Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Dbfirs, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

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

Most recent archives
1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229

Isn't visual editor available in the wikipedia app? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushal Dev Wiki: Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I know, it isn't available in the app. (Also, please don't make duplicate sections, thanks!) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

visual editor on wikipedia app

Is visual editor available in wikipedia app?How to access it in the app? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushal Dev Wiki: Nope. I can say from experience that the editor for mainspace articles in the iOS app is always source + syntax highlighting. (I assume Android is same.) For WYSIWYG editing, you'll need to do it in a web browser. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:09 Tue 25, AEST) 12:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushal Dev Wiki There is visual editing for mobile Wikipedia on a web browser, not in wikipedia app though. max20characters 🇺🇸 16:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali wikipedia lacks so many topics.I want to create articles in Nepali by translating those one in english so that it may be easier for the Nepali users.I require suggestions and helps. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kushal Dev Wiki: Follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATEUS. You should also check the guidelines at the Nepali Wikipedia, since each langauge Wikipedia has its own rules for what is an acceptable article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, and in any language. If you speak Nepali, you are free to write articles on the Nepali Wikipedia, just as you are on the English Wikipedia. You can write them from scratch, translate them from other languages (including English), or use the sources available on the corresponding English language page. Here is a brief guide for translating from English: Wikipedia:Translate us. — HTGS (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kushal Dev Wiki. I don't have the link right now, but somewhere there is a list of 1000 essential topics. You could look at those, and see if any are missing in Nepali. Or just pick a topic that really interests you for your initial translations. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:27 Wed 26, AEST) 20:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VITAL. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a university student and am new to editing. I'm working on an article on the beetle Rivancindela Hudsoni, would someone be able to read it over and give me some constructive advice? Anastasia.sck (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rivacindela hudsoni looks interesting. Here's a tedious chore for you, though. Not

the substrate ^[7].

(etc), but instead

the substrate.^[7]

(etc). -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastasia.sck: In other words, put the references after the punctuation. Also, the reference coding is a bit off. I’m viewing it on my mobile phone but will have some time tomorrow to look at it on my desktop to figure out what you’re doing wrong. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastasia.sck: you have done a great job for a new editor. I made a couple of minor copy-edits, and tried to clean up the references. There are still a couple of issues there to work on:

• Some of the listed "references" were never actually referenced in the article. I have assumed that they were used to build the article and grouped them as General sources - these are permitted but really should be referenced inline in the body of the article, so the reader knows which source supports what part of the article.
• Also, some of the references have numbers at the start - these probably need to be removed so they don't confuse people.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, @Anastasia.sck, that's a great expansion for a first ouvre. I have to go and prepare for work, but I'll aim to leave some suggestions / critique on the article's talk page later.

Question for Teahouse regulars: could the CC-BY-NC image from SA Museum (see Anastasia's talk page) qualify for non-free-use if it's uploaded at low resolution?

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:28 Wed 26, AEST) 21:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. As far as I am aware, the Noncommercial (and No Derivatives) prongs are a hard no for Wikipedia under any circumstance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me sadface. I was hoping there might be a useful distinction between NC versus NC-ND or NC-SA. But thanks for the reply, Jéské / Bori. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (05:42 Thu 27, AEST) 19:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone! I will definitely take this into account and improve on my article. This help is much appreciated :) Anastasia.sck (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I recently expanded the Rouran Khaganate article, and created the article Tomb of Princess Linhe. Many clay figurines were unearthed from the latter, including the figure of a shaman, thought to represent her Rouran descent, thus inspired by the Rouran shamans, with the Rouran visiting the court of Wei frequently. I was thinking of uploading a picture of this Shaman figurine for the Rouran Khaganate article to show the figurine itself, but also because we have only one depiction of the Rourans. In this jstor article^[1] there is a photograph of this shaman figure. As a sculpture, it can't be uploaded at Wikimedia under a free license; but I was wondering whether the jstor article's picture might be uploaded at Wikipedia. Technically, a picture of it could be created.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, sounds like a question for you. Haldir Marchwarden, please try WP:MCQ next if you do not receive an answer here. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haldir Marchwarden. You posted As a sculpture, it can't be uploaded at Wikimedia under a free license, but that's not necessarily true in each and every case as explained in c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Antiquities. If the sculpture is old enough or if there's freedom of panorama for 3D works of art in the country where the sculpture is found, then the sculpture itself might be no longer or ineligible fo copyright protection. That would mean that the only copyright that would need to be considered would be of the actual photograph itself. I can't see any photo in the link you've provided above. If the photo you want to use was taken by the author of that paper, then that person would be its copyright holder; so, you could seek their WP:PERMISSION to use it. Ideally, that would be the best thing since the photo could then be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and would be available for all Wikimedia projects to use. However, this is not always possible, which is why English Wikipedia does allow photos of sculptures to be uploaded locally and used as non-free content. To be able to do that though, you would need to make sure that the way the file is being used satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. Satisfying one or some of these criteria is not enough; you need to meet them all. Whether this can be done often depends largely on how the image is going to be used and whether it's possible for a free-equivalent image or a free alternative way of presenting the same content to be used instead of non-free content. More detailed questions about image licensing and non-free use probably should be made at WP:MCQ or maybe even WT:NFCC because those are places where you're more likely going to find editors familiar with this type of thing.

Finally, please add some relevant WikiProject banners to the talk page of the article you created since that will help better incorporate it into the encyclopedia and let others who might be interested in such article know about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly; okay, thank you so much!--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

{{References}} Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I suspect you intended {{Reflist}}, not {{References}}, Haldir. Though have a look at {{Reflist-talk}}. Pelagic ( messages ) – (21:13 Tue 25, AEST) 11:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – combined with previous topic --Maresa63 ^Talk 11:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Maresa63.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse, wondering if there was any WP policy/guide on edits and the etiquette on the number of edits. Just a quick reply will do!
To me, it seems most rational to condense many changes to a page into a few edits, rather than making several small edits. Just saw this edit list here. Obviously this editor has been improving Wikipedia, but just looking to point to something concrete should I run into this in the future. Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PerpetutityGrat, both are fine. Some editors like to add thousands of bytes in one edit, while others add small portions at a time. Edit count is the only thing that is really affected by the difference. Sungodtemple (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great that works thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Some editors like to make a series of smaller changes so that anyone who objects to an edit can revert just that one edit. If a massive change to an article has some good parts and some bad parts, it's much harder for an editor who objects to one or more parts of the edit to deal with. Deor (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Can it really take 204 edits to change 15 words? (See this for a quite ridiculous bit of edit overkill). Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to create a page for a wealth management firm which interns need to see on Wikipedia to understand. This firm is different to the other firms so requires an explanation, explaining the way in which it works and how it invests differently to traditional methods.

This knowledge is backed by sources and needs to be published. However, wikipedia is threatening to delete the page. OmarA777 (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OmarA777 I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your company interns, investors, customers, or in otherwise aiding your company. You should do that on social media or some alternative forum where that is permitted. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OmarA777: I don't understand how using Wikipedia helps interns understand the firm. Wouldn't a page on the company's website be better? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OmarA777: I don’t see any articles you have created in your editing history. Is it possible you edited using your IP address or under a different account? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: The OP may have been talking about Draft:Binary Capital Investment Management. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Thanks - I didn't see that in the history. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TimTempleton, deleted edits are not listed in the contributions page. It's a good idea to check user talk page or its history because deleted pages usually leave deletion notices there. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... or use the "Edit count" link at the foot of the user's contribution page. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how Wikipedia works. It all seems so...intricate. I kinda need help. Eclectic-Polymath (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eclectic-Polymath: Maybe start with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eclectic-Polymath: what would you like to do around here? There are a lot of processes, certainly, but as long as you have something you're interested in, we can help point you in the direction you'd like to go. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: 2022 New York gubernatorial election

Six candidates are in a political race. Only one of those six are campaigning. That one candidate is getting endorsements. At least three people have tried to create an endorsements box for this candidate, but two users continually removes the endorsements box, citing it as non constructive with no further context. The party has indicated in the past that they want to pick a nominee in the next few months, so these endorsements are important and there is a sense of urgnency to accurately display this important information. What can we do? Capisred (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capisred, you might make a request for comment or ask on this noticeboard. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Capisred, please note that Wikipedia user accounts are supposed to be used by a single user. So, if by "we", you mean more than one person are using your account, you'll need to change that. Also note that if you belong to a political campaign, you need to disclose those connections on your userpage, per WP:PAID. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Capisred, there is no urgency. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. The 2022 election is almost a year and a half away. Endorsements are far more significant a month or two before the primary. If you are a supporter of one of the candidates, then you have a conflict of interest and should defer to uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, friendly responders! I would like to clarify a few things. First by "we" I mean myself, and two other users I do not know (02rufus02 and General Dwight David Eisenhower) who also tried to add an endorsements box that got removed for being "non-constructive". Secondly, I am not related to, I have no connections to, I do not work with, and I do not support the candidate in question. Third, the NY GOP Chairman has stated that he wants to pick a nominee this June (LINK). Going off of 2018 New York gubernatorial election, I see that there are seperate endorsements boxes for primary elections and general elections, therefore, It is my understanding that a primary endorsements box should be allowed to be put in place before the primary process is over. Because this decision will be made in June, how long do I have to wait/what rules do I have to play by so that Wikipedia users can submit relevant endorsements that are not dismissed as "non-constructive" before the primary endorsements box becomes obselete? Capisred (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you interested in including my article "Chinese People in Turkey" in your Wikiproject? Requiemrelenquished (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Requiemrelenquished (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requiemrelenquished, the article Chinese people in Turkey looks most worthwhile; but its section "Chinatown in Istanbul" lacks a single reference. Good work so far; a lot more work required! (And what do you mean by including the article in a Wikiproject?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestions! I have cleaned up this section, and cited everything from my word doc. Requiemrelenquished (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Candelbox (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for your situation User:Candelbox, and I wish you both strength and love. However, we are unfortunately unable to publish biographical or memorial material for private persons. I'm not sure what "gfm" is but if you mean an article, I'm afraid that the Wikipedia is not a proper place for that. May luck and grace be with you. Herostratus (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"gfm" means GoFundMe, which has become more-or-less a backup health insurance plan. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candelbox. If you do mean "goFundMe" then you need to start at the gofundme website. I can't link to it because it is blacklisted.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had stumbled upon a historical meterological chain reaction which despite operating for millions of years had inadvertently been altered then removed by human activity. Unfortunatly this event refered to as the Nile Climate Engine aka NiCE happened to be a precursor to one of the planets largest weather systems; African Easterly Waves (AEWs). This human intervention has resulted in the degredation of the equatorial cloud mass, allowing for more solar radiation to heat the oceans, which inturn helps melt polar ice and warm the atmosphere. More unfortunate still is that a multi billion dollar industry has grown up on the presumption that these events are the result of industrial emissions. So there is now a politiacl, accademic industrial complex geared to subverting and removing the factual reference to this NICE Effect, whilst exagerating the reliability of 'opinion' which is upholding and promoting the emissions theory. This situation relates directly to wikipedia, where there are vast references to emissions 'opinion', yet deliberatly few for the factual NiCE effect. It's a bit like cholera when 'everybody knows it is due to bad air', but the science determined it caused by contaminated water. The science is being subverted in favour of the highly publicised 'overwhelming majority of scientific opinion'. Sooooooo how can you help yourself and descendents, by unraveling or subduing this intilectual tar baby? Conor MacCloed (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a cursory internet search I found only a couple of references to this topic, from which it seems that it is the theory of a single meteorologist, one Conor McMenemie, who has succeeded in getting it mentioned in a couple of government-related fora: I found no reference to any paper in a recognised peer-reviewed publication, though others may have more success.

This suggests (perhaps wrongly) that the concept is not yet recognised by mainstream science, which would currently place it into the category of WP:FRINGE, or at best WP:TOOSOON.

Wikipedia is strictly limited to summarising what has already been written about a subject at substantial length by people completely independent of it, and been published in reputable Reliable sources such as peer-reviewed scientific journals, with several such sources being required. Wikipedia's purpose is not to introduce or publicise new concepts, never hosts what it defines as Original research, and strongly discourages articles being directly created or contributed to by anyone with a Conflict of Interest in the matter.

When and if this subject receives appropriate coverage in suitable sources, it can and pretty certainly will have an article created by disinterested editors, but not before that happens. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ramdas_Padhye I need help in editing this page. I request experienced editors to edit it properly. I put all the required citations to this page Indiapuppet (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help in Editing Page. Can you please help in editing this page Draft:Ramdas Padhye I request experienced editors to edit this page. I am new to wikipedia and don't know. Indiapuppet (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Indiapuppet, please respond to the question that Theroadislong has posed to you in User_talk:Indiapuppet#paid_editing?. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to Theroadislong I am not directly or indirectly compensated for my edits, I am just trying to edit this page properly as it was deleted many times. If someone can edit it in better way it will serve as a source of information for others about Ramdas Padhye who is a ventriloquist and puppeteer from india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiapuppet (talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indiapuppet: The draft is a copyright violation, and has been tagged for deletion for that reason. In addition, it was written like an advertisement, which is not strange since the text was copied from the person's own website. He is free to advertise himself on his own site, but not on Wikipedia. You said I put all the required citations to this page but you don't have any edits to the current version of Draft:Ramdas_Padhye. What is your connection to Vhhhhjhgy, the user who submitted the draft for review? --bonadea contributions talk 08:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I understand that it's a copyright violation. I had forgotten to login when I submitted the draft. I have put the required citations to the page. It was deleted by :@Jimfbleak: The draft got deleted since it was tagged for deletion. I am new to wikipedia. Since experienced English editors can write the article in a better way. I request you or other wiki users to rewrite the article. This article is about Ramdas Padhye, who is an internationally acclaimed ventriloquist and puppeteer and the article on him will serve as an important source of information. I copied certain lines from the website as I wasn't aware that it would lead to copyright violation and also leads to unambigious advertising. Hence if someone can write the article it would be great. Indiapuppet (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and have only made a few edits so far. I noticed that there are a couple of errors on the page for the company I work for, particularly relating to its location and headquarters. I'm aware that editing this page directly would not be a good idea due to the COI. Should I request an edit on the talk page and use a connected contributor template when doing so? How does that show up, and would I do this in combination with a "request edit" template, or instead? How would you recommend I go about this in a way that ensures the correct information is available while sticking to the rules and guidelines?

Ps. I've been looking through the rules in this article: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, but got a bit confused about the general consensus around making changes to articles you're associated with. So any help/advice would be very much appreciated!

Thank you :) Catytac (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate that you follow integrity principles of Wikipedia. I can help you with this :). Just do the following:

1. Open the Talk page associated with the page you want to edit

2. On the Talk page and crate a new section at the very end and place { {Request edit} } (without spaces between { signs) right after the title of your new section. See Template:Request edit for details.

3. Describe exactly what you want to be changed and provide sources.

4. Wait for an experienced user (summoned by the "Request edit" template) to come in and implement your request or leave a comment.

Anton.bersh (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you so much for the instructions! Catytac (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I'm looking for someone to integrate a correct biography about one artist, there is someone who's can help me ? I'm not English speaker and the website is super complex, it would be amazing if someone can upload this bio for me.

thanks in advance !

best regards,

194.209.50.2 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for hosting bios of anyone as you believe. Wikipedia is not a social media, so unless they have information written about them in reliable sources they have a very small chance of getting into wikipedia as an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf the Groovy (talk • contribs)

I presume Gandalf the Groovy meant to link to WP:NOTSOCIAL, a subesction of WP:NOT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the code commands found in many Wikipedia articles and I was wondering what are these codes for, for example, "{Use mdy datesldate=March 2021" Any explanation would be appreciated! 47.152.150.237 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 47.152.150.237, and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about the Syntax we use can be found at Help:Wikitext, with a short introduction being available at Help:Cheatsheet. This particular code is there to remind you to please use the MDY - Month Day YEAR date format when inserting dates in this particular article. See also MOS:DATEFORMAT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@47.152.150.237: welcome to the Teahouse! {{use mdy dates}} is used to remind editors of the correct way to format dates. A mdy date for example would be "May 1, 2021" as the first part is the month, the second is the day, the third part is the year, respectively. versacespaceleave a message! 12:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Whenever you see something in a pair of curly brackets, that is a Template being used on the page. You'll find that particular one at Template:Use mdy dates. --ColinFine (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2021}} is to keep track of what date format a particular article uses. The March 2021 part is purely their for categorization purposes, so that automated maintenance tools know when the article was last checked. - X201 (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general searching Template:templatename (without the brackets, e.g. Template:Use mdy dates) should bring you to a page describing how to use the template and what it's used for. Larger ones like boxes have also a direct link. For general mark-up see Help:Wikitext. A lot of this is easier to learn in small steps, looking at other text/edits and checking the preview if in doubt. Personuser (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alaattin_%C3%87a%C4%9F%C4%B1l

I have completely read and analyzed the item rules. Said person is eligible to be added as an item Its success and effects are officially proven. What is the reason for not being added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.169.66 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have deleted the draft for having its content copied from existing writing. This means that it was apparent plagiarism and violated copyright, and so did not meet with our policies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Should we add a new bio for Wikipedia? Also, do you have an e-mail address that I can contact?

Any question you have can be asked here. Individual editors can be contacted on their own Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we add a new biography for this item? I still haven't gotten a good response. What should I do? There is one person who meets all the criteria. But what's the problem? Can you help me? Thank you very much, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.169.66 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with the draft you made was, as Fuhgettaboutit said, that you copied text from somewhere else: that is a big no-no. If you can find appropriate sources to establish notability - which excludes any user-generated sites such as Wikis, most blogs, and iMDB, and also anything written or published by Çağıl or his associates - then you are welcome to create a draft, based on those sources, but in your own words. If you are yourself connected with Çağıl, you need to read about editing with a conflict of interest, and if you are in any way employed or paid to do this, then you must make the declarations specified in paid editing. If you are Çağıl yourself, then you are strongly discouraged from trying to create an article about yourself: see autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Should" or "Shouldn't". If you can find sufficient reliable-source references, try again. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm editing this article on the Xinjiang papers. It's my first Wikipedia article I've really contributed to, and I generally feel like it's an important topic. I'm struggling to expand the article and would like some feedback on the changes I've made. Feel free to make edits or leave your comments on the talk page. Thank you! Couchcupcross (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Couchcupcross. It looks like you've added some very good material to the article – polished writing, good information, appropriately placed – good stuff, thank you! There is unfortunately a "but...": a large portion of the material you've added has been done without verifying the material through citations to reliable sources. Using citations to verify additions to articles should not be an afterthought but your first and primary focus. Moreover, much of the material you've added has included quotations, as well as writing speaking of living persons, without adding accompanying citations (for quotes, the citation should not just be placed at the end of the paragraph, but right after the quote, or at least at the end of the sentence that the quote appears in). Unlike the surrounding material – that very much should be sourced – such material (quotations and content about living persons) MUST be sourced. This focus (and mandate for some material) on sourcing—as essentially the be-all, end-all of proper contributions—is often foreign to new users. I hope you'll take it in because you have the skills to be a sterling contributor, but the writing suffering from this problem should be removed if those sources are not added soon – regardless of how good and well written the content is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for your feedback! I read your comment and looked back at my article-- you're right, and once you pointed out the issue I can definitely see how I didn't insert enough citations. I think my main problem was that I inserted all my citations at the end of the paragraph instead of putting them right after the quote/sentence (I was not aware I should do that). I also had chunks of text that were sourced from the same article, but I didn't space out my citations throughout my text because I felt odd about hitting the "Re-use citation" button. I think a big problem is just unfamiliarity with the conventions of Wikipedia citing. I've gone back into the article and added citations (especially after direct quotations of living people), please let me know if you can think of further improvements I can make! Thanks again for the feedback :) Couchcupcross (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a page on a criminal that I think would benefit from having a page as all the information is cohesive. It has been previously deleted, I think it is because they may have thought it was an "attack page". I am writing with a neuatral view but do you think with more references (as it was poorly referenced so far) it could be published? Catfishingongoogledoc (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Current article draft is at Draft:Sophie Elms. There is no history there of an earlier attempt being deleted. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catfishingongoogledoc, you should check these links: WP:BLP, WP:THESUN and WP:BLPPRIMARY. They apply to convicted criminals as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfishingongoogledoc: I think in general, a page like that certainly could be (wrongly) viewed by a reviewer as an attack page, even if it's sourced. Be very careful when writing a page about criminals - make sure everything is backed up with a reliable source, as we absolutely cannot get the article wrong, or we open ourselves up to lawsuits. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfishingongoogledoc: I have deleted uncited content, marked others as needing citations, and removed the names of other people involved in the case you're tried to write about. I'm doubtful based on just two brief national uk newspaper articles whether this meets WP:CRIMINAL - it might just do, based on her age at conviction. But DO NOT add anything about any individual which is not relevant to an encyclopaedia article and which cannot be supported by a reliable source. Your username suggests you might be on a bit of a crusade here, so be careful not to let your enthusiasm to tell a good story get in the way of our key policies on WP:BLP and WP:NBIO. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an unsourced line on Wikipedia, should it be removed or the citation needed template should be added? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExclusiveEditor, it's best to use a citation needed template unless if it is contested the material is removed. Think of it like court; innocent until proven guilty. In this case, true, but missing a source, until proven elsewise. Panini!^🥪 15:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExclusiveEditor, depends on context. If you look around for or a reference, you may actually find one, and then you can add it, possibly tweaking the content depending on what your ref actually says. If you look around for a reference but don't find one, you may make the editorial decision to remove. If someone objects, they should ideally make an effort to find a ref themselves. If the content is about a living person, WP:BLP, removing first and asking questions later is often the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article Jean-Max Albert following the advice of the template messages. This advices are pertinent, but the border between encyclopedic tone and résumé, personal reflection, etc… is sometimes thin… Would it be possible to point out the mistakes that might persist in the new edit ? This would be helpful here and for a new article I’m working on. I hope I was right to remove the templates? 

With my best regards and thank you. F.While (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Jean-Max Albert — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor points, F.While. First, guillemets aren't used in English. Secondly, by "(x1, x2, x3)" do you perhaps mean "(x₁, x₂, x₃)"? (Though I'd defer to the informed opinion of either Kartsriv or Eumat114.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were mostly about tone/style and it's not always so obvious when they should be removed (not sure how much your edits adressed the issues). The relevant guideline for removing is Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove. I personally prefer to wait at least some time for other editors to remove maintainance templates, mostly because I'm a relatively new editor and because a second opinion doesn't hurt anyway, but this isn't required (the best approach may vary depending on how controversial can be the removal and how many editors are watching the page). The article currently has the attention of other editors who can consider if it should be re-added. I thought the templates were actually re-added at some point, but can't find any evidence of this in the page history, so I probably got confused while browsing edits. I didn't check the article in depth, but by a quick look the space the works and biography section take seems disproportionate compared to the rest of the article, which, to some degree, isn't that uncommon for articles about living artists, some other issues may be more apparent on a closer look. If you are interested in this topic, probably checking how other editors improve this article or wp:blp and good articles in Category:21st-century artists or Category:20th-century artists may help you. Personuser (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant (x₁, x₂, x₃) indeed, Thank you very much.Very helpful, Cheers F.While (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!! I am a university student and am new to editing. I'm working on an article on the X6 Plus Hybrid Grounding Radar, would someone be able to give me some constructive advice? GPRUK [[1]] (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRUK: Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! A few things (but not exhaustive):

• More appropriately cited references. Just the one isn't enough, and citations have to be made inline. See WP:EASYREFBEGIN for more details about how to properly cite references.
• Use of the second-person. Reword This detector, helps you to discover and discriminate all kinds of metal (structures and magnetized objects) so that "you" isn't used.

A reviewer will probably pick out more things to work on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer may notice copyright violations.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want my page to be seen on Google Lil raph25 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil raph25: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting yourself; social media like Instagram is more what you're looking for. Do not advertise on Wikipedia, as that is an easy way to get your account blocked from editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page Draft:AB & David Africa I created for review to the mainspace has been pending for months now, can I get a helping hand? --Dallez (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dallez! There are almost 5,000 drafts awaiting review right now, so it may take 4 months (or longer) for your draft to be reviewed. One piece of advice I have is to fix the licensing information for File:AB & David Africa.png, as I assume it's not your own work being that it's the company's official logo. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy diff: ACORD

Hey everyone! New editor looking for some guidance here. Was told that [edit] was highly advertorial and just seeking out some pointers on how to avoid doing that in the future. Thanks! Hemeiling (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging SpacemanSpiff, who reverted the edit. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hemeiling, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you've been answered at your talk page. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing and came on the page for HMS Stevenstone (L16) which I see was edited very wrongly. But since I am new, and I really don't know what I should do about it, I decided to post it here to flag it here for someone who wants to corrected the article instead. HMS Stevenstone (L16) Thanks!  Holbert4020537 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holbert4020537 I fixed it. 1989ChevyVan (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert the latest edit, specially if clearly unhelpful, by clicking "undo" next to the entry in the article history ("view history" at the top of the page). If the situation is less clear you should be more careful and add an edit summary or consider discussing the matter. For multiple or not latest edits this can be more complicated and is explained here Personuser (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, quick question. i'm working on Draft:Quantum Metric and basically they refer to what their software does as Continuous Product Design. pretty sure that term is stylized in uppercase as seen in this article and this one but i dont think its trademarked or anything so i'm unsure how to write it in the draft. should it be kept lowercase? thanks. Melodies1917 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website linked in the infobox (at the bottom), it is a trademark. "The" probably isn't part of it and WP:Manual of Style/Trademarks and WP:Manual of Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_The are the relevant guidelines. Hope this helps, but perhalps you should wait for the opinion of some more experienced editor. Personuser (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual trademark seems legit and doesn't include "the".MOS:TMCAPS suggests using the capitalisations commonly used that most closely resemble standard English. So, yeah, using "Quantum Metric" seems alright and isn't worth overthinking, unless someone actually contests this choice. Personuser (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF_%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%98%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9F_%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE 72.76.95.136 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page you liked is in Hindi while this page is English Teahouse. You might have better luck posting your question on Hindi pages. Also, you might find the following pages helpful: WP:PROD and this. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a number of atricles about private blogs (run by one person or a small group of people), which consist of content assembled from the blogs themselves. These articles usually contain a statement along the lines:

[Blog name] is recognized by [name of notable journal] for [a broad subject].

But when you open the provided source, it does not cover the blog itself. Instead, the source covers a very narrow topic and contains a single sentence about the blog like "as reported by [blog name]" or just "via [blog name]". Intuitively, I don't think such attribution/credit for a paticular article in a blog can be considered in-depth coverage of the blog itself.

Examples (please go to pages to see the sources):

1. Ghacks: Ghacks Technology News articles are often republished by sites such as Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Donationcoder.com, and other sites due to its coverage of cyber security, troubleshooting and FOSS.
2. DonationCoder.com: DonationCoder has been recognized by Lifehacker, Ghacks and other well-known and reputable blogs for its adherence to the principles of freeware and open source software.

My question is: does simple authorship attribution for a small handful of articles imply notability of the whole blog? Intuitivelly, when someone creates a personal blog and emails some of its content to blog agregators (e.g., Lifehacker), that does not make that blog notable in Wikipedia terms.

Anton.bersh (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your intuitions. Sources must be independent, and constitute significant coverage. I would go to AFD if you believe that these articles should not exist, but without digging through those articles too far, what you describe is not encyclopedic. — HTGS (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I am a completely new Wikipedia editor and joined to practice my copyediting skills. When I found out how easy it was to become an editor for Wikipedia, I was so excited to get started. I browsed a few Wikipedia projects, read up on the Manual of Style, and joined the Guild of Copy Editors. However, now I feel a little lost on where to get started. The sheer number of articles is overwhelming, and I worry that my skills are not good enough to help out or that my changes will be reverted by someone else. Does anyone have any advice on how to get over these anxieties, or how to pick an article? Any tips would help, thanks! Addienotaddy (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Addienotaddy: here's some advice, be bold. If your edit gets reverted you can discuss it with the other editor to find out why it was reverted and get advice to improve. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more advice, Addienotaddy. Choose a subject about which you already have a certain understanding (but do not rely on this understanding; rely on reliable, cited sources). Do not be bold (advising a newcomer to be bold is a recipe for disappointment and perhaps disaster). Instead, be cautious, first fixing spelling mistakes and obviously horrible prose. Certain copy editors get hung up over silly shibboleths about English grammar and style (even taking twaddle such as The Elements of Style seriously): ignore this. You will probably be successful. As you succeed, become more ambitious. After a few dozen mostly minor and entirely uncontroversial edits, be bold. By this time, you will have the experience to ensure that your boldness will be both beneficial and welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my inexperience, but how can I email another editor? Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheryl Fullerton: if the user has email enabled, you can visit their user page and then on the left side navigation bar there is "email this user" link. You can also leave a note on the user's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RudolfRed! Regards!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are links to pages on other Wikipedias in other languages so long? My guess is how links handle special characters (I don't exactly know how it works but if it's not a letter in the latin alphabet in the link it'll be like %&14). If this isn't the right place to ask this my bad. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article Percent-encoding will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My question is straightforward; is the use of non-free content to decorate an entry in a list fair use under WP:NFCC? The case example I'd like to bring up is the use of File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png on List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters (direct link to relevant section), where it is used to decorate the cell for "Dragon C207 Resilience (Inspiration-4)". — Molly Brown (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My answer/question is similarly straightforword: would using this image for "decoration" impove the article or improve it in a significant enough way to even consider copyright issues? Personuser (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to your question would bee yes. The article becomes inconsistent with other uses of the mission patches for crewed missions. Ergzay (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At a closer look some other images in public domain are used in the same table. I would argue that they also don't really add anything to the article, eespecially in a table, where the things they are possibly supposed to mean can be expressed in a textual/sortable way, if they are not just eye candid. This is still mostly my personal opinion and not a Wikipedia guideline. Personuser (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links (that I probably should have checked before) talk page section, deletion discussion on Commons. My advice is to wait for the commons discussion to finish, try your best to make your point in the talk page and only after that, if it's still needed, bring up the matter at WP:Media copyright questions or similar. Good luck and I hope this is resolved as quickly as possible, since it seems a lot of trouble for a relatively insignificant image. Personuser (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Molly Brown. IMO this fails fair use. If this was the subject of discussion in the prose of the list that would be one thing. This is approximately the opposite extreme, seemingly mostly decorative, and serves little educational purpose, which is the heart of fair use. See also WP:NFLISTS.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important as mission patches are intentionally decorative for space missions. There's a policy on that page at the moment to decorate any crewed missions with their mission patches. If we want to change that then we should achieve some type of consensus on the talk page first before willy-nilly removing images. Ergzay (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NFCCE states that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; that part is arguably only about retaining the file as a whole (the use of which may be more appropriate in Inspiration4). Couldn't find anything as clear about the use in single pages, but use of non-free content is surely the exception and not the rule, the burden of proof should be on the ones supporting it's use and the justification should be a bit more elaborated than the answers you got this far. Personuser (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Unsinkable Molly Brown, fair use (non-free) images are never allowed on Wikimedia Commons, so that image will need to be removed there unless it can be shown to be public domain. WP:NFCI is the link to the policy language regarding uploads and use of non-free images locally on English Wikipedia. The policy is enforced strictly. As an aside, I reacted a bit negatively to your use of the word "decorate" which to me implies a bias against images. I think "illustrate" is a better and more neutral term, and it is a good thing to illustrate our articles (including list articles) with relevant, properly licensed images. Just my personal reaction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I think we might not be on the same page here. I'm not against using non-free images in articles to illustrate content, it's just that I'm against using this specific non-free image in this specific way, where it doesn't illustrate anything, really. All it does is display the mission patch and nothing more. I've seen numerous copyrighted mission insignia removed from wikitables over the years per WP:NFCC#3, so I don't see why this is such a special exception. — Molly Brown (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Unsinkable Molly Brown, there are at least two distinct issues at play here. One is whether this image is acceptable to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, where it has been nominated for deletion. I think it should be deleted. The other issue is the editorial judgment question of whether it is appropriate for use in this specific list article. I have expressed no opinion about that, and you may well be right on that issue. You probably are. Maybe those other copyrighted mission insignia were hosted here on English Wikipedua instead of Commons, which can be slow to make deletion decisions. I do not know those details. We agree the image should go, just for different reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen: Fair enough, I understand your point. I just wanted to make clear that I didn't have a bias against images, that's all. — Molly Brown (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, currently Manoj Ahuja redirects to CBSE, but i have created Draft:Manoj Ahuja. I want it to be expanded but i don't have sufficient data. Please suggest how it can be expanded. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current draft now cites two sources. Each has a promising title but turns out to be vapid. Does other material exist? If it does, cite it and use it. If it doesn't exist, then no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary:, I have references but I don't have information to write Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vhhhhjhgy, if there's nothing (or next to nothing) written about this person, then there can't be an article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Hoary. How should I delete Draft:Manoj Ahuja ? Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vhhhhjhgy, you are the only contributor so far. Therefore, if you blank it (remove all its content), an administrator will delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary I have added the {{delete}} template on the page. Is it OK?Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vhhhhjhgy, it worked perfectly! -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When an edit request has not been responded to, in the affirmative or the negative, before an archive bot gets around to archiving it, what is the normal practice for handling that? I unarchived the request in question, but I'm not sure that is the "correct" action. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal Can you give the example where you unarchived the request so that you can be helped. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought it might be impolite to include that here, rather than focusing on the general question. This is the request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_crisis#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_23_May_2021_(1) BilledMammal (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: unarchiving is fine - you can also {{subst:Pin section}} at the top of the section to prevent it from being archived. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Is there a way I can delete my account permanently? Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't, Vhhhhjhgy, because all edits need to be attributed to an editor. However, see Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, even if it were possible, why would you want to delete your account? Instead, please stick around and contribute more! -- Hoary (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have the liberty to use a particular style of writing to build a narrative? I will provide authentic source for the information. If not then what is the proper style? Can you pleases elborate more on the notion of Encyclopaedic language? Punctilious Occam (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:MOS, which mostly deals with specifics rather than the general style. On wikipedia usually some more variety in style is allowed compared to traditional encyclopedias (I seriously didn't know how to properly order the previous words in English), but any article isn't your own, so you can't enforce any style or narrative you would like, unless it's considered appropriate by other editors. Considerations about due weight to specific topics, proper sourcing, consistency between similar articles and other things are usually more important and collective editing usually helps with that (since many editors are better at some parts that others). "Style" often isn't really neutral to content, if you have a more specific question, you may get better answers. Personuser (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dry, dusty and bland is often the style to aim for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose (under certain clearly defined experimental criteria). Personuser (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts at humor are not necessarily humorous, and in articles, should be avoided. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt at humor wasn't humorous, but was still arguably dry, dusty and bland. It wouldn't nevertheless be appropriate for an article, but the appropriate style for the mainspace can't be always be expressed in such a simple way, there is usually some ground for differen styles, as long as this can contribute and doesn't interfere with the content, and it isn't just for the sake of fun. Personuser (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the name of an article that has been submitted for review but isn't live yet? I've read about the "move" button but I can't see it and think it's probably because it isn't live. The new name is available. Any help hugely appreciated. Fleurcazalet (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleurcazalet: welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot move pages yourself yet – your account needs to be at least 4 days old, with at least 10 edits. I assume you are asking about Draft:Andrew David Barclay? It has not been submitted for review. To submit it, you need to click the "Submit the draft for review!" button. However, if it were reviewed now, it would not be accepted (and if you were to move it to the "live" encyclopedia, it would either be deleted or moved back to Draft space). There are no sources, which is a requirement especially in a biography of a living person, and there is no indication in the article about why the person is notable. Please read Your first article, a page that has a lot of information about the most important policies and guidelines to keep in mind when you create an article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If, after Draft:Andrew David Barclay is submitted for review, it were to be accepted for publication to mainspace the reviewer would do the move and the necessary tidy-up. Obviously at the moment the draft would not be accepted as it is unsourced. Try reading the advice at WP:your first article. You can't move it yourself because your account isn't auto-confirmed. If the draft were to be moved in its current state it would be liable to be deleted as there is no claim of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to start the page Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's team squads, like there are pages for all the other Olympic games women's football squads. The problem is I can't because WP claims there is already a page like that. And when I click that I get a subsection of another page. So there are 2 issues; How can I start making the page and how do I remove the existing link? Dutchy45 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you are aiming at producing a page similar to Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's team squads. When you have content available, supported by suitable references to published WP:reliable sources, the existing redirect can simply be replaced by the new content, see WP:RTOA. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was aiming to do exactly that. Amusingly, somebody already made the page in the meantime! Thank you for the offered help anyway. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

I would really like some help adding an info-box to an article I am working on as a part of my University Assignment. The article is titled Australian Aboriginal artefacts. I'm not sure what template to follow but I have tried to create my own in my sandbox. PippaHav (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)   (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

PippaHav, welcome to the Teahouse! Perhaps the one at Natufian culture, Template:Infobox archaeological culture? There's more at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PippaHav, your article is very worthwhile as it is, and would not be helped at all by having an infobox. Infoboxes are useful for certain kinds of article; yours isn't among these. (Your sample in User:PippaHav/sandbox isn't bad but would be utterly superfluous.) Incidentally, a minor formatting point: you have headings such as "Ornamental Artefacts"; however, Wikipedia "style" dictates that headings should be capitalized only "sentence style", thus "Ornamental artefacts". -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I won't add an info-box to my article then, and I'll change the capitalisation of my headings!PippaHav (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast work on the headings. Please stick around after you've completed the assignment: Wikipedia needs people like you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my first attempt of an article I have used Forbes, BBC, a tourism board (verifying existence), and 3 other independent sources. Why would this be rejected under the "verifiability" criteria? 82.7.50.252 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft Draft:Dà Mhìle Distillery was declined not rejected, for reading like an advertisement. Theroadislong (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had followed the same structure as a similar page that already exists (the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penderyn_distillery) by noting location, products, and brief timeline (aside from the using the word "inspired", maybe that?). I'll admit the Wiki UI, and ability to reply is a little hard to learn so apologies if this is the wrong place. DanWales2 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are seeking help because in India & in Asia, this brand is now playing a key role in letting people know about entertainment opportunities in various countries and allowing people to book tickets on their mobile phones. Now that we have launched an OTT Platform, we would like on Wikipedia to know about the companies journey & contribution done to the Internet economy of the world.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:BookMyShow

We have gone and seen the log of the page, an earlier draft was not correct and due to that the page was marked for delete. Now, in the current attached word document, we have followed all the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia, therefore, we need permission to create this page and remove the protected status for the topic that the administrators have placed.

Please suggest the next steps. Rishika65828941 (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a PR conduit. It is not. Your next step is to think about publicizing yourself on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears multiple attempts to create an article about BookMyShow have been declined, dating back to 2018, and the topic 'salted', meaning that Administrator approval required to try again. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for process. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though bear in mind, given you have failed to formally disclose your employment with BookMyShow and the company appears to be under the impression Wikipedia is a billboard, you're likely to be blocked and your request laughed off. In that order. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 14:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got a message from a user called Wananana, but I don't know if this sort of thing is appropriate. Here is the message if you can handle it or you can tell me where to handle this sort of thing if it is in any way damaging. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 11:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seahawks4Life: welcome to the Teahouse. No, that was not appropriate. I have warned the other user; if they don't stop immediately, an administrator might want to block them (since it looks like they are here just for childish vandalism anyway). You are of course free to remove the post from your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: Thanks, and one more thing. Does Wikipedia have a place for dealing with this sort of thing? Thanks in advance. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 11:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm an idiot lol. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 11:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seahawks4Life. First, you may remove the post from your user talk page if you want as explained here; there will still be a record of it in page's history that can be used as evidence later on, but you don't need to leave it visible on your user talk page. The editor in question has been indefinitely blocked by a Wikipedia administrator; so, there's not more that can be done to to that particular account at least in a Wikipedia sense. If they show up again, however, using another account and continue their WP:HARRASSMENT of you, then you can seek assistance here or as explained here. In a case like this, though, it might be better to seek assistance via email since anything you post on a Wikipedia page can be seen by pretty much anyone who wants to see it. Now, there's not much anyone on Wikipedia can really do about what happens out in the real world, but you might find some useful information here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. About removing the message from my talk page, someone already did that for me.
2. I found out the user has been blocked infinitely already, but thanks.
3. Thanks for the links. I will definitely consider it.

Hopefully this doesn't happen again. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 12:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to only edit an infobox of an article? Right now, if I want to update an infobox I load the complete article code. HobiBalap (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest thing to do is to navigate to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and tick the first box in the "Appearance" section. That gives an extra "edit" choice so you can edit just the first section of any article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much Mike Turnbull. HobiBalap (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a custom signature? Because I want to create one of my own. 1989ChevyVan (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1989ChevyVan: Check out WP:CUSTOMSIG. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 14:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

And use Snook's contrast checker to make sure you're not making life harder for people with sight problems. - X201 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cran32: Ok does this work? 1989ChevyVan (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything :/. Try going to your preferences page (top right), and entering what you're trying to do in the signature box. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1989ChevyVan: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you checkmark the box underneath your custom sig that says "Treat the above as wiki markup"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Ok. How about now? 1989ChevyVan (talk | contribs) 16:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1989ChevyVan: Nope, not seeing any difference. What is it supposed to look like? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix this page? Four Player Chess. I don't know how. Thanks! Bedfordres (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bedfordres. The page looks fine. Could you explain what's wrong about the page? Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} (please ping on reply) 16:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four-player_chess&oldid=1008292002 and go forward. I probably should have clarified 2600:1702:2AD0:5440:F430:A617:972E:7C9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Reverted. I have left the edit linked above, because the template {{cn}} could be appropiate there. I won't warn the IP for vandalism though, as this was a month ago any whoever used that IP likely has a new IP anyway. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just fixed it. Thanks! Bedfordres (talk)

Is he still alive? If not, would someone who knows the facts please edit his page in the appropriate places. 108.51.210.87 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I couldn't find any proof that he died. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} (please ping on reply) 16:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My articles are not publish, how ca I get help. I am new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakor89 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shakor89. To publish your article, you click the blue button in the editor that says "Publish page". Hope this helped. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} (please ping on reply) 16:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakor89: I can see that you created a bunch of two-line stubs in draft namespace. However, noone that I checked would be acceptable as an article, because they were completely unsourced. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ben_David_Beniah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakor89 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see the answer above. I suggest starting with WP:YFA to learn how to create a draft. Two line drafts with no sources are not going to be accepted. RudolfRed (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the drafts are completely unsourced. Wikipedia content needs to be verifiable. See WP:TWA, and Wikipedia:Your first article TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not submit any of these yet. All need references. The only content that should be bold is the first mention of the person's name. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the men play for a team (Nimba United FC) listed as being in Liberian First Division. Even for them, not clear if that league conveys notability for individual players. David notMD (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newbie on Wikipedia just keeps getting easier as you exercise patience and determination. I am encouraged by the continuous improvements to my Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare each day making me much better than when I first started. Thanks to all hard working editors. Look forward to reach that summit someday. Bibihans (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans Bibihans (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please an editor Sulfurboy who declined a draft on the 23rd February 2020 which I started working on 35 days has been non-responsive to my messages of appeal to approve the corrections to the recommendations. What do I need to do to get the attention of the editor when he/she has been non-responsive to my messages in the editor's talkpage. Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans[reply]

@Bibihans: That user has not been active on Wikipedia since March. Your draft is already submitted for re-review. It does not require the original reviewer review it again. There are lots of drafts waiting for review, and few reviewers, so you just need to be patient. You can continue to work on improving your draft while you wait for review, or you can work on something else. RudolfRed (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibihans, The reason you were ignored had less to do with my inactivity and more to do with the fact that at the top of my talk page I kindly ask that people do not request me to re-review their articles. You might want to make a point of reading editor's notes before posting to their talk page, especially if you are asking a favor of them. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: Noted with thanks.Bibihans (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans[reply]

@Sulfurboy: my apologies but we newbies often need to be guided. I had expected that dropping a message on your talkpage would get a response. Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans[reply]

Hey teahouse, trying to build some stock as an editor and wondering about what the protocol for editing company infoboxes is? I'm sure folks are going to look at my talk page and see I've run into some issues with using advertorial language before, so looking for some pointers in avoiding that with future edits & stuff. Decided to make edits in an industry I work (since I have some knowledge and feel comfortable there), but perhaps that was a mistake? I don't know! If someone could recommend the best path for a newbie to take, I would super appreciate it! Thanks! Hemeiling (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Hemeiling (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid creating content that uses as references the website of the company in question, press releases, interviews with management, etc., as not considered secondary, reliable source references. Also, publications about routine financial dealings (rounds of funding, etc.) do not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the Shortdesk Helper and it gives the option of importing the short description from Wikidata. What does this mean? If I want to improve a short desctiption should I import it and then edit it or edit it on wikidata?

Thank you very much TheFibonacciEffect (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, "importing" the short description means that the description of the item on Wikidata is copied and pasted into the shortdesc template. If you want to edit the description on Wikidata before importing, you can use the third option the gadget gives (edit and import): the gadget will automatically update the Wikidata description as per what you type, and then import. JavaHurricane 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me to do this (it looks rather complicated!) GrahamHardy (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrahamHardy. Done, the archive box at the top of your talk now list three archives, and the third I created (here) and populated, is for the period from 6 August 2015 to 31 January 2021. I arbitrarily archived 205 threads and left your talk page with the last 34 threads, as people often prefer to not "shave" too close to the present when archiving, but any adjustment is easy – either return of some threads, or the archiving of more. If you have any different preference, just let us know. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this type of archiving is not too difficult. I merely saw you had two manually created archives, and created a third at the same naming scheme, just changing the number at the end to a "3" (the archive box at the top of your talk page automatically recognizes any archive page names in you userspace using this titling formulation, so I needed to do nothing to get it to list the third, after I created it). I pasted to there the last series of threads, saving your user talk page without them, and dumping them into the new page and saving That's it! This type of manual archive, of course, is not as complicated as doing archiving by moving pages with their history to a new archive location, but your past archives were all done in this manual way (I do mine the same, as I prefer that the history of my talk page remain inviolate). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New to wikipedia btw Pyramids09 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids09, I think WP:TUTORIAL can help you. And, welcome to Wikipedia! Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a page for the Children's Museum of Montana? I wrote this below and although the museum deserves a much better page, I am not tech savvy enough in Wiki to do that. Can you help me get this page posted so that our museum is properly available?

Children's Museum of Montana, Inc.

https://www.childrensmuseumofmontana.org/ <copyright violation removed> Montana Gus (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montana Gus. I know you did this without realizing it was a problem, but please do not post the copyrighted content from the museum's website anywhere on Wikipedia again. I have deleted this content from here (and have had to hide the page history), and deleted your userpage with this content for the same copyright-based reason and for another reason (that's not what your userpage is for; see here for what generally can go there, and here for what generally cannot). I'll leave a note on your talk page providing more information about the copyright issue. I'll let others respond to your actual question above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia has articles, not pages. That is not a nuance. Pages might be thought as 'owned' by the creator, but once an article is created, anyone can edit it. Second, as you now know, no using copyright protected content. Third, the organization's website can only be used for simple fact, and does not contribute to notability. For what you created in your Sandbox, to become a submitted draft, and with a Reviewer's approval, an article, requires referencing to what people independent of CMM to has published ABOUT CMM. Seee WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Intertype Corporation

The Wikipedia "Intertype Corporation" page has a couple of photos. I have 16 photos I took during 1966 while on a tour of the Intertype manufacturing facility in Brooklyn, N.Y. Would any of them be appropriate (and worthy) for use on the aforementioned Wiki page? I would donate them freely. If not on the page, perhaps in the Reference section at the bottom of the page? Here is a link to my photos, including a description: https://coutant.com/intertype/ Thank you. Stan Coutant Cmfwyp Vbgkqj (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmfwyp Vbgkqj, you can surely add photos there. You might also find reading WP:IMAGES helpful. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool photos. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I See the tag back again. Could you please let me know why. I don't think this is really good. What should do I do now to get this tag off. I worked so hard with this document and I wanted everything to be correct.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT TO DO FROM MY END TO GET THIS TAG OFF of his profile.

Thanks, Lakshmi LSwiki092018 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Link: Sankaran Thayumanavan Heart ^(talk) 23:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the note WP:SPS TigerScientist Chat > contribs 23:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LSwiki092018: Please understand that Wikipedia doesn't have profiles of people, but encyclopedic articles. If your intention is to promote the subject, Wikipedia is not the place to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LSwiki092018, the warning says that the article "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject". That's an understatement. The article does rely excessively on sources too closely associated with Sankaran Thayumanavan. If you want the warning removed, what you have to do is straightforward: remove the references to papers he cowrote and to web pages hosted by UMass Amherst and in their place add references to sources that are independent of either him or his employer. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LSwiki092018, since he is a professor the references are fine if he meets WP:NPROF. These are exactly the kind of references we use for encyclopedia articles about professors. However some statements are not supported by the references, such as his years of graduation in India. Find a reference or remove the unsourced material. Some of the links to references are outdated. I have found a reference for his election as an AAAS Fellow that tells the reason for the award. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandmaI have updated the AAAS Fellow as suggested. Thank you so much for helping.

I have been trying to get an article approved for more than 2 months. I have submitted this article for review between 5 and 10 times. I just re-submitted the article after, yet again, making the changes suggested by your reviewers. May I get some help/pointers with the review process? Thank you. Rosemary0807 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary0807 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft just tells about Mr. Pilato and what he has done; I think that's why you are having difficulty. . Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your first article. Diving right in to creating a new article without experience in editing existing articles is challenging, as creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. Do you have a particular interest in this topic? 331dot (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did notget a notification for my 1000th edit. I am currently at at 1014 edits after this. Does it take time for the notification. I'd like to know my thousandth edit for historical reasons. Thank you in advance! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2] you have 1014 edit but 29 are deleted, so you are only at 985 towards your 1000 milestone. I suspect that if you make a few more edits, you will get that notification. Also, beware of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. Focus on quality, not quantity. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandalf the Groovy: It's not about deleted edits. Moves can count as one or two edits. You have 34 moves. You didn't say where you saw 1014 edits but your Special:Preferences probably says 980. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I don't care about edit count. I just want to track a milestone. Thank you. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely for anti-vandalism! can see it! It's rose gold! Q? 03:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RoseGold1250: Your link is broken. What are you trying to show? RudolfRed (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain me about bare references. I am not familiar with the technical terms given in those explanation. I would be glad if someone explain it in a simple language. Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. On Wikipedia, Bare references almost alway refers to citations of web content that give only the URL and nothing else. See Wikipedia:Bare URLs for examples. If you find such examples, you can use refill on it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to article People educated at North Sydney Boys High School. Many persons have contributed over the years to a long list with proper substantive references. But recently the article was "prune to include only those with a separate article on themselves. This resulted in some deletions of notables worthy of articles in their own right but presently none exist. As the mass deletion was not reversed by a supervising editor, does this mean such a mass deletion is acceptable? When I clicked undo, that operation is prevented by subsequent alterations. Reversal only possible manually – a very laborious task made unattractive by possibility of same end result. Your comments would be helpful. Saki0710 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saki0710. We don't have an article on People educated at North Sydney Boys High School. Do you mean List of Old Boys of Sydney Boys High School? I don't see that any have been "mass deleted" recently, but if they were it was probably in persuance of Wikipedia's policy WP:ALUMNI, which please read. By all means create the articles for any additional people, and then add them to the list.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your "recently" was misleading. There was a significant removal of names in 2015. The reasoning was valid then and valid now - alumni are listable if an article about them exists. There can be exceptions. In the list in question, a ref confirms that some became Rhodes Scholars, so names listed despite no articles. David notMD (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I was looking at the pages for Karl Marx a message popped up saying I had recreated something. I believe this is the spot https://ia803105.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/35/items/thelifeandteachi37290gut/37290-8.zip&file=37290-8.txt . As this is the only link in my history that I don't recognize. If I broke it I am very sorry but as soon as that message popped up I spawned another window and closed that one out so I didn't hit anymore things. Thank you for your time. And I really an sorry if I broke it.

John Leonard Ames OT SIGN with tildes, and DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> Johnames85 (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnames85 That is not a Wikipedia link, so cannot comment. Wikipedia is very resilient and you cannot easily do permanent damage, though some people try... Probably nothing to worry about. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently begun on an edit for the Realme 7 phone and was wondering whether to separate the realme 7 from the realme 7 Pro as the two phones have many differences but I'm not sure if there are enough to justify creating another article just for the Pro. Though currently I am leaning more towards 'yes' as the 5G model of the phone has not been included. ArcticFox037 (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticFox037 The easy thing to do is to expand the existing article, then there's no big risk of having to prove notability. Create a redirect from Realme 7 Pro to the relevant section. If it gets big enough, the article later can be split easily enough. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first draft has just been approved and moved to articles space. I feel over the moon and can't wait to get my next drafts published. Thanks to the Teahouse and droves of editors who patiently respond to my apt and often overbearing pester. 1 done, 999 more to go. sleeves up and ready. Thanks guys. Bibihans (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans[reply]

Bibihans Be aware that there is a delay of as much as 90 days before Wikipedia articles will be 'seen' by search engines such as Google. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Thank you for always. Well noted. Bibihans

Does someone know how to get rid of itallic font in an article title? This article—SpaceX fairing recovery program—came about as a move from an article that was at one time just about one particular ship, and ship names are apparently often italicized in titles. The itallics seem to have been retained after the move, and I can't figure out how to get eliminate them. Thanks. N2e (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC) N2e (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The method is explained at Template:Infobox ship begin. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take a look at that. N2e (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]