farming community and race course. 203.54.211.70 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Balaklava,_South_Australia Looks like another editor has already fixed it. RudolfRed (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I.P, welcome to the Teahouse. I've removed the offending text. It is possible the lede could be improved but it would have to reflect referenced prose in the article and be given due weight. From the quick look i took that didn't seem immediately possible to add what you'd suggested. Zindor (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Oddly, that bit of (mis)information has been repeatedly added to the article over the last few weeks, apparently by someone using the above IP. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Good spot, Columbo. I'd hazard a guess that the OP is their mother. Zindor (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That IP has added meth and "homosexual" comments to several articles, and has been repeatedly warned. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Help Fix Meta Page Links

Hello, please can someone help fix the podcast link or page and the team page respectively on the Fante translatewiki Project on meta, thanks. This is the link:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fante_translatewiki_Project/Participate.Jwale2 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that improved for you now? I was trying to bodge the transcluded header but i think that as a bi-product of that the page purged itself and the redlinks disappeared. Either that or someone else fixed it, which i think is more likely. Zindor (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Finding things to edit

Hello, I have followed the tutorial helpfully provided after making an account. I can find things to do by clicking on my username at the top of my screen and scrolling through the available tasks but is there a more intuitive way to find things that need to be done on Wikipedia? Or should I stick with that for now? I have mostly been doing copy-editing and reading through the copious amounts of policies! Thank you. Beag Fiadh (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

hi Beag Fiadh and welcome to the teahouse! apart from the Homepage tab, there's also the Task center which provides a more general overview of stuff that can be done, or Maintenance which is less pretty and beginner-friendly but more complete in a way. you could also join a WikiProject of your choice based on your interests, which provides information on what needs to be improved regarding the subject. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Your reply is amazing. Thank you! Beag Fiadh (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How to restore speedy deleted company page

Hello, my team was updating our corporate wiki pages with factual correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quess_Corp but it was speedy deleted. I want to understand how can we restore the page and ensure it is aligned with wiki policies and compliance 122.171.86.161 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user and welcome to the teahouse! given how the title was protected to prevent editing by newer users plus you being connected with the company which is discouraged, it's best to not aim to restore that page for now. seeing the deletion log of Quess Corp, it seems like the article was deleted for being considered promotion or PR, which is not what Wikipedia is for. if your company is truly notable enough to be included to Wikipedia, someone unconnected to your company may make an unbiased article on it in the future, using reliable sources independent from the company itself (and neutrality of both the text and ideally the editor, and the sources being reliable and independent are all policies required in article creation, plus notability guides what can and can't have an article). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The page has been speedy deleted multiple times. The last deletion included the criterion G12 ("unambiguous copyright infringement") which does not allow restoration of the page.

You should first gather sources that are simultaneously (1) independent of the company (so no press releases, interviews etc.), (2) from reliable sources (99% of the time, that means articles from reliable newspapers) and (3) deal with the subject at length (a short article along the lines of "company opens a new office in [town the newspaper is located in]" does not count). If (and only if) those sources exist, you should create an article at Draft:Quess Corp, taking care to follow policies such as WP:NPOV which require non-promotional, dry, just-the-facts writing. Once you think it is ready for publication in the mainspace, copy-paste the magic code {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft, and it will be reviewed by an experienced editor.

A few additional points:

1. Regarding "my team" - you should create one account per person that edits the article (group accounts are forbidden, so "Quess Corp" is not an acceptable account name but "Vlad Tepes at Quess Corp" is)
2. Assuming you are paid directly or indirectly by Quess Corp, you need to disclose it in the manner prescribed at WP:PAID (that is part of the terms of use of Wikipedia) for every person/account
3. If the article is created, it is not "your corporate wiki page", and you have no more control about what the article says than other random editors.

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Not meaning to be adding to your woe, but Quest Corp as a topic has been protected from attempts to recreate it without approval from an Administrator: "Pages that have been creation-protected are sometimes referred to as "salted". Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request." See Quess Corp for the protection notice, which also states "This page has been protected so only extended confirmed users can create it." Extended confirmed status requires a registered account that has been in existance for 90 days, with >500 article edits. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

About your team updating "our corporate wiki pages," you need to know that neither your team nor anybody else (team or otherwise) can have our, your, or their corporate wiki pages. There might some day be an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia about your corporation. If that happens, it will not be a corporate wiki page, and it will not be owned by you, your team, your corporation, or anybody else. You'll have no control over it, and you might or might not like everything about it. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Reproduction

@ 41.114.92.95 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, welcome to the Teahouse! How can we help you? HenryTemplo (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

Hi! Pakistan has four provinces, and each further contain 7-9 divisions. Currently, there exist two articles having information on divisions of a specific province (Divisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Divisions of Punjab, Pakistan). However, searching for the divisions of the other two provinces (Divisions of Sindh and Divisions of Balochistan, Pakistan) redirects one to the 'parent' page Divisions of Pakistan.

Should these two redirects be deleted so that individual pages can be created for divisions of Sindh and Balochistan?

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, the answer to your question is no, because the redirects take the reader to the article where they can find that information. If the redirects served no real purpose then it could be deleted. If an article on the divisions of the specific provinces was to be made, they could start in draftspace and then be moved to page which is the redirect. So there is no need to delete the redirect to make room for an article on it. I would suggest reading WP:R#CRD to see reasons to delete redirects. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Why do you make Taliban flag on every pages? 2A01:C23:8024:5300:7589:E891:67E0:3493 (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the Taliban currently controls Afghanistan. ― TUNA × 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I add images to an article?

I want to add images to the article Windows Movie Maker because I have screenshots of it running on different operating systems, however I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know how to upload an image to a gallery of images on that article, you know, at the bottom of the page.
Jabin127 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jabin127, welcome to Teahouse! To add an image to an article, you first need to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons (here). However, you need to make sure that your image fits the copyright and fair use policies that Wikipedia has. You can find more information at WP:C. Happy editing. ― TUNA × 13:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tunakanski. Would a screenshot of the Windows Movie Maker running on Windows XP violate copyright? I don't think it would because I technically made the image by screenshotting it, but I would like some input from an experienced user so that I don't violate any rules or guidelines.
Jabin127 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jabin127 Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your question. I'm afraid we cannot give you the go ahead to do what you want to do - sorry. Expanding on @Tunakanski's reply, software screenshots can be an extremely tricky subject to get to grips with because various copyright issues can come into play, especially if you are wanting to demonstrate software editing an already copyrighted image on its screen, and it being a copyrighted piece of software, as Windows Movie Maker most definitely will be. Before getting into the actual practicalities of how to make an already uploaded image appear into an article, I suggest you very carefully read through this page: Wikipedia:Software screenshots. It points out that Wikimedia Commons is not the right place to upload an image to if there are going to be copyright concerns over non-free software, instead uploading one single image solely to English Wikipedia under a 'free use rationale' is permitted, providing that image directly relates to the subject of the article and would help in its comprehension. Unfortunately, that has already happened with this image of that programme, so a second image of the software cannot be uploaded.

It is really important that you appreciate that the software (and thus the screenshots you hoped to upload) are copyright of Microsoft. Under our Wikipedia:Non-free content rules you should note that only one image is permitted in the relevant article, not multiple ones. So I'm afraid that your hopes for a gallery or multiple images on this article have to be dashed in this particular instance. But thanks so much for asking beforehand so that we can try to explain things. If I've not made this clear, do please ask a follow-up question as images of copyrighted software are a really tricky subject to get one's head around here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick_Moyes, I understand. I have one more question about this: if I wanted to upload a screenshot of free, open-source software, say LibreOffice for example, or a screenshot of a Linux distribution, would I be able to do that?
Jabin127 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jabin127 To be honest, you would need to check each individual programme's licencing. I think the advice you'd need to follow is explained on English Wikipedia in the 1st paragraph of this section of the link I gave you. On Wikimedia Commons, the advice can be found here. In essence, it actually depends on how a piece of software has been licenced - so you'd need to check each one separately. Remember that what can often be a more productive use of time is actually improving the written content of an article (based upon published sources, rather than from your own personal knowledge). Imagery is nice to have, but not essential. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Jabin127 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Finding saved information

Hold@ Finding saved information saved on phone 174.100.111.173 (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP Editor and welcome to the Teahouse! What information are we holding for? Normally we can look at a user's contributions to try and tell but your only contribution is the one above. If you can provide more information then we might be able to hep you further. --ARoseWolf 14:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Help in creating Wikipedia Article for organization

Hello all,

I work at the History of Diving Museum in Islamorada, Florida and was seeking assistance on the creation of a Wikipedia page for us. I know very little about editing but did see a note that employees should refrain from creating pages for their employer. I do however have lots of sources, information, and photos. Would it be possible to have help with this? I think we would fit in nicely for this category: Category:Maritime museums in Florida

Thank you for reading! Historyofdivingmuseum (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Historyofdivingmuseum: and welcome to Wikipedia and The Teahouse! One possibility is that you can create a draft article through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That is an optional service that allows users to create a draft and get feedback on it before it "goes live" on Wikipedia. Specifically, the AFC process, while optional for most users, is mandatory for users with a conflict of interest such as yourself. You can start it there. A couple of things to consider: 1) The AFC process is backlogged, and it can take some weeks or months for your article to be reviewed. 2) Reviews tend to be rather cursory and may tell you what is wrong, but not often how to fix it, nor will reviewers do any of the work of fixing the article (usually). Just be aware that the process can sometimes be frustrating to new users. 3) In general, topics are accepted as articles based primarily on how much independent reliable source text exists on the topic. This can often be something that is out of your control as a writer. While articles may also be rejected (and often are) for being written in an inappropriate tone, in my experience, the biggest problem is just that Wikipedia's standards of inclusion simply don't make allowances for any article on said topic. I have no idea if your museum is in this situation or not, but it is probably the most daunting hurdle to get over, and not one that even the best writer can overcome. If you're certain you have independent and reliable source material, if you can keep your writing neutral and of the correct tone, and if you can cite your sources so that the content is verifiable, then the AFC process is just what you want to use. You should also read Help:Your first article which covers some of the common pitfalls of writing articles. Also, as a side note, you may also want to head over to Wikipedia:Changing username and request that your account be renamed. Personal names and nicknames are acceptable usernames, but per Wikipedia:Username policy, "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted" because they imply that the account is being used in an official capacity by the group, and group accounts are not allowed. You can change your username to something else, and that will be fine. --Jayron32 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. There are a lot of articles from sources(magazines, newspapers) besides the Museum so I don't believe sources will be an issue. I will take care that the process you mentioned is followed and hope the page can be up.

As an aside, I was not requested to write the article for any promotional purposes but just think it would be of benefit to have some of the educational resources available to a wider, non-local audience.

Thank you again! Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Historyofdivingmuseum (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would point out that Wikipedia article are not for the topic, but about the topic. Wikipedia is not concerned with any benefits to an organization related to the presence (or not) of an article about it on Wikipedia. Our only interest is in writing this encyclopedia. Any article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- not based on materials from the organization like interviews, press releases, announcements- to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organization merits an article, even within the same field.

You can make a request for the creation of an article at Requested Articles, but it is so severely backlogged that any request may not be acted on, if ever. If you have appropriate sources from reliable sources that chose on their own to write about your museum, it is possible for you to submit a draft article for an independent review at Articles for Creation. I would advise against that; the best indicator that a subject merits an article is when an independent editor organically takes note of a topic receiving significant coverage and chooses on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue isn't usually successful.

You will need to declare as a paid editor, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec × 3) @Historyofdivingmuseum: First of all, you should see the Wikipedia:Username policy to see why your chosen user name is not appropriate here, and follow the hint in WP:UNC section to change it. Next, you need to understand you can create a Wikipedia article about you, but you can't create a Wikipedia page for you (either you personally, your organization, your community etc.). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:What is Wikipedia), not a social media (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Specifically, Wikipedia is not means of promotion, so its articles are meant to serve readers, not subjects. This is what I try to distinguish by opposing 'about' to 'for'. And I suppose most of what Jayron32 wrote above follows from this. --CiaPan (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information.+ username changed!

I am not concerned with promotion as much as I think it would be of benefit to readers to have some of the educational resources available here(artifacts, history, etc.) available without having to visit in person. I think it is worth an article especially as there are smaller maritime museums with their own.

Cheers! Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Divingenthusiast2005, I'm assuming your museum has a lot of cool diving-related exhibits. If you could take photographs of those exhibits and upload them to Commons (under an appropriate license), they might be useful in illustrating diving-related articles. It's probably a quicker (and easier) way of getting the museum's information out there than writing an article on the museum itself, though of course you're welcome to do that too. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a great idea, I definitely want to edit other diving-related articles with additional information/histories provided by artifacts here, but when sourcing the photos as "x artifact on display at x museum" I feel it would be of benefit to have that page to link to. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Divingenthusiast2005:: From a quick online search, sadly I doubt that your museum is truly notable (but of course you might have found more sources than I did). Also, a smaller museums having a Wikipedia entry doesn't mean your museum needs to have one as well (as explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). However, I added a section to the Islamorada, Florida article which mentions the museum – such a mention has a lower bar to pass than a standalone article. Once you've uploaded pictures, one could be added there :) --LordPeterII (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There are many sources that mention us, but online ones tend to be local. I am certain we have national-level articles, but they are typically in journals about SCUBA and diving history(so pretty niche, and not always available online). I will have to do some digging in our physical archives.

As for pictures, I put together this IMGUR album to start the process. What would be the process of posting them here? https://imgur.com/a/TGmo5lm Please feel free to use them, and thank you for adding to the Islamorada article! I really appreciate that. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Per your concern that journals about SCUBA and diving history aren't available online. You can still cite the journals -- giving author, article title, journal title, issue date and page numbers for the article -- even if it isn't online. If the periodical is considered reliable it doesn't have to be readily available to be a good reference. Best wishes on your Wikipedia project. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, but if a picture of the museum itself is needed, would this work? https://imgur.com/a/EhGMUX7 Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Divingenthusiast2005, assuming you took the photos yourself, the easiest way to upload them is to go here and follow the instructions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for the info; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_Diving_Museum.png Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You can upload the same to Commons, now that there's none visible elsewhere. One thing I noticed on the entrance pic is that there is no EXIF info - suggesting it's been uploaded from a non-original source. This is the sort of thing the Commons volunteers will look for. Apologies it's so involved.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You might want to crop the image yourself, too, @Divingenthusiast2005, so it's a bit more square and less landscape-y, they fit better in articles that way (see the "opening shot" at Louvre for instance). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's no problem, thank you for the advice. I'm turning in for the evening but for sure can upload a new picture and crop/arrange it accordingly tomorrow. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(EC - again - notwithstanding the above message...) Divingenthusiast2005 - I am not a Teahouser, but occasionally I look at selected posts. Please be aware at an early stage that Wikipe/media can only accept (as a repository) and use ('publish') images that are annotated to be copyright-free. That normally means not published elsewhere where there is no licence visible - copyright is assumed. I can't see any such info at Imgur, and I'm unfamiliar with it, but it's swamping me with adverts (too visitor-unfriendly - I couldn't easily scroll to the bottom). Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. All images uploaded were photos I took myself of the museum interior and artifacts therein, so I am assuming they would be alright to upload. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's complicated. Re-used (that is already published) images can only be hosted here (for anyone to re-use) when there is a specific release. The photographer normally 'owns' the copyright still, but releases usage to others, with specific conditions of attribution. You could take similar-but-noticeably different for use on WP.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with imgur either; there might be a way for an account holder to give their uploaded pictures an appropriate license, compatible with Commons. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do Divingenthusiast2005 is to delete the main entrance pic from Imgur, then do as I suggested by uploading similar, not the same to Wikimedia Commons. Or delete all from Imgur, now that it's in the open. Just to confirm, Wikimedia Commons is entirely separate to English-language Wikipedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, they have been deleted. I will go through the process of uploading new images as I am sure many artifacts can be used for diving history related articles. Divingenthusiast2005 (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies again Divingenthusiast2005 - the reply is sited above - Duhhh, page is jumping around.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

History of Diving Museum now in mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

how to make info boxes

That has text in them Xmoyer (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Xmoyer. As a newcomer to Wikipedia editing, I don't think you should worry about creating new infoboxes yet. To use one of our many existing ones, see WP:INFOBOX. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the dmy dates template be added above the short description?

Hi. I’ve noticed an article that doesn’t have the dmy dates template, and I wanted to add it. However, it has a short description, and I’m worrying that if I put it in the wrong order it will break something. Should I put the template above the short description or below it? Thanks in advance. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Speatle: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware the positioning of those two templates don't matter. Conventionally people place short descriptions at the top of the page, if possible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

footbaall

what is a football betweeen a soccerball 0000123w (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@0000123w, do you have any question related to editing Wikipedia? Your current query is not very clear... Kpddg ^(talk) 15:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

They are the same thing. You can look up these words in Wikipedia. You will find the information at football/soccerball. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Hard to put"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible removal of notability guideline template from top of article page

Hi,

When the page for the UK based band The Zangwills was created some years ago, there was a header added querying notability. Since then, the band have gone on to make significant progress in terms of general success, popularity and further music releases. Their page is also now directly linked to and from Maisie Williams (Game of Thrones) page as she produced a music video for their song Judas on the Dancefloor. The video was directed by BAFTA winning young director Lowri Roberts and went on to win a film festival award for Best International Music Video.

I wondered therefore if the query notability header could now be reviewed and possibly removed and wanted to seek advice here on how to go about flagging that up for consideration.

Many Thanks & All Best Wishes MMyll (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MMyll. Based on their success in the last three years as reflected in the article, I have removed the 2019 notability tag. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. MMyll (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability aside, MMyll, I'm inclined to add a "promotional" template to this. Consider for example: Talking about the song, Jake Vickers [who, NB, is a band member, and thus not a disinterested source] said, "If you listen to it loud enough, it can feel like a hug,” he said. “If you smash it on some speakers and put them on your chest, it might just feel like human contact."[13] It was this universal message, coming late in 2020 that grabbed the support and attention of a wider global audience "Fans worldwide will have carved out national treasure status for this band. They really rock" from the USA. Putting aside the question of how anyone "carve[s] out national treasure status" for anything, of course fans of a band value a band (if they didn't, they wouldn't be fans); and this factoid is sourced to an unspecified item somewhere within a bulky issue of a magazine. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on a season article for the first season of The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

I've been working on a page for The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (season 1), and I was wondering if it looks good so far and if it's a good page to include in wikipedia. And if it is, I want to make pages for the other 3 seasons as well. Here it is: User:LeotheBoy1110/sandbox2. LeotheBoy1110 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@LeotheBoy1110 I can tell you put a lot of work into your article draft, and the general layout, and much of what you wrote is good, but there are problems. The main difficulty is references. I looked at your reference list and see that references 7 through 18 have a "missing or empty title", so I believe you must have made formatting errors. In addition, a lot of your article is lacking references. In the Release section the first two paragraphs have a reference for their first sentence, but the rest of the sentences have no sources given. I don't know if what you wrote came from a book, a newspaper article, or if you are giving your opinion. Unfortunately, if you can't find a reliable reference for what you want to write, you need to leave that part out until you can reference it properly.

There are also a few places where you seem a bit too enthusiastic. You state that publications gave the series "extremely positive reviews," when just writing "positive reviews" will let the readers know that reviewers liked the show. But the main task before is to fix your reference problems. Help:Referencing for beginners may be a useful guide for you. Look for additional sources so that every sentence of information you write will have a proper reliable reference.

Take a deep breath, perhaps step away from your draft for a day or two, and then go back to work on your problem areas. Writing a Wikipedia article is hard work, but you've made a good start. Best wishes on improving what you've written. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

Drafting an article and it was denied because it says it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources". The subject of the article is noted on IMDB for all their roles, there is a complete local news story about him (with name and photos therein), another local news story that had video coverage of him in his philanthropic endeavors. Also included was a link to the charity that he actually started and runs (which includes events, photographs of him, etc.).

Trying to understand what is missing that IMDB to show all his movie credits, and published news articles speaking to his philanthropic nature aren't "reliable sources" (unless i'm possibly annotating the references incorrectly, possibly confusing "references" with "external links" (though the above are all in the "references" section. If there's anyone that can provide some assistance, possibly show me what I'm doing wrong, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am actually looking at another actor (Gregory Sporleder ) who has fewer references (only 1 reference that actually isn't a broken link and mentions him in it), and identical external links (IMDB)...and his page is up without an issue, so i'm trying to understand what is lacking here as this one seems to be more thoroughly annotated. ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The page I'm trying to submit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shawn_Alexander_Thompson

The one I am referring to that has 1 valid link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Sporleder — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513. IMDb is not a reliable source. Please read WP:IMDB. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate. The link to the charity he runs is a primary source and obviously not an independent source and therefore is of no use in establishing notability. The three films he recently acted in appear to be low budget efforts that have not yet been released. Your reference titled "Community gets results for woman whose bike was stolen" does not mention Thompson. You have presented no evidence that this person is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

As for Gregory Sporleder, could that article be improved? Absolutely. But Sporleder has had many roles in major films and TV shows going back a third of a century. He is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

ForTheLoveOfTheGame1513 I'm sure that the local newspaper articles are good, reliable sources, but the problem is whether the actor is notable, as explained in notability. I have had a couple of local newspaper articles written about me, and have been seen in a couple of YouTube history documentaries, but I am not notable to anyone other than close friends and family members. Your article may be too soon and an article about the actor can be accepted when he becomes better known. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, see WP:OSE 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk page after a move

I changed the article name for the artist Frederick E. Olmsted to Frederick E. Olmsted Jr. because I had written a new article about his father--and technically Jr. should have been included in the name of the article anyway. I have merged articles before, but not with the move button. Both article and talk page seemed to be fine after the move. And I was able to then publish the new article for Frederick E. Olmsted who was forester. However, the talk page for my new article is still the old talk page for Jr. with a redirect. Not sure what step I missed or how to fix this. Any advice? Rublamb (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, but I figured it out. Rublamb (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Userpage/userbox help

So I saw someone's userboxes and I thought they were really cool, so I made my own. I did that and with both the visual editor and the source editor my userpage looked fine, but when I published the changes it looked really weird. Could somebody help me fix it? My userpage is here.
Jabin127 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Jabin127, it looks slightly unusual, that's all. Don't worry about it; just improve some articles. (Until you do, nobody will be interested in your likes, affiliations, experiences, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nonetheless, i've made the markup a bit stricter. Jabin127, is that <br> tag part of your signature? You don't need it there and it'll end up as lint. While HTML does generally work here, the mediawiki software will for the most part handle line breaks and spacing without need to define it yourself. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How to obtain excerpts for classical music pieces

How do you get these nice and clear excerpts like in the featured article Piano Sonata No. 31? The article I am working on, Piano Concerto No. 5, has these pretty bad audio excerpts that need to be replaced. I could not find any help on Wikipedia music documentation. Thank you. YourJudge (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, YourJudge! Is this the music documentation you were looking for? I looked at the instructions in this media file help page and it seems you will have to have access to the song from which you take an excerpt. You could also try looking here, although I don't know if the resources listed there are as helpful for classical music. Alternatively, you can take a look at what the provider of one of the files you referenced in Piano Sonata No. 31 has (diffs: [6] [7] [8]). Hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, @Perfect4th, for being unclear. I was specifically looking for the image sources. In the featured article Piano Sonata No. 31, the images (diffs: [9] [10] [11][12]) are nice and clear while in my article, it is just midi files. It seems Help:Sibelius is the closest to what I need, but I wonder what to do if you cannot buy Sibelius. YourJudge (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, YourJudge! You might have already found Help:Score, which displays an image but in .midi format and is entirely manual input anyway. This MOS guideline describes the guidelines for image sources, but doesn't say where to find them; you'll likely either have to find an image or make one (I'm definitely not a copyright expert, but Beethoven's works are in the public domain, so I think a transcription would be okay). There ought to be an alternative to Sibelius somewhere that should work if there isn't one already. I use a cheaper software but it has less capabilities and I don't know if it would work for this purpose. Perfect4th (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Internet archive

I would like to upload the episodes from shows like Floodlines and Timber Wars to the internet archive and probably link to them in the external links section or something. However, I've never uploaded anything to the IA before. Can I just upload whatever I want? If these shows are copyrighted do I need to get consent from the creators? Basically any help with how to upload things to the IA would be appreciated. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you cannot upload whatever you want, especially if it's copyrighted – see The Internet Archive's page on "What movies can I upload?", and consider Wikipedia's policies on non-free content and linking to copyrighted works. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Jimin (singer, born 1995)

I started a requested move and several days have passed since then, and it's only gotten two supports. I was wondering if that would be enough for it to be moved, or if it needs to be relisted for further responses. 52-whalien (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@52-whalien Requested Move discussions stay open for at least seven days, so it has only about a day to run, someone will come around to close it, as the nominator it should not be you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor has left name and phone number after complaint about a company on that company's talk page

I am watching The Dollar Store and I was informed of a change on the Talk Page:The Dollar Store. When I went there I saw a wordy complaint by an anonymous editor about an incident that had occurred between her and a store employee. At the end of the complaint she left her name and presumably her real phone number. What does one do in a case like this? Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bobdog54: Contact the oversight team. See WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions. The page you linked to does not exist, so please make sure you have the right page when you submit your request. RudolfRed (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply–It was Dollar Tree(my brain went into neutral). In the meantime, another anonymous editor deleted the entire comment and mentioned oversight so I will figure that they have stealthily taken care of the problem? Or not? bobdog54 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, I can't request oversight, that needs a registered user with an email address. I just wanted to get that post off the page... hopefully quietly, but ah well. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

97.113.167.129, assuming you have an email adress, you can email the overisght team directly, without the need to go through Wikipedia's email user feature. Their email adress is oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'd be worried about my report getting lost in the loads of junk mail which a public email address like that no doubt attracts, but it's better than nothing. Dealing with "simple" revdel requests is easier, usually I just check CAT:RFRD and here and ping a poor unsuspecting soul (since leaving a note on their talk page might draw undue attention to the issue), but maybe that's not really the best way to go about it. I've never used IRC (can IPs even use IRC?), but I'm told it's another option. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I contacted oversight and redacted the edit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Gracias, lurking gorilla-admin (so large, yet so quiet!). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bobdog54 For next time, it is best not to post about such things on a highly visible page like the Teahouse so as to not attract more attention to the personal information, and you can contact WP:OVERSIGHT as mentioned above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I had reservations about doing the post but had no idea what else to do. Now I know about Oversight and I thank everyone for their help and I can stop cringing about the way I went about asking my question. Live and Learn as I travel the road of Wikipedia. bobdog54 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible DAB for geological surveys in Australia

Dear Teahouse friends,

I'd like to create a DAB for Australian geological surveys, sometimes they can be tricky to find as they were done by different departments.

Would this be considered suitable? At present there is the overarching descriptive Geological survey. It has some linked examples it is not so nationally specific. There is a category but I believe a DAB would be of more value. Thank you for your advice!

If this type of disambiguation page is allowed, I would be adding these pages:

Geological Survey of South Australia

Geological Survey of Queensland

Geological Survey of Victoria

Geological Survey of Western Australia

SunnyBoi (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi SunnyBoi I think that what you describe is better done using Wikipedia Categories. We already have Category:Geological surveys of Australia which seems to cover those you mention. So anyone looking at an article in this category can click through to find the others (i.e. the category will be at the bottom of the articles). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

a question

Would it be ethical to count editing as volunteering hours at my school?  Ickydog23 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Ickydog23, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is the sort of question you should probably ask your school. If your school needs help deciding if it is ok to count Wikipedia editing as volunteering, maybe point them this way. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I create a new parameter which is not already there in Infobox?

I would like to add a new parameter 'nearest metro station' so that it is easy to navigate in places like Delhi. How do I create it? Libreravi (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again @Libreravi! If you want to add a new parameter to a infobox, maybe start a discussion on the templates talk page. I wouldn't add it to the template directly if I were you, as templates are fiddly things. On some infoboxes, however, there are options to add another title and info, so maybe check out that. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Libreravi. HenryTemplo is right to suggest you discuss it first; but I would oppose adding this field, for three reasons. First, in most cases it would be original research; secondly, in some cases it would be a matter of opinion; thirdly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Create Wikipedia page...

How to create a wikipedia page without auto deletion?... What are procedure to launch a wikipedia page?... 157.51.163.199 (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Wikipedia articles are not "auto deleted"; if you are referencing a specific article or draft(your edit history indicates no other contributions besides here) please tell us which one. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. It is recommended that you first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what it expected of article content. If you create an account, you can use the new user tutorial as well.

If the topic you want to write about receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, and the topic meets the Wikipedia definition of notability, you may visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. Reading Your First Article will help as well. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I assume you talk about creating a new Wikipedia 'article (not just "page"). Since your IP adress has made no edits besdies this one, I cannot determine where your previous attempt failed, but in general the steps to create a new Wikipedia article are as follows:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't find wikipedia article for Amar Bharati, does it exist?

I red about a man called Amar Bharati in this article and there seems to be all kinds of information on hin in the internet. However I can't find his Wikipedia page. The article mentions his wikimedia commons as the image source for the picture, I can't find the image as well. Where can I find his wikipedia page? Thank you very much. TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

hi TheFibonacciEffect and welcome to the teahouse! there doesn't seem to be an article about Amar Bharati at the moment, not even a deleted one. I also searched up at TinEye, and while that includes hits from many places including the BBC, Commons isn't one of them (plus I also searched up through Commons's search, which revealed nothing). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 11:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi TheFibonacciEffect There is no article on him in Wikipedia (nor a Draft). The reason you got a Google hit associated with "Amar Bharati Wikipedia" is because there is a reddit page that has this combinaton of words. I can't find that image on Commons, either, but it may have been deleted there for copyvio (or other reason) after being used elsewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi TheFibonacciEffect, At the moment there is no article on him in Wikipedia, if he is notable then you are free to create article on him, if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject or you can create a draft on it. May be Article for creation, Your first article, relaible sources, and Notability helps you. Cheers and Happy editing. Fade258 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

But the lack of any information that i can find besides that article, and the lack of sites that have that picture (despite TinEye saying they have) makes me doubt not only whether he is notable, but also whether the story is genuine. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so you will need some very solid reliable sources to even think of writing about him. ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Offensive Labeling

Can anyone help correct the post on Sarah (Sally) Hemings, who bore several children now known to be Thomas Jefferson’s. Alone among the most common Web sites about her, Wikipedia calls her a “quadroon,” a dated and offensive label. 2601:18E:8201:B600:EC5A:7C00:20EF:7DC9 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is Talk:Sally Hemings. If you can achieve a consensus to change it, it can be changed. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Verifying biographical content provided by the subject of an article

Genuinely puzzled and would appreciate advice. I made a small edit to a celebrity's self-reported biographical details to reflect that they are unverified. It has been reverted by a more experienced editor. I've raised it in Talk [see last item on Talk Page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton] but will not change back as I think that would amount to edit warring. I'm happy to learn from being told I'm wrong, but it seems obvious to me that if claimed biographical data and backstories relevant to image-making are accepted at face value without verification, this will lead to immense amounts of nonsense in Wikipedia articles as insterted there by PRs via simply getting the celebrity to utter the words. A sensible way to report autobiography or comments in interviews seems to me to be to use the format; "x says"? Emmentalist (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Emmentalist. I suggest that you read WP:INTERVIEW which says Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources—for instance, if an interview happens to be the clearest available source for where a person who is already properly established as notable was born, or for where they attended university, or for the fact that they identify as LGBTQ, then the interview can be used to source a statement of that fact. In this case, the person is indisputably notable, highly successful and widely honored, and the article is exceptionally well referenced. I am not aware of any credible accusations that he is a liar. Writing something like "Hamiliton says that he started studying karate at age 5" creates doubt where that is unwarranted. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Spacing issues

A Wikipedian left this message on my article about artist Reba Dickerson-Hill: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Spacing issues. (May 2022)." I'm new to wikipedia and have written at least a dozen other articles. I'm not sure what that means nor how to correct it. Could use some guidance. Thanks. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sherryleehoward. It was an IP editor who added that template, so it is difficult to reach out to them to ask why. Looking at the article Reba Dickerson-Hill, my suggestion is that the IP editor didn't like all these short sentences which could be redone as longer paragraphs. My only other comment is that you have WP:OVERKILL in a couple of places. Well done for creating an interesting article: have you thought of taking something out of it for WP:DYK so it can be linked on the front page and get lots of views? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The bad news may be that you uploaded to Commons a picture that I doubt is your "own work" (i.e. you took the photo with your own camera). As Dickerson-Hill is dead, you could normally take such a picture from a website but it has to be uploaded only to English Wikipedia as fair-use (see WP:FAIRUSE) and meet all the conditions mentioned. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a photo from her son, which she paid a photographer to shoot (he didn't do a great job of it). Son gave me permission to use it for wikipedia knowing that it becomes common use. The artwork belongs to another son, also got permission to use it. The print is on the web because it has come up several times at auction. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. That helps tremendously. I'll spread out the citations so they're not bunched at the end. I tend to write in short sentence because I think long complicated ones are unwieldy for the reader. I'll use full paragraphs rather than short ones. Not sure what you mean by taking something out of it for Did you know? How does that work? I have done articles on several neat artists & would love to get them noticed. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you can't claim "own work" for something that isn't yours Sherryleehoward. The copyright of the photo will (usually) be that of the photographer, not the son, and the resolution on Commons is so low that I doubt that the son had the original .jpg. I'm unclear what should happen to sort things out but others may comment. Click on the Did You Know link (or look at today's Main Page) to find out more about that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

OK. Will sort out the photo. Thanks. Sherryleehoward (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sherryleehoward: there's nothing spacing-related that jumps at me, but when I looked at the version when that tag was placed, there were several instances of spaces between punctuation and reference. However, those seem to have been since sorted out, so I wouldn't worry about it. I've removed the tag now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, DoubleGrazing. You folks have been so helpful. Sherryleehoward (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing a page section

Hello! I'm currently editing Curie (microarchitecture) , and it seems to me like the "Chips" section is extremely redundant, as the info from there is duplicated in the "GPU list" section (in fact it's even more detailed). Would removing this section as redundant run afoul of any WP rules? -- akmLaVx (t/c) 17:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Akmlavx Like in most editing, it is encouraged that people be WP:BOLD with changes, being ready to work towards a consensus on the Talk Page of the article if anyone reverts/otherwise objects. More details at WP:BRD. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! -- akmLaVx (t/c) 17:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Making note of guidance by Associated Press on usage of word "internment"

The Associated Press sent a Style Note for May 2022 guiding writers to use the words "detained" or "incarcerated" rather than "interned" and to describe the larger event as "the incarceration of Japanese Americans". My question is where is the appropriate placement of a graf on this matter, specifically, on /internment_of_Japanese_Americans.

It would appear that wording would be handled as a Style Guideline.

Thank you in advance. CaptainHuggyface (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, CaptainHuggyface. This new development could be added to the section Internment of Japanese Americans#Terminology debate where these issues are already discussed at length. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cullen328. I should have reviewed the page more closely. CaptainHuggyface (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Strange article and editor

The article Howie Weinberg is in my opinion seemingly not up to Wikipedia's standard, and one editor's contributions are only to this article. They removed the template I added for cleanup. I'm not really sure how to proceed after this, or if I even want to, but I'd really appreciate any advice. Ștefan Tărâță (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)