Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1041

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1035

←

Archive 1039

Archive 1040

Archive 1041

Archive 1042

Archive 1043

→

Archive 1045

When I read the page titled "CNR Bridge", I changed it to "Queensborough CNR Bridge", then "Queensborough SRY Bridge", only then realising the brief article which said the bridge linked to Queensborough on Lulu Island, was not actually on the subject of the Queensborough rail bridge, but was in fact regarding the CNR bridge downstream (not into Queensborough) that links onto the Richmond part of Lulu Island. The CNR Bridge should be the "Lulu Island CNR Bridge" Is there way of actually deleting my move changes. I am hesitant to proceed further in ignorance because I fear if someone later writes an article entitled the "Queensborough SRY Bridge" on that actual bridge, it will be redirected to the other bridge. DMBanks1 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DMBanks1. and welcome to the Teahouse. Moves can always be undone. But it is really best to have a source or sources that indicate what the name should be. Note that Wikipedia follows the common name, that is, the name most often used in reliable sources, not the official name when that is different. If there is any doubt, it is usually better to discuss a move in advance on the talk page of the article(s) concerned, to avoid confusion and complicated moves and un-dos. Do you have any source indicating what the name of this article should be? Do I take it you wan thtings back as they were before you started? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is now back at CNR Bridge, DMBanks1, with all redirects created by the move now deleted. Please discuss at Talk:CNR Bridge#Article name before moving again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I doubt anybody on the talk pages has an intimate knowledge of this bridge. I have lived in Richmond BC for over 25 years and this bridge has never been assigned a precise definition in the press. It has been referred to as the crossing of the North Arm of the Fraser, link to Lulu Island, or link to Richmond. Since it is in rural land far from the commercial and residential centre of Richmond, my suggestion of "Lulu Island CNR Bridge" seems safest. I suspect the CN official designation would use Lulu Island, based on the bridge vintage. The name "CNR Bridge" definitely has to change, since there are numerous CN bridges in Metro Vancouver alone, never mind the rest of Canada. I will briefly edit the content so others will not confuse it with the swing rail bridge at Queensborough. I will leave renaming the page up to you.DMBanks1 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: Actually, the best place to find people interested in, and knowledgeable about, a particular article is indeed that article's talk page. It's also desirable to keep the discussions there for the benefit of future contributors to allow easy referral to them and prevent duplicate work. If the page has little activity or few watchers (see the Page information link usually found on the left-side toolbar), you can also post a note to the talk page of one of the adoptive WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page, in this case WT:WikiProject Vancouver or WT:WikiProject British Columbia, with a link back to the section on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:CNR Bridge#Article name), to get more eyeballs on it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have since added naming questions to the talk pages for a couple of other rail bridges near here. Where there is no single name in common usage, has Wikipedia developed any standardised naming convention?DMBanks1 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried to publish an article on a summer camp program and my article read too much like an advertisement and was declined. How do I make the changes to make it sound less like an advertisement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJohnston2260 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PJohnston2260 Content should be written in a neutral tone and report what reliable independent sources say, much of your content is inappropriate in tone for example...“an early pioneer in outdoor leadership programs” “some of the most coveted commercial backcountry permits” “they saw great possibility for growth in their students” “They wanted to instill a true appreciation of the wilderness” “curriculum includes a myriad of outdoor activities” “Campers are invited to participate in week-long sessions at Snow King Mountain” none of this reads like a neutral encyclopedia, it reads like you are trying to promote the camp. 17:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

why can't i create a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brep8 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To find out how to create an acceptable draft, try reading the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You got a STOP for your first attempt (Draft:Droopy McCool). This was not to say you cannot create an article, just that your first attempt was about a very minor Star Wars character, and thus not article worthy. And you need to learn about the essentiality of references. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The user is only 8 years old and this may be contributing to the difficulty. Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Belated Merry Christmas, everyone As I was working on the article, the image file which I uploaded was removed due to non-usage on infobox. So I would like to apply for a request for restoring the image File:Beautiful (2019 film).jpg as the article is ready and now the image file can be used on the article infobox. And one more request before restoring it please do the necessary file name changes and move it from the old title File:Beautiful (2019 film).jpg to the new title File:Beautiful (2020 film).jpg. Thanks, I duly respect the hardwork of an Administrator hatsoff. FascinateGuy (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi FascinateGuy. There are two things you can do in this case: (1) post a message on the user talk page of the administrator who actually deleted the file (who in this case is named Explicit) and ask him to restore it, or (2) post a request at WP:REFUND and ask that any administrator restore the file. It's possible for sure that an administrator who is also a Teahouse host will see this post and restore the file for you as well, but one of the other two ways might be faster. As for the name, you can request a file name change as described in WP:FMV/W per WP:FNC#1; perhaps the administrator who restores the file for you will also move it to a new name for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Marchjuly:, it is so nice of you to reply soon. But my friend I tried to ask assistance from the administrator cyphoidbomb and he is busy that I duly respect. And the admin who performed the action actually, he is inactive for a while due to holidays. Thanks for your reply. FascinateGuy (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can post a request at WP:REFUND, but the deleted file isn’t really going anywhere so whether you get restored today, tomorrow or in a few days won't matter much one way or another. While your waiting for the image to be restored, you can continue to work on improving the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

FascinateGuy,  Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter and Marchjuly: FascinateGuy was blocked as a sock of Vc4137. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigh Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I've just submitted my first two articles. Will I receive an email to confirm it's being checked out and when it's been approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SECopywriting (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@SECopywriting: Your two drafts have not yet been submitted for review. Please read WP:PAID for required disclosures and that each account must be controlled by only one person, if you decide to come back after your block. RudolfRed (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

{{U|SECopywriting|| has been blocked indefinately for an inappropraite username and for promotional editing. RudolfRed. If the user manages to be unblocked, this discussion might resume, perhaps at a new thread. If not, it will be moot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Muninnbot‬: Thank you for this information. I still need help uploading a PDF file from Portrait Innovations with copyright release for the portrait of me (Randy Jirtle) that is entitled Portrait of Randy Jirtle 2019.jpg. I have uploaded this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Randy_Jirtle_2019.jpg#Summary. If anyone can tell me in a step by step manner how to accomplish this task, I would be VERY grateful.Rjirtle (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rjirtle, and welcome back. "Muninnbot‬" is an automated script, ot "bot" (short for robot) that informs editors when teahouse threads have been archived, and performs other limited functions. It is not a person, and cannot answer general questions. (Most user names ending in "bot" are also automated scripts.)

The description page at File:Portrait of Randy Jirtle 2019.jpg says that an email has been sent to the proper address, including evidence of copyright permission for this image. If that is so, one of the OTRS volunteers will review the email and either mark it as approved, or indicate what is lacking. There is nothing else you need do until a volunteer responds. This may take a while, as there are few volunteers and may images waiting. But you need not wait, you can use the image while waiting for final approval. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you want help in understanding how to use the image, now that it has been uploaded? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm a new editor to WP and just starting out with some copy editing. I saw this article in the community portal, and I'm not really sure where to start. If anyone who sees this wants to use it as a way to train me on how to deal with articles like this that aren't very fleshed out, I'd be deeply grateful. In the meantime, I'll just make minor changes. Feel free to revert any of my edits but please respond on the talk page with an explanation so that I can learn from it. Thanks! LittleChongsto (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! That's a great choice you made there to be bold and not hesitant to edit the article, Happy editing! If you have questions or want me to look at your edits, please let me know! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I alert the world of editors that I would like to revise an article or section? How can I present my suggested revision for comparison with existing text, without just replacing existing text? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You can leave a message on the article's talkpage or your Sandbox and let other editors review it. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 22:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TBR-qed. If you are confident that your revision will improve the article, then just go ahead and make the edit. Read WP:BOLD for advice and encouragement. If you think the edit may be controversial, then discuss it on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse hosts. I am editing the article New Albion specifically for a GAN. A suggestion, which I believe is worthy, has been put forth to include a push pin map such as the example for Jamestown which you may view HERE. I am quite uncertain how to insert this, particularly with determining coordinates. Where might I find further information as to the editing necessary to enable this feature on the New Albion article? I appreciate hearing from any of you. Most kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I've added a pushpin map in the infobox and made a few other tweaks in the article. (I used the coordinates of the monument at Drake's Cove.) Does this look OK? If there are any problems with what I've done, please leave a message on my talk page. Deor (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Deor:Thank you for the attention to this task. I appreciate your generosity very much. Kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have an article in my sandbox how do I going about having it upload to the main platform where persons can search and fond the article.

Regards Clarendon Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarendon Post (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Clarendon Post Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if your username is the name of a newspaper(perhaps one you work for). If it is, you will need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to change your username to something else. Usernames that are that of any organization are not permitted- each username must indicate that a specific individual is exclusively operating the account(you don't need to use your real name or any proper name, just something unique to you).

Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the hardest task to perform here. It takes much effort and practice. If you were to submit your draft now, it would not be accepted, as there are no independent reliable sources in the draft to support its content.(you have some words with external links, but these are not sources.) I would suggest that you take some time to first learn more about how Wikipedia works, by using the new user tutorial and reviewing Your First Article. You might also want to take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. When you feel you are ready, you can use Articles for Creation to submit your draft to be reviewed by an experienced editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia- doing it this way means you will get feedback beforehand, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically.

You may also want to review Wikipedia's special definition of a notable politician; I'm not sure a member of a municipal legislative body/city council would qualify. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll soon have the rights for a Special:MovePage/User:Clarendon Post/sandbox to, say, Draft:Romaine K. Morris, but as you are the only contributor on your sandbox you can get the same effect by copy + paste followed by a "blank sandbox". A draft should start with {{draft}}, that template gives you a "submit" link when (mostly) ready. Clearly it is not yet ready, you should have a minimum of three independent and reliable sources (references) to demonstrate why this person is notable for a valid {{bio-stub}}. Or just one reference for the office, if it is an automatically notable officeholder. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The Rollingstones performed notable concert at Royal Albert Hall on 23. 09. 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.37.26.161 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

See The Rolling Stones British Tour 1966#Tour dates. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Last year, the Venezuelan cinema task force, but I cannot include the task force when I'm assessing the articles in their talk page. Is there a way to solve this? --Jamez42 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

​Support for the |Venezuelan-cinema-task-force=yes parameter hasn't been added yet. Kingsif has created support for them in the sandbox of the templates, but the requests to have them implemented were denied (1) (2) as they hadn't been discussed. I personally would have thought these edits were uncontroversial, but you can reopen the request on {{WikiProject Venezuela}} pointing to a discussion about the creation of this task force. If this hasn't been discussed, just start a discussion on WT:VENEZUELA so this may be implemented. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tested your (= the project) instruction on Talk:Secuestro_Express, the |Venezuelan-cinema-task-force=yes for WikiProect Film did not work for me. Not tested: |Venezuelan=yes. Not tested: WikiProject Venezuela. If the task force is basically down to you, close it please, the default = dead state for almost all projects, portals, and task forces is not helpful (and certainly not your fault.) –84.46.52.63 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@IP84 ...well, yes, the parameter hasn’t been added to either Film or Venezuela WP talk templates yet, so it wouldn’t work. The task force is doing well, thanks, but since I can’t find the discussion with Jamez about starting it, the parameters have not been added. Kingsif (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not doing too well, if the co-founder of the task force can't follow their published instructions. Just kidding: 84.46.52.63 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all!

Although it might be a big bite for a newbie, I am very hungry to start a major editing of this article. Its author has made an excellent effort, and is unbiassed in that his main source is the actual AR of the IPCC. Unfortunately, after over a century of increasingly intensive study, every reputable scientific organization has declared that the existence of this phenomenon is a certainty-unprecedented for scientists-the majority of Americans refuse to accept the reality of Global Warming. This is in my opinion due to two factors:

(i) One side of this issue seems to have free access to the media to press their position (the nonexistence of Global Warming). Believe me I have spent a lot of time trying to find a valid, reliable source for their position. I have yet to find such a source.

(ii) On the side supporting the existence of Global Warming (I am neutral), the inability of the scientific community the present their conclusions about such a huge and complex phenomenon in a language readily understandable to the general public has inadvertently much of all this bias.

I feel that, as the reputation of Wikipedia as an acceptable source continues to grow, you would perform a great service for our country and planet if you were to post an article on Global Warming which is both scientifically accurate and in a non-technical language that is crystal clear to the average reader.

I just feel that, although excellently researched and written, this article does not sufficiently meet these criteria.

Last thing: there is a possibility that this article will be viciously attacked for its supposed bias and/falsehoods.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

James Standerfer.Sanctandriensis (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sanctandriensis and welcome to the Teahouse. You will see if you click on the history of the article that it is the result of many disagreements and modifications by many editors. Further rewriting is indeed possible, but should be discussed first on the talk page of the article to reach consensus before major changes are made. Dbfirs 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sanctandriensis: While the talk page of the article (whichever article we're talking about) is the right place to discuss it, I don't want you to go off with the unreasonable expectation that you will be able to make any kind of major changes to such a hot button topic. Such articles are the result of much research and many pages of discussion over the minutest of details and careful balance of facts, such as editors here can find them anyway. Some of the wording in your post above leads me to think you are here to push a point-of-view and to do battle to right great wrongs; please read those links for more information about what Wikipedia is and what it is not, and why your post might have raised those concerns. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

i have found words " friends' ", " parents' " in an article. my first impression is they are wrong. for spellings i refer to wiktionary and article language. before changing punctuation marks, where should i look ? do we have manual or guide ?

Leela52452 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Leela52452, welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a look at the Manual of Style which will give you answers to your questions about punctuation, capitalization and other types of usage issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick guide for possessives:

• Friend's work means the work of one friend
• Friends' work means the work of multiple friends

I.e.:

1. Add the plural 's' if necessary;
2. Add the apostrophe to indicate possessive;
3. Add an 's' if you didn't add one in step 1.

Note it's actually more complicated and there are exceptions, like its, at Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Leela52452 —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I wanna get more experience for writing wikipedia articles, and i wanna edit some. What are some articles without some citations or with some spelling mistakes? YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh, you should check out the Help out section of the Wikipedia:Community portal. It automatically updates with articles that need various kinds of help, and the page also has useful links to other related pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Four examples of "article wish lists":

1. Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters ^[1]
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Journalists ^[2]
3. Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums ^[3]
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Computer_science ^[4]

That's also a fair warning, these wishes work best when followed up by a DIY aka WP:FIXIT. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: I'd also like to suggest, before you do too much more, that you consider changing your username – it's too long to type accurately, copy/paste on a mobile creates more work for other editors to address you (something that may happen a lot as a newbie), and it clutters talk pages more signature and less actual content. Something that people will find memorable and easy to type would be a good choice, like LionSleeps . Requests can be made at WP:CHU. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: Yep, I'd agree that your username is not conducive to easy communication, and a name change would be appreciated. But that account has, thus far, made only six edits. I advise simply abandoning this account, never using it again (i.e. forget the password) and create a brand new account. You can link the two together, if you wish, so long as you never use the older one. This makes far less work for the account name-changing volunteers. For live spell-checking and correcting, you could install WP:LUPIN. But be aware that this tool also reports spelling mistakes in urls and filenames - these must never be corrected, so you do need to be on your toes when using it. But that's half the fun, isn't it? Adding the {{notatypo}} template to apparent errors (such as archaic spellings within quoted text) is really helpful to alert subsequent spell-checkers. Season's greetings. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

An AfC reviewer recommended that I contact the Teahouse for the opinions of other editors on whether Draft:Janette Nesheiwat meets notability guidelines for WP:JOURNALIST section 1. The subject has made multiple television appearances as a medical news correspondent on Fox Business Network, Fox News, CBS News, and MSNBC. Any feedback you can offer would be appreciated. My paid contribution disclosure is noted on the draft's talk page. Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Content like "Nesheiwat was selected by Arkansas Business for the publication's annual "40 under 40" tends to suggest that you are scraping the barrel for evidence of notability. It would be better if the article could tell us something about the facts she has presented, or views she has expressed, while appearing on television. Maproom (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Expert on some "White House opioid summit" could be notable, apparently she convinced Trump, or he saw her on Fox News. I trimmed the "40 under 40" to once, HuffPost to never, and wikilinked one source in a reference. Please put references after the punctuation (comma, period, etc.) –84.46.52.63 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I need help to create a biography for Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega, an educator. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Professor (Chief) Kolawole Waziri Olagboyega, assuming you are the subject about which you wish to write, you should note that writing autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as it is exceedingly difficult to write about yourself in a way that complies with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. If you feel you must do so, you should first determine whether you meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, which requires sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, usually things like books, magazines and newspapers, and excluding things like social media and official websites. If you do, then you can create a draft using the Article Wizard, and it can be submitted for review by and experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 12:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

For academics, we do have special notability criteria, which need to be read in full. Please see: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Unable to edit Wikipedia Black Holes

The subject of Black Holes has been completed for some time However the subject is not complete, and my editing skills are not great

What I would like to see some of this added (after editing)

Black Holes are an object of very condensed matter. Possibly containing atoms that have had the space removed. The mass of a Black Holes acts very much like the mass of stars, the closer you get, the greater the effects of gravity. However, because they are very condensed, objects can get much closer before colliding.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › S0–102

Is one of the closest stars that we know of near Sagittarius A and has an orbiting period of 11.5 years

Closer objects would orbit in a shorter period of time and the orbit speed would be faster Somewhere near what is described at the event horizon, objects including light would orbit at the speed of light.

There is no indication that the event horizon is at the surface of a black hole Thus, any object orbiting closer to the surface, would be travelling faster than the speed of light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7j (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Victoria7j. The article Black Hole is 'semi-protected' meaning that new editors or those with less than ten edits may not alter it. You meet the age criteria, but only have made nine edits. So you aren't far off being able to edit such an article. That said, your suggested text is too simplistic and unsourced, and seems more like your own conjecture. None of this type of content would be accepted. On highly complex, scientific articles full links to high-quality academic sources would be needed. If you wish to make an {{edit request}} on an article, you should go to that page's talk page.

As for the second part of your post, I fear I don't fully understand what you are asking of us. However, no edit request would be enacted upon unless it clearly improved an article and was based upon Reliable Sources. Sorry about that. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Names of bands/teams/groups etc. are treated as singular, unless the name also applies to the individual members of the group. An individual member of The Mentally Ill would not be referred to as "a Mentally Ill", so the band "The Mentally Ill" is treated as singular. On the other hand, members of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Yankees, Athletics, Flying Tigers, etc. are each referred to as a Beatle, Stone, Yankee, Athletic, and Flying Tiger, respectively, so these groups are treated as is they were plural.Sanctandriensis (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In a recent discussion about a metallic band, I found it odd that the grammar stated: "The Mentally Ill were a punk band". I thought that the band is singular, while the members are plural? i.e. The Kingston Trio: "... is an American folk and pop music group." If you take away the "name" and merely refer to the actual organization for what it is - "band"; one would not say: "The band were ..." but "The band is ...". The Juilliard String Quartet is a classical music string quartet; not "are" a classical music string quartet - regardless of the name. Also, "Vienna Choir Boys is a choir of boy sopranos" not "are". Pentatonix is an American a cappella group in its lede. Why are certain bands like The Who described on WP in the lede as: "The Who are an English rock band" and not "The Who is an English rock band"; like "Nirvana was an American rock band"? This: "Fleetwood Mac are a British-American rock band" just does not sound right. Doesn't the same principles apply? Curious. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's a British construction of long standing ("The Beatles are...") and seems to be preserved against American logical grammar. Dbfirs 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They also pronounce aluminum: "aluminium". That doesn't make it right. Are these articles all written only by British WP editors? Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, but in general Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred national variety of English and generally the style chosen by the first major contributor or through consensus agreed to upon on the article's tall page is the one followed per WP:RETAIN. Same goes for dates, citation style and many other things. You can always be WP:BOLD and change things you think should be change, but you might want to check the article history or its talk page (including the archives) to see whether it's something which has been discussed before. In addition, lots of editors add Wikipedia:Editnotices like {{Use British English}}, {{Use American English}}, etc. (see Category:Use English templates for some more examples ), but whether these were just added by some random editor or based upon some consensus sometimes takes a little digging to figure out. Regardless of which format/variety is used, WP:ARTCON (at least within the particular article and then perhaps to some degree with respect to other similar articles) should be one of the main things considered since mixing multiple formats/varieties of English is not a good idea. Cleaning up for the sake of consistency is probably not going to be much of an issue, but completing changing from one variety of English to another or one citation style to another often turns out to be even if done with the best of intentions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maineartists: errm, actually, we spell it "aluminium" and we also pronounce it "aluminium", too. We think that makes it right. But, if you really want to pick on our pronunciation, you'd be better off having a go at us for things like this. I can't offer any definitive explanation for the vagaries of the English language, but certain is/are combinations sound right, whilst others sound wrong. This sounds right to me: 'The Beatles' is the name given to a group of four lads from Liverpool who formed a popular beat combo in the 1960s. The Beatles (meaning the four lads) were the top-selling artists in the 1970s... That's my two penn'orth, anyway. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating: Aluminum or Aluminium I learned something new today! Thanks! As for the other revelation as to "sound" versus correct terminology: I agree. In most cases, however, I do not believe it is being properly used here at WP: considering The Backstreet Boys has the same exact "sounds" (lede: Backstreet Boys is an American boy band) while your The Beatles has: The Beatles were an English rock band. Maineartists (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Our Manual of style has the valid option: "England are playing Germany", and this plural usage seems to be more common in articles on British bands. I recall a discussion some time ago, but I can't find it. Dbfirs 02:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As someone put it somewhere recently, this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so we over here in the U.S. have to live with the fact that most of the world speaks (or is it speak?) a variant of English that is different from ours. If it's consistent within an article with strong MOS:TIES to other countries, it's just something you get used to after a while. Now writing in those articles can be somewhat more challenging – it's easier to remember a valid difference in usage when you see it than it is to write with it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As a Brit, I find it annoying that this nonsense is blamed on us. I would say "Pink Floyd is a group"; and that is how I usually hear it said. Some people try to justify "are" by using "The Beatles" as an example; admittedly, I sometimes hear fellow Brits say "The Beatles are a group". But I don't believe that people in Britain generally treat singular group names as plurals. Maproom (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise, The GloWbE corpus shows "The Beatles are/were" outnumbering "The Beatles is/was" not only in British sources (153:40) but also in US sources (145:20). But this may be an oddity of the Beatles, or because "Beatles" is plural anyway. Radiohead shows the pattern I expected: are/were:is/was = 45:15 (UK) 7:15 (US). Aerosmith shows 11:4 (UK), 4:10 (US). (Struggling to find other bands which are 1) well-known enough to appear in the corpus 2) with a name not appearing plural, and 3) not a word or phrase which might turn up in other contexts in the corpus.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine: try Google ngrams. Maproom (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine:Or this for The Who. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions of The Who, Maproom, and Metallica Nick Moyes, which give figures of 26:43 (UK), 10:38 (US); and 23:6 (UK), 7:23 (US) respectively in GloWbE. Metallica strongly shows the pattern I expected, but The Who doesn't. Not sure why you pointed me at Ngrams which a) is only books, and b) doesn't readily show the national differences which were my point. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough discussion. I wonder if there is another forum to bring this to that might result in some form of policy regarding grammar. I say this because recently I saw a social media post stating: "The Two Popes" is on Netflix. Similarly, watching a Christmas episode of Two Fat Ladies, the article's lede states: "Two Fat Ladies is a BBC2 television cooking programme". There is absolutely nothing different in this statement than that of a band. Re: "The Beatles" (which seems to be the root of all evil in this), one does not say: "Roger Daltrey is a Who" like "Paul McCartney is a Beatle" so why should the lede state: "The Who are an English rock band"? Nick Carter may be a Backstreet Boy; but Justin Timberlake is not an NSYNC. Maineartists (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a matter of variation between American English, which normally treats band names as singular, and British English, which normally (but not always) treats band names as plural. Band names and similar group names are plural collective nouns. Best practice is to use the forms appropriate to the national connection of the topic. In this particular case, The Mentally Ill was an American band, so should be referred to in the singular, using standard American usage, as I have done here and in the article. The great Elvis Costello played around with this distinction in his masterpiece Oliver's Army, where he writes:

"Oliver's army is here to stay

Oliver's army are on their way

And I would rather be anywhere else

But here today"

Editors dealing with these distinctions should base their decisions on the wise advice in the Manual of Style at National varieties of English and the subsection called "Strong national ties to a topic". Avoid counterproductive battles about such stylistic variations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds advisable and reasonable in this case. I see that you have begun to administer your understanding of the matter already - re: The Mentally Ill: Revision History. Shall we as WP editors take this discussion without proper consensus to do the same: The Mamas and the Papas? I'm not saying this should be an across the board crusade; but it would be nice to have this as a throw-back in the event someone questions an edit. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not limited to bands – pretty much any organization seems to be treated as a plural, as if to recognize the people comprising it as the subject, not the organizational entity itself. E.g., "Selfridges have taken a decision to something_about_teapots_and_cricket." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of unnecessarily keeping this discussion further going here at the Teahouse, the is/are question as it relates to collective nouns is something which is probably never going to be resolved. Even if it could be resolved through some grand meeting of the main minds of the entire English speaking world, things would probably sound strange to the somebody's ear for quite some time thereafter until the deprecated form had fallen out of use for so long a period of time that pretty much nobody remembered it ever even existing. I'd image that pretty much how any language evolves over time; after all, given all of the different national varieties of English there are in the world, I'd image that none of them or certainly not very many of them are exactly the same as that used by previous generations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a whole lot easier than all of this. Band names can be singular or plural, or collective singular, or implied plural, or ambiguous. In the case of The Beatles, it's clearly plural. In the case of The Grateful Dead, it could be an implied plural but it's ambiguous so usually defaults to collective singular. If you say Chanticleer Singers that would be plural, if you say just Chanticleer it's singular. The Mentally Ill strikes at least some as an implied plural because of the article. Make a case that it's similar to The Grateful Dead. Meg Zulick 22:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulick (talk • contribs)

On the Wikipedia page for David Baldwin (historian) there is a link out to his official Facebook page. This page no longer exists. I would like to remove it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.54.147 (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is indeed a dead link, and now that you bring it up, external links to Facebook or other social media are generally not even supposed to be present unless there is nothing else to add (for more information on this guideline and external linking, see WP:FACEBOOK). That doesn't seem to be the case; there are plenty of online, reputable sources, so feel free to remove it. In other cases, though, I would recommend using the Wayback Machine ([5]) to find an archived link and use that instead. Happy editing! ComplexRational (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

How to make a reference pages

And other head titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by JantjiesAthule (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi JantjiesAthule and welcome to the Teahouse! A bit more context would help me answer your question so I understand what exactly you're asking. Are you refering to Reference sections in articles or something else? Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If my edit is the most recent, is there a way to make changes to it without reverting it and recreating it, or creating a separate additional edit? Also, if I accidentally forget to create an Edit Summary, is there a way to add one after the fact? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkfla (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joelkfla, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can always simply start from the current state, who ever made the most recent edit, including yourself, and make further changes to bring the article or page to the desired state. Many editors work in a series of small changes. Also, it is very common for an edit to be followed by an additional edit to correct typos or other errors in the first edit.

You cna always make a dummy edit, for example by adding a single space to teh end of a line, whoich will make no change in the display, and use the edit summary there to explain the previous edit. For example "Previous edit was to add a source citation".

In your preferences, in the editing section, there is an option (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing) "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" which will warn you if you try to save without entering an edit summary. I strongly recommend it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Joelkfla (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please diseregard. Joelkfla (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Even though I change the way to edit (Visual vs Source), the editing toolbar does not change as expected in the Help:Edit toolbar. What is wrong? Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Soumyabrata. If it's a Talk page, then currently there is no visual option, only source. I just noticed that I don't see a visual option here on the Teahouse either; the same limitation seems to apply to the Wikipedia: namespace. If you see a pencil icon at the right of the toolbar, you can use that to switch between source and visual mode. (There is also a setting in Preferences that will show two separate links for "Edit" and "Edit source", if you don't want to go with the software giving you whatever mode you used last.) Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

While we have Kirazuri in page namespace, someone has created/translated a draft page with the same subject. Kirazuri &oldid=927741474 was created at 13:36, 24 November 2019, while Draft:Kirazuri &oldid=927006724 at 19:47, 19 November 2019. I don't think the Draft has been reviewed/approved, nor Kirazuri the page span out from that. What is the best way to avoid confusion? Do we file AfD? --Omotecho (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Omotecho, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for drawing attention to this. I have redirected Draft:Kirazuri to Kirazuri. There is no need for deletion. If a draft does need to be deleted WP:MFD is used, not AfD.

You might want to look over the cited sources in the history of the draft (which remains available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kirazuri&action=history) and if any of them are useful and reliable sources, add them to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel, thank you for crisp reply, and appreciate your pointing me to MFD. Yes, I have supported and worked on refs/citations on Kirazuri a while ago; FYI, was told it's part of a classroom project, and the original editor also translated it into jawp as well. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Omotecho Who said this was a classroom project, and where? The creator hasn't edited any class pages or made any link to any. I ask because if this was a classroom project, I want to reach out to the instructor or any associated Wikipedia volunteers to try to avoid such collisions in future. Or di you mean the article, rather than the draft? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you, but I was talking about Kirazuri article, DESiegel. Maybe more confusing to inform you the background, but anyway, the person who wrote Kirazuri article ended up posting it to jawp in English, then somebody moved it to a page under Japanese pagename kirazuri (雲母摺); I encouraged the first writer to put it into Japanese in jawp as well, even if not their original intention, and supported filling citation templates. I feel awful if me, a passer-by, hurling them into a problem... Regards, --Omotecho (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I want to contact one of my nice and kindhearted fellow editor "Eman 235". He is not responding on his talk page but active on tea house. Why is it so? I hope everything is fine with him. Can anyone tell me the way to contact him? Thanks.(223.230.172.15 (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC))

Looking at your request, it's not really surprisingly they haven't responded. Editors are volunteers, and edit what they want to. Giving someone a long list of requests you'd like them to do isn't going to get the best reaction.

If an edit needs doing, wp:BeBold and do it yourself. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What the IP hasn't told you, OxonAlex, is that they are determined to edit against consensus. See Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@OxonAlex: Note the editor is a young person. The relevant range is 223.230.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with collateral. I imagine things may subside when school is back in session. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Eman235: You haven't responded to any request(mine as well as others)on your talk page since months. Why is it so? Please! reply.

Thanks. (223.230.132.104 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

Sorry for not responding -- an oversight on my part. I've responded at User talk:Eman235#Needs update. Eman235/talk 22:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So im making a list with all the vocaloid songs by singer and the list is really really long so. is there a way to move the draft so then other people can edit it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carri796 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carri796. Any Wikipedia page can technically be edited by anyone at anytime; so, a draft doesn't need to be moved to the article namespace just so others can work on it. If you want others to help you with Draft:List of vocaloid songs, you can try looking for WikiProjects which might be related to this subject and asking for help there or maybe even asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. One thing about the list articles like the one you're trying to create is that they need to meet the requirements given in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and I don't think this draft does. Trying to move to the article namespace in the hope that other will improve it at this point would very possibly lead to it being tagged or nominated for deletion instead. If you disagree with this assessment, you can try to WP:MOVE the page yourself, but I would strongly suggest that you submit the draft for review at WP:AFC to give others a chance to more formally assess it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Carri796, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:List of vocaloid songs is already where others can edit it, as I just did. But if you mean moving it to the main article space, there is the question of Notability to be settled first. See WP:LISTN, where it says:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

Before this draft is moved to the main article space, there should be text defining mode clearly what items are eligible for inclusion in the list, and multiple reliable sources that discuss "Vocaloid songs" as a group at some length should be cited.

You could submit this for review under the Articles for Creation project by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. But be prepared for a delay -- therye are over 3,700 drafts now in the pool to be reviewed. And with no cited sources, the4 draft is very unlikely to be approved as it stands. See Referencing for Beginners for how to add source citations to a draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Carri796: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So Marchjuly I found an archived wikiproject of vocaloid but it was never officially created and the only person who was intrested has left and it says do not edit. Is there a way I can pick up where they left off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carri796 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Teahouse, the current draft article Draft:Jacaranda Books has now been rejected twice as '...Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)'. This despite a growing list of references, at least some of which would appear to be of reasonable quality (independent/ secondary/ reliable etc.). Any advice would be welcome- thanks,Yadsalohcin (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin: hi there. As stated by a declining reviewer: "The founder of the publishing house might be notable but it looks like the house itself is not yet.". However, I do see a multitude of sources on the page, and after a light review, have reason to believe it meets the General Notability Guidelines. My suggestion is to put it up once more for review, perhaps explaing why you believe it is notable. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi there, Yadsalohcin, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are 28 references in this article (plus far too much trivial info on what books they've published, and far too many names of non-notable authors they have published). It seems very promotional. So, forgive me, but I'm not really too keen to wade through such a vast list of sources so as to help you. Instead, please could I ask you to identify the top three key sources that you believe demonstrates that the publisher meets our notability criteria for organisations? Then maybe we can look at those and offer you specific advice. (This sounds far more terse than I had intended -sorry!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi both @Willbb234:Willbb234^Talk and Nick Moyes (talk), thanks for your comments and suggestions- I think I see a way forward- time to get more ruthless with the edits (I hadn't the heart to make wholesale deletions before, having found someone else's efforts which from a bumpkin's perspective looked wiki-worthy, and decided to try to help, but I see that it has grown somewhat gangly... and full of red-links...) Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the sign of a good editor! Less is more. Go for it! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, can anyone help me understand why the wiki I created has been deleted? This is the second time my contribution got deleted. The reason for deletion is section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I must admit that my first submission was objective. But this time, I used neutral POV as per wiki suggestions so it doesn't sound like promotional (I also had someone read it to get another's perspective). Still, no luck. This makes me believe that we can't possibly create a wiki article for someone not so famous? Or maybe I did miss something? What should I do to have it approved? Please help. Thanks and happy holidays! Ohjesabee (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

What is your intended subject matter? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Only admins can see your deleted sandbox, an admin deleted "Matt Artisan is a dating coach and a Youtuber" (etc.) as U5: Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. –84.46.52.176 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ohjesabee a person doesn't need to be "famous" to have a Wikipedia article written about them, and being famous does not automatically mean someone should have a Wikipedia article written about them. The only thing that matters is whether the person meets Wikipedia:Notability (more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)). While there is sometimes a strong connection between fame and Wikipedia notability, they aren't the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia. If you're able to demonstrate that the person you want to create an article about satisfies one of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, then you can try and write an article about them. Even if the article you end up writing is filled with all kinds or promotional sounding content or just badly written overall, as long as the subject is Wikipedia article all of those things can cleaned up and the content of the article brought more in line with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines per WP:PRESERVE. At the same time though, if you're trying to create an article about someone who is not Wikipedia notable or is at least not Wikipedia notable right now, then you could be the best writer that ever lived and write the perfect article with no mistakes of any kind at all, but none of that would make the subject Wikipedia notable. We can't make a subject Wikipedia notable through editing; they either are or aren't depending on whether they are receiving significant coverage in reliable sources which are writing about it out in the real world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Ohjesabee: Pinging Fastily, who most recently deleted it. I see you already messaged the nominator Bonadea. While waiting, please note that in addition to being encyclopedic in tone, the article must have reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability and you must declare a COI if you have one. (I can't see the deleted content, so I'm not commenting on whether you did this or not, just providing info in case it was missed.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I already responded on my user talk page, but from what I can recall of the sandbox page it was blatantly promotional – in addition it was obvious that the person was very far from being notable, but a sandbox draft would not be tagged or deleted for that reason. The original poster said that they are writing it on behalf of the subject, so WP:COI/WP:PAID also applies. (Also, given that any Wikipedia article about the person would certainly include critical content based on e.g. this reliable independent source, I suspect he would regret hiring someone to create the article in the first place!) --bonadea contributions talk 09:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not mention I am writing in behalf of the subject but I did say that "we want him" to be on wiki as one of the dating coaches listed on this site. I am also not paid to write a wiki for the subject nor using this site as a marketing tool, just as I mentioned in your talk page. Now, I'm not appealing to your assessment. I'm just puzzled for the reason of deletion because you say it is "blatantly promotional" when in fact, I did not use promotional or subjective words, just as how this reliable independent source created her article. AND I do not know how you suspect the subject would regret "hiring" a person to create a wiki. Did you ever made an inquiry? No answer needed, I think I know why it was deleted. Ohjesabee (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotionalism is not simply a question of particular words or phrases – the content of the draft was, as far as I recall, entirely promotional. It looks like you are trying to be subtly derisive about the source I linked to; nobody could accuse that text of not wanting to promote a particular point of view, but that is the function of a review. The author was hired to voice his or her opinion about a book, while Wikipedia editors are not hired and should always avoid letting their opinions shine through in article text. Academic sources are preferred for Wikipedia articles, but as you can see here, other sources are also acceptable, for instance reviews written by people independent of the subject, and published in a source that meets Wikipedia's criteria.

Obviously I have not been in contact with the subject of the draft, that would never have occurred to me, and I said "I suspect", which indicates a guess. I had never heard of him before seeing the sandbox draft, and I had actually forgotten his name when you asked the question – I have a terrible memory for names, and edit rather many different articles, like most editors do. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are not in any way controlled by the subject of the article; Wikipedia does not care about what the subject of the article wants, nor what they say about themselves. You asked on my user talk page whether it matters that you know the subject personally. Again, please read WP:COI. (And who is "we" in "we want him"?) Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I did go through some of the approved wikis you proofread and I think I understand why the one I made is tagged as promotional. Thank you and happy holidays you all! Ohjesabee (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ohjesabee: Just for future reference, "wiki(s)" generally refers to an entire wiki project, like this English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Spanish Wikipedia, OpenStreetMapWiki etc.. Individual pages in Wikipedia's main article namespace are generally called "articles". Cheers! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 10:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thatoneweirdwikier. The {{Collapsible list}} page that you linked to actually contains the instructions I think you need. If you read down, it says you need to include a bullet parameter in the heading.

bullets: Include as |bullets=on, |bullets=true, etc to place a bullet point before each list item.

Have you tried this, and did it not work for you? Please explain the problem in more detail if you can't resolve it, and link to any experimental page you've created, as I can't see anything obvious in your contribution history.

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

I didn't know this was possible. Thanks very much! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 11:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Thatoneweirdwikier. The list and template documentation pages are quite detailed, and there are many clever things you can do with them. When you have some spare time, it's worth gently browsing through the documentation and help pages listed in See also and you'll be surprised what you might find. From the user perspective, I would suggest not starting off with a page showing a hidden table or list, but have it fully visible with the option for that user to collapse it later. Otherwise you risk a person failing to see some important bit of content. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier and Nick Moyes: Also, if you use your browser's "Find in this page" tool, it doesn't find text inside collapsed areas, which has bitten me more than once. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting point! Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm curious if anyone knows anything about The Deadweights and its related articles--they all seem fake? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that very little of the article content is cited- is that why you think it is a hoax article? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks. It seems like a hoax. I did some general google searches, and nothing adds up, for that article and the articles about the band's albums... Caro7200 (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that it is a hoax, you can tag it for speedy deletion as a hoax article(WP:G3). If you aren't quite that certain, you can start an Articles for Deletion discussion. In either event, you could attempt to contact the creator of the article(s) and ask about their sources. It is possible(if unlikely) that there are print-only sources. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'm pretty sure that the article is a hoax, as are all its related album articles. I've never attempted anything as "complicated" as starting an articles for deletion discussion, but may attempt to fumble through it later tonight. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Caro7200 pleases be careful. It would nto be at all unlikely for a punk rock band from the 1980s not to have much in the way of online sources, and when you add that "deadweight" is a commom term, online searches become hard to do usefully. The article Crisis (The Deadweights album) says that this album charted in Sept 1985. Billboard back issues are paywalled and I do not have a subscription. But I found, adn added to the article, a page that gives a track listing and says that this charted. See here Now this may be a hoax also, but if it is it is a quite elaborate one, with several Wikipedia articles, and at least one outside site. The article about the group has been here since 2007, and has been edited by many users. The article about teh album "Crisis" linked above has also been here since 2007, adn was started by a different editor, albeit one who also edited the main article. I suspect an under documented, possibly non-notable, but real band. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There is also https://www.letssingit.com/the-deadweights-zskq9 which may not be a reliable source (or it may be), but is consistent with the info in the various articles. There are also several sites which seem to have copied from W@ikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be careful. It does look like a hoax. For example, Crisis (The Deadweights album) is mentioned as appearing at #94 on a SPIN magazine list. Not true: https://www.spin.com/2005/06/100-greatest-albums-1985-2005/. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Carrite (Tim Davenport) is an editor with expertise in punk rock. Tim, can you add anything to this conversation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's significant that hardly any articles link back to The Deadweights. Slash Records and Reprise Records are significant record labels, yet there aren't any legit sources connecting them to this band. And Raymond Pettibon is an artist, notable for his SST Records work, not known as a musician etc. Caro7200 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an expert on punk rock, but I agree that this looks fishy. All of the sources used in these articles appear to be user generated content sites that allow anyone to add entries with no fact checking, e.g. Rate Your Music and Let's Sing It. The articles claim that dozens of their songs and albums charted, so you'd expect to see some online coverage of them somewhere, even if only on some punk fan's blog, but this band seems to only exist on Wikipedia and in user generated databases. (Note, the Revolvy link posted above by DESiegel is a Wikipedia mirror.)
Also, one of the articles claims that the band released an album in 2008 which hit #29 on the Billboard charts, so there should be some coverage of that online, but there's nothing besides UGC sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Not even an Ebay listing or a passing mention on a forum somewhere... And does this album cover look like it was made in 1981 to you? It looks like it was done in MS Paint. Seriously - a punk band that topped the charts for 30 years and there's nothing about them online? Sounds bogus. There are bands a thousand times more obscure with dedicated online fanbases. I don't think this should be tagged for speedy deletion because it's not an immediately obvious hoax, but it should go to articles for deletion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have taken all the articles to WP:AFD they are all clearly blatant hoaxes. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile all G3'ed (following Paul Hedgersman in 2009). The 12 years could be a new record, maybe report it on The Signpost. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong Thanks for nominating and removing. I was hesitant since I'd never attempted it before, but wanted to report it somehow. Kudos (of a kind) to those little punks who constructed all those articles, ha... Caro7200 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Slow on the draw with my pings... It's a fair cop. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice find, Caro7200. @331dot: is someone looking at other contribs by the hoaxer (I can't see the history). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello everybody, Hello to the community,

I'm coming from Germany and I try to include my knowledge into German Wikipedia for years. But with the English one I have some difficulties in understanding the procedure maybe... Since 24th of October 2019 there is a draft of the entry "Sayonara Player", which is also available in two other languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayonara_Player

Can anybody give me some assistance on what I need to do, that the entry gets reviewed and published? My target is to include it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_player_software where only players with an own entry are accepted.

The reason is, that I was searching for a good Linux audio player since eight years. Finally I found one this summer, but it's not well-known and I think Wikipedia could be a solution to change this situation.

Thanks to everybody for attention and have a good start in 2020, Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic2105 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dominic2105 and welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at your draft and it appears that the draft was declined. It's not the best feeling in the world, so I'll try to explain why it happened. So far, you've cited four sources, which is good. However, these sources are not independant and reliable. For example, the first source and second sources is the player's own website, and although it would be appropriate to provide a link in an external links section, it isn't suitable to demonstrate notability because it is not an independant source. I can try to explain this further if you're still confused. As for the differences between the English and the German Wikipedia, I'm not too familiar with that, so maybe another editor's input would be helpful here. Clovermoss (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The enwiki notability is simpler than the dewiki Relevanz. On dewiki you can get away with no (or only primary) sources, here almost all claims need reliable and independent references. –84.46.52.55 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Captain Eek,

The discussion was archived regarding Radmila Lolly, so I am following up here. I am not clear how Radmila does not qualify as notable with the amount of coverage I included in my article draft. As far as possibly requiring some years before becoming notable, Radmila has been publicly active since 2012. I have also left out things that Wikipedia doesn't approve of (e.g. "dating a celebrity"), but said things also prove that public celebrities/influencers attend Radmila's events and that she has other known affiliates with Wikipedia pages of their own. Please, please help me as I have remained within Wikipedia's guidelines for citing/giving sources.

Carlden10, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The main issue here is that at the moment, the community has determined (based on this discussion) that Lolly is not currently notable, i.e. they are not sufficiently written about and cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Realistically, some years may need to pass before this person does enough to make them notable to be on Wikipedia. At this time, I do not recommend you work on Lolly further. Creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You are likely best served by working on editing existing articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Please feel free to ask any other questions you have about Lolly, or Wikipedia in general. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlden10 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Carlden10, and welcome back to the Teahouse. In Draft:Radmila Lolly, the first 10 sources cited are either press releases or interviews, which do not help to establish notability at all. The article in The Spectator looks useful, but at the end says PR Agency: SGG Public Relations indicating that it is directly based on a press release, and so is not independent coverage and does not count toward notability. The Women Fitness article is again an interview. So is the article from VOCE SPETTACOLO. The article from NSCMagazine again ends with PR Agency: SGG Public Relations and so is of no value for establishing notability. I cannot asses the article from Óyeme Magazine as it is not in English, but even if it is a high-class source, one independent reliable source is not enough. At least three are needed, and high-quality sources are particularly needed to overcome the determination made at the AfD discussion. If you want to proceed (which I advise against) drop all the interviews and Press releases and look for Independent and reliable sources that each discuss her in detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Carlden10. To add to what DES has said, it might be helpful to explain that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject has said about themselves, or their associates have said about them, whether in their own publications, or in interviews or press releases. An article must be almost completely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosed to publish about the subject, in reliable places. If you can few or no such sources, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject, so the notability criterion tries to stop you spending your time, and others' time, in doing something which is impossible. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to show my user edit count as a number somewhere in my Infobox. Is there a way to code the edit count so that the number appears and changes dynamically/automatically without me having to manually update the edit count all the time? If yes, can code lines be shared? — CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CYAce01, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is {{User contrib}} but thsat still requires manual updates. There is {{admin stats}} but that is only authorized for admins and account creators. This is because this requires a bot to make a daily edit for every user who uses this template, and the load would be too great for wider usage, or so I have been told. A template cannot generally auto-update -- ones that seem to generally link to or transclude a page which is itself auto updated by a bot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, DESiegel. I was hoping the counter would be updated by itself so I wouldn't have to edit so much. But, with the templates, it sounds like I'd be getting credit for the edit EVERY time and possibly double dipping for the edit count update. I'm trying for "fair" and worthy edits, so I'll leave the edit counter number updater off my page. — CYAce01 (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

CYAce01, For an active editor to update, say, once a month, is hardly "double dipping", which is why the template text says "more than" not an exact number. I use adminstats, but that provides info on admin actions not just edits, which is perhaps more important for users to know in interacting with an admin. You could just keep the service badge on your user page and update after you have crossed a milestone -- that soon becomes not so often as milestones come farther apart (says I at 51k and counting) But it is entirely up to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @CYAce01: Nothing wrong with wanting some positive feedback on your work here, but may I suggest you have a look at WP:EDITCOUNTITIS? Most people who have edit-count userboxes on their user pages update them occasionally (I do it about once a month as part of a checklist of other monthly work). As you pointed out above, quality is definitely more important than quantity. Some of my single edits take literally hours. You, I, and 99.99_% of editors will never catch up to the guys with 6-7 figure counts. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It's well appreciated! — CYAce01 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As you have already done, most editors use the Userbox Service badges as a means of milestoning their editing. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if this is obvious. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 13:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier The symbol is there for a reason - it helps to differentiate between wikilinks and external links, to make it clear to the reader that by following the link, they will be leaving Wikipedia. Why do you want to circumvent that? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit I felt that the logo looks out-of-place in articles. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 14:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, generally speaking, it shouldn't be seen in articles except in the External Links and References sections, since we shouldn't usually be using external links within the body of the text (see WP:EL for more on this). Is there a particular article you have in mind? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, mainly Ram Dass. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, Ah, OK. As I said there, I'd suggest putting those into the externa links section as a clearer way to present them, rather than linking to them from the lead of the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks for your time! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Plz write the in wrestling section comprising of the wrestler information regarding his/her moves, theme songs, managers etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:C07:42B9:E906:620C:4228:1C20 (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. Wikipedia is created by volunteers who work on what they choose to. If you want to see a particular thing in some articles, you either need to get somebody interested in creating it, or do it yourself. If you want something added to a particular article, you may have some success in asking on the talk page of that article (you will at least be addressing your request to people who have some interest in that article.) Another possibility is to find a relevant WikiProject (such as WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling) and ask there. But in general, simply asking on a general page such as this for somebody willing to put in the work to provide what you want, is not usually very productive. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

In particular, the OP may want to see WP:INWRESTLING and the Village Pump discussion referred to in the note at the end of the first sentence therein. It was decided by consensus in 2018 to deprecate the use of "In wrestling" sections in wrestler articles. Deor (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I just revamped the article Jim Rogers (California politician), it apparently had BLP violations so its reliable sources that covered him in depth were removed as was his referenced notability. Nevertheless I found more sources and expanded the article dramatically. Who do I let know we should have a do over on the discussion for deleting the page or merging or whatever comes of it? I added a comment to the AfD but I don't know who's in charge, so my question is that who is in charge of that sort of thing around here?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nobody in charge per se, you just need to wait until an uninvolved admin or uninvolved editor comes along to WP:CLOSE the AfD. If you want to mention in the AfD that you've made changes that you feel have addressed the reason it has been nominated for deletion, you can; but the AfD still needs to run its course. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I see and can I contact those that gave their opinions already to inform them of the updates?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You can WP:PING them in any new post you make at the AfD if you want, but they might already be watching the discussion or the article and will see the changes you’ve made. I guess you can post a polite note about the changes on their user talk page, but nothing demanding like “you need to reassess your AFD comment” or anything like that. Whether they respond or how they respond, however, is up to them. Whomever decides to close the AfD may decide that enough improvement has been made to at least warrant WP:RELISTing it so that further discussion can take place. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankies! and how do you ping someone?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ndołkah. Please see Help:Notifications. Here is a pro tip for you: When you have such a question, type "WP:keyword" into the search box, using a plausible keyword. In this case, WP:PING leads to to that help page about pinging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah It is thoroughly appropriate to mention changes made to an article in an open AfD. I have done so several times. It is also perfectly appropriate to ping those who have commented previously, provided that you notify all of them. You should be aware that AfD discussions are not normally closed until they have been open for at least 7 full days (24 x 7 hours), so this one has a couple of days to go, at least, and sometimes they are relisted for an additional week or more. None of the conditions for a faster than usual close seem to apply in this case. You might want to look at WP:HEY as well. Thanks for your edits on this article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankies for all the info!Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am looking for a tool that could help in removing duplicate links in an article. Often I come across an article where well meaning editors have linked the same word multiple times. I can imagine that in a very long article it might be nice to have a word linked more than once.

Has anyone seen such a tool?

--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Akrasia25, welcome to the Teahouse. We certainly have a tool to identify and highlight duplicate links, though you would have to manually remove them. Would that suffice? If so, I'll go and dig out a link for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Here we are. Try installing the script by following the instructions at this page: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Season's greetings, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That sure was a fast response Nick. I appreciate it and I will try out the script. I can imagine that there has to be some manual removal to avoid mistakes--Akrasia25 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I approve my article, please guide me ASAP.(Aureliojohn (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

@Aureliojohn: Did you really mean "approve", or do you actually mean "improve"? I suspect the latter. If so, sometimes no amount of editing can make an article meet our notability criteria for companies, other than inserting the right type of independent non-marketing references. Have you now done that? If so, perhaps you could link to the three best sources that you feel genuinely support Wikipedia's definition of 'Notability', and we can look through them for you. Personally, I think it looks like it fits with our description we call "WP:TOOSOON". Wikipedia cannot be used to promote or market new companies - there are millions of them in the world. You simply have to wait until there is evidence that third parties have actually taken note of and have written about that company or product in depth. No amount of LinkedIn links or short business notes are going to achieve that. Sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nick Moyes - You are being optimistic in thinking that the OP means "improve". They want their draft approved to list it in article space. Other than that, you have tried to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I have created one article to my sandbox behave of phemex they are working on bitcoin, and crptocurrency on worldwide. the company based in Singapore and I have worked on this platform last six months and now I'm still research and working on this platform. Please check my sandbox and let me know how to improve my article once I will improve my article after my article is also approve for the Wikipedia.(Aureliojohn (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

Your draft was already discussed four days ago here, and the TOOSOON consensus won't change ASAP, cf. NORUSH. –84.46.52.63 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Aureliojohn: That was the page I looked at (i.e. User:Aureliojohn/sandbox - it now redirects to Draft:Phemex, and that was the page I was referring to in my answer above. So, please fully re-read all the way through our notability criteria for companies and tell us which three sources you think best support Wikipedia's definition of 'Notability'. I will then try to re-assess the significance of each of those sources and tell you why I don't feel it is sufficient to meet our critieria. As far as I can tell, you have added nothing significant since Robert McClenon declined it as failing notability. So without hearing more from you, or seeing better sources added, I am at a loss to help you further. A failure to meet Notability Criteria means that, no matter how hard you try, you will never get an article about that subject on Wikipedia at this moment in time. How we might view it in the future, is another matter entirely. So, if a major national newspaper writes about this company, we start to get what we need. Your main sources are all insider financial reports simply regurgitating and repeating the identical text of a press release, which is what insider news outlets do. This is not sufficient. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Thank you for your time, I really appreciated for your guideline.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

You wrote "I have worked on this platform last six months and now I'm still research and working on this platform." That clearly indicates a paid relationship. You must declare that on your User page. David notMD (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Aureliojohn - See general sanctions for cryptocurrencies. Many editors want to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies, and other uses of blockchains, and exchanges for trading cryptocurrency. We have had so many editors trying to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies that we have had to implement special rules to deal with editors who are promoting cryptocurrencies, especially editors who have a conflict of interest. Some editors are topic-banned from cryptocurrencies, or even blocked. We have had a problem with editors who try to advertise cryptocurrencies. If you cannot establish notability, your draft will not be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@David NotMD:. I mean, I'm working on this platform for the last six months, I'm not employed for this company.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

@Robert McClenon:. I totally agree with you. Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform, But how can I improve my draft and sources for Wikipedia guidelines.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC))

User:Aureliojohn - We have tried to explain to you in English. It appears that you want to use Wikipedia to provide information about Phemex. That is advertising. You are asking us how to improve your draft to be a better advertisement. Do you need to have that explained to you in another language, since you don't seem to understand the explanation in English? Editors who are tendentious about trying to use Wikipedia to advertise cryptocurrencies can be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:. Sorry for that Robert. I agree with your point forget this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aureliojohn (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aureliojohn: Practical general suggestion, figure out how {{cite web|url=… |title=… |author=… |date=… |work=… |publisher=[[…]] |accessdate=…}} works in references depending on a consistent date format per article. Raw HTML references, missing authors, or no wikilink for allegedly reliable sources are red flags, and about as bad as missing edit summaries tagged as mobile IP contributions. –84.46.52.55 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aureliojohn: You said I'm working on this platform for the last six months, I'm not employed for this company. Please explain what you mean by working on this platform? Does it mean that you write programming code, or develop some other material, that is used by the exchange? Or do you mean that you are just a user, trading on it?

Please stop putting parentheses around your signature – the timestamp should be at the very end of your post. See the last two paragraphs of WP:SIGPROB and everyone else's signatures here and elsewhere. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I add my brother and I to the Notable Alumni tab on Archbishop Ryan High School page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.184.16 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. If either of you is notable in the way Wikipedia uses that word (see the page linked for more detail), then Wikipedia could have an article about the one who is notable (or articles about both if you both are). In that case, an article could be written about you (but not by you - see autobiography for why not - and once the article exists, your name could be added to the list. Most people are not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and do not belong on such a list. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

In short, notice that the Archbishop Ryan High School#Notable alumni list are all blue links to Wikipedia articles. Unless there is a Wikipedia article about you (or one is likely to soon be created based on what Colin said), I'm afraid it would not be appropriate to include you in that list. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I was reading the Wikipedia page of Rahul Gandhi (major Indian politician), and noticed a small sentence added right before the “Early Life” section, stating that he is sometimes referred to as “pappu” (a term used for immature people in Hindi). It has been reverted already (twice, since someone added it twice), but since it is used only by his political opponents (and anyone who dislikes him), I want to know if this information is suitable for Wikipedia (considering that no one does the same to Narendra Modi who is sometimes (though not as often) called a “feku” for not fulfilling promises made in elections)... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RedBulbBlueBlood9911, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, no, derogatory nicknames are not used on Wikipedia. If it can be demonstrated through independent reliable sources that a person is very often known by such a nickname, it might be mentioned, but only with a direct citation to a source, and I would think only in quotes. This would be rather unusual. I don't think we do that even on the pages of such widely abhorred figures as Hitler or Stalin. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been removed several times from the article, so it seems like several other editors agree with you. There are cases of derogatory nicknames being included for historical figures, where the nicknames are considered to be important and very well-sourced (in Reginald Dyer for instance) but I can't think of any instance where an article about a living person has anything like that. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it would need to be discussed on the article talk page first. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I had to go and find List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Rahul Gandhi#"Pappu" edits for further discussion of this, please and please let us avoid any further edit-warring on this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Even in the list of nicknames that GGS mentioned, the bar for inclusion is set very high, requiring "common usage". As an example, U.S. President Trump is called variations of "the orange one", usually (but not always) by comedians, and fairly often, but it is not in that list. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick question that I am not sure where to ask. Sometimes an article have the use dmy/mdy tag on top of it which will automatically makes dates in citation to be dmy/mdy per Help:Citation Style 1#Auto-formatting citation template dates. I recently edited a mdy article, but since I usually use dmy, I just use dmy in citation because I know the script will change them for me. Is that an acceptable practice or should I change my approach? Lulusword (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lulusword, and welcome to the Teahosue. As long as the displayed forms are consistent, the wiki-text doesn't matter that much, but using an inconsistent form in the citations may tempt you or a later editor to copy or imitate a date in non-citation prose, where the template will have no effect. It is probably better practice to use the form specified for the article, but if you forget, no huge issue. If you wanted to change what is used, start a discussion on the article talk page, but that is rarely a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I guess I will practice using the default format in citing references later since it will be benefecial for future editors. :) Lulusword (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Good point, David. Now if only we could get the editor's cite tool to use the appropriate format in the access-date and on the rare occasion it correctly finds the publication date. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1 I'd settle for getting it not to stick tje site name into the title, and to use the actual site name, not the site domain, for website=. Lots of luck with that. Still the MOS does permit the archive-date to be in a format different from everything else ("Wherefore is this date different from all other dates...?") DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Note, though, that the change to the cite templates to respect the {{Use ??? dates}} also formats the access-date values, which seems at odds with the MoS' allowing them to be YMD. Of course, there have been changes in the MoS, too, and I'm having trouble remembering what to do any more. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where else would be the appropriate place to ask this so I guess here? When leaving a warning on a user talk page, such as {{uw-unsourced}}, I know that piping the article title in will mention the article. I’ve seen on some talk pages, however, that the specific diff is also linked. How do you link to a specific article revision with these templates? TIA, Alex (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexanderlee: AFAIK, this is only possible for messages left by Huggle. All Huggle messages can be found at Template:Huggle and its subpages. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I (and it seems, several others) have tried to add death information for Scott Sowers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Sowers

Multiple online sources have announced his death, e.g. imdb.com, and https://fcnp.com/2018/06/13/our-man-in-arlington-276/

My edits and others have been reverted. Can someone advise what we're doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob baseline (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

His (possible) death has been discussed on his article's Talk page. The theory there is that it was an April Fool's Day hoax. The source you gave is a church newsletter, probably not what we would normally regard as a great source. IMDB is also notoriously unreliable. Is there a genuinely reliable source out there? Anyway, since it's already under discussion there, I suggest you take your thoughts to the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I did some digging, documented at Talk:Scott Sowers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ever thought about putting out donation bins? It would be very convenient and I’m sure people would give change at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3760:E920:70E2:3B09:D9D4:609E (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Donations are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and not us editors here. You are welcome to communicate any suggestions you have to them, though if you mean physical donation collection, that would likely be a massive operation for a worldwide site to conduct. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello everybody,

thanks for the assistance regarding the entry "Added an entry, but I need assistance for English Wikipedia". The draft has not been approved due to missing reliable independent sources in the references. I added four new ones and linked to two other Wikipedia languages entries. Could this new draft please be checked?

Have a good start into 2020, Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A74:4360:C1B8:8A45:92CC:BE46 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: this is about Draft:Sayonara Player.   Maproom (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 2A02:908:1A74:4360:C1B8:8A45:92CC:BE46. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for any purpose per WP:WPNOTRS and this includes articles found on other language Wikipedias as well; so, linking to those two non-English articles aren't really relevant at all to determining whether the subject you're trying to create an article about is something considered to be Wikipedia notable. What matters is whether Wikipedia:Notability (software) is being met.

Now, the other sources you added might be, but that's something you might want to try asking about at WT:COMP or WT:SOFTWARE since that's where you're likely going to find editors familiar with these types of articles and with what types of sources are generally considered reliable.

Finally, please don't move/remove any AfD decline templates or any comments left by an AfC reviewer. I'm sure you meant well, but its best to leave them at the top of the page so that any future reviewers are aware of them and can easily find them. Everything will be cleaned up as needed if the draft is eventually accepted and all the templates/comments will be removed when that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

When you have resolved the problems, the way to resubmit for further review is with the blue "Resubmit" button in the feedback box on the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the "Resubmit" button help. So much text on the pages and English is not my native language ;-) I've updated everything and clicked the button. Let's see what the future brings. Thanks to you, David and Marchjuly. Dominic2105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A74:4360:C1B8:8A45:92CC:BE46 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, can someone help me understand if the recent edits by users 86.30.29.225 and Richard heyes to RGraph should be undone or how to treat them? Richard heyes stated COI on the user talk page. 86.30.29.225 has only made edits to RGraph so far. Actually, I created the RGraph page and it is not even reviewed yet if I am not mistaken, and in the current state after those multiple edits by these users it looks less neutral than in the state I made it... Please advise what should be done in such cases. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, the edits by Richard heyes are not improvements to the article. They are promotional, and give excessive detail in the form of a code sample. Richard heyes, as the creator of the subject software, has an undeclared conflict of interest. The edits by the IP editor are constructive copyedits to the content added by Richard heyes. Maproom (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Appears you created the article (no longer a draft), and editor Richard heyes, who claims to be the creator of RGraph, has added lots of content to the article, doubling the length. Best place to discuss whether those additions are appropriate is at Talk page of article. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Avbgok. Any editor can undo another editor's edit(s) if they believe they aren't improvements or otherwise not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If that's the case here, then you can undo the edits. However, if you decide to do that, you should leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why also probably further clarify on the article's talk page. The other accounts involved might be not as familiar with Wikipedia editing as you are and not really know about things like WP:DR and WP:BRD, etc. so try to avoid WP:BITE. It also might help to mention in your edit summary that they can discuss things on the article's talk page. Even though there does appear to be a COI at play here with at least one of the other accounts, just reverting everything on that basis alone is not really a good thing to do; so, if you can improve on the content in any way without undoing it all, then that might be a better thing to do. If you want to get more editors involved who are experienced in editing articles about software to assess the article, then try asking at the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions. I think then I should not revert all the edits just like that but instead I will write about this situation on the talk page for other editors' attention and probably will look into the essence of what was added on those edits later by myself as well. Thank you all very much. Avbgok (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'll remove the sample code, the supported chart types and the big logo picture and add a detail box like the on the D3 page. How's that? Richard heyes

So, our organization was noticing there was a lot of outdated information in wikipedia about our industry, and we tried to provide an update to the information (not promotional!!), just basic 101 type of definitions, and trends, but it shows that our IP or userid got blocked/blacklisted. Why would that happen? Nothing we tried to edit was offensive, or promotional. We even provided links to resources that are publicly available in industry publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.199.134.100 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The only recent edit from this IP address was this, which has not been reverted. Judging from your comments, you were editing from a logged-in account, but you haven't given us any clue to this. My guess is that the account was blocked because you chose a name which implied you were editing on behalf of an organisation - if so, there will be a message on your user talk page telling you what you need to do. In fact, if you have been blocked for any reason, there should be a message on your user talk page explaining why.

But unless you tell us the username, or some of the articles you edited, it is unlikely that anybody here is going to be able to help you. --ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I became a monthly donor to Wikipedia and decided to set up a user page. As best as I could tell, it is a page that is intended to describe the user, but perhaps that is incorrect? It is not clear to me how the user page needs to be setup. I am not writing an article, just the user page. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeowulfTheDionysian (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:User pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would add that- while thanks for your donation- you don't need to donate to be a Wikipedia user, and donations have no bearing on your Wikipedia activities. All fundraising matters are handled by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is not usually involved with day to day operations here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Your User page and you are not one.If it comes to deletion of your current User page content, you can start over. And even if you decide to leave your User page empty, you will still be able to contribute to articles and comment on Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi BeowulfTheDionysian and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to put some information about yourself on your own user page, but it should not look like an article, so one change you can make is to change it to first person. Also, it should not advertise in any way. Best wishes for your future editing. Dbfirs 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

BeowulfTheDionysian, you are not allowed to remove a deletion template from a page you created. As your efforts are clearly in good faith, I removed it and blanked your userpage. Feel free to start over, but please consider making contributions to the encyclopedia (in other words, edit). A userpage is an unimportant detail. John from Idegon (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you John from Idegon, it has been a clumsy introduction for me. I just started becoming a monthly donor and thought I would become active in the community, but I see I have so much to learn. I'll give it some thought and try again at a later date. BeowulfTheDionysian (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

BeowulfTheDionysian, our training programs leave much to be desired. As en.wiki is entirely volunteer, that won't likely improve until an individual comes along that wants to fix that. One thing we do have is WP:TWA, an interactive learning tool formatted as a video game. Please try it before giving up. I doubt we share many common interests, so I'd be unable to help you with research, but you can always leave me or any other editor a note on their talk page if you have technical problems. Also, you may want to check out the various Wikiprojects for one that covers topics you are interested in. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have just donated $20,000 to the wikimedia foundation, and I was disappointed at the lack of recognition for my generosity. Was there a mistake? Just wondering how we can get this resolved. Thanks! - Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissods (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chrissods: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your generosity. The Teahouse volunteers don't work with donations and don't have access to donor information. Donors are anonymous by default for privacy reasons but can give permission to be named per foundation:Donor privacy policy/en#Sharing Donor Information. https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/ has an email address. You should qualify as a patron donor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Chrissods, as this forum is to answer editor's questions about how to edit Wikipedia, let me add this: Your status as a donor has no bearing whatsoever on your editing. Some editors donate, some don't. Either way, it's totally irrelevant to your or my editing activity. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, John, was that comment really necessary? Nick Moyes (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, thank you for your remark. I’d hoped to come here and be welcomed and thanked for my donation, but I’m glad that you seem to enjoy finding an unsubtle way to denigrate me and my contribution to the project. Take care now, and rest assured that your snide attitude is not lost on me. - Chris Chrissods (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Chrissods, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wow! That's an amazing donation, and far more than I earn in a whole year. So, thank you so, so much. I'm afraid none of us here can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, as English Wikipedia is run wholly by volunteers, and none of us receive any income whatsoever for our efforts. As you no doubt know, the WMF uses your generous donations, not only to fund the immense costs of hosting this amazing Encyclopaedia, but also in a huge program of education and outreach across the globe, as weĺl as the development of the software behind all our wikis, and research into its effectiveness. I would assume that any delay in acknowledging such a donation as you have made would be due to office closures over the Christmas/New Year period. I have genuinely no idea how the WMF office operates, but I would hope you might be willing to give them another week to respond to you. If you get no reply by then, and are concerned that your donation might not have reached its destination, please email: [email protected]. You can check you've donated to the correct address by checking the details here Once again, thank you for supporting Wikimedia, and all its projects. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chrissods. I will take you at your word, and therefore I thank you for your generous donation to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Please realize that the WMF operates hundreds of sites in hundreds of languages with a variety of different objectives. English Wikipedia is the largest of many WMF sites, but English Wikipedia editors and administrators, who are volunteers, have nothing at all to do with the fundraising and have no way at all to verify who is a financial donor and who isn't. Frankly, we do not care at all about financial donations when interacting with other editors. Here on English Wikipedia, we value your volunteer editorial contributions to this encyclopedia, because our goal 24 hours a day and seven days a week is to improve this encyclopedia, and we can easily verify whether or not you are doing so. It is fairly common that we deal with people who want an article changed in one way or another because they claim that they have donated money to the WMF. We must reject any such requests based on money because the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia always come first. I am sorry that you were offended by an earlier comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have rescinded my donation and explained to the foundation in detail why that is. Chrissods (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see what was so mean about John's comment. He was just stating the truth- we don't handle donations here, and they have no bearing on your activities here. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I find it curious that this user has done nothing on Wikipedia other than post about their $20,000 donation. Is there any independent way to know if this was given(and taken back)? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  As I understand it, 331dot if a person donates, and does not check the box allowing public sharing of donation info, there is no way for anyone outside the WMF office that handles donations to verify the donation (well maybe the tax authorities are told). And of course, even if we knew that Person X donated $10,000, we can't confirm that Person X edits as User:X without violating the privacy policy. Even if User:X openly claims to be Person X there is no easy and reliable way to confirm that. And In any case it shouldn't matter. Even if the claim is false, that is not a reason to block or treat edits differently, and if the claim is true that is certainly not a reason to give edits priority or special handling. So the only real answer is "Thank you, can we help you with editing?" to anyone who says "I donated $NNN." I'm sorry that this person took the response above as "snide" when I don't think it was so intended. But Misunderstandings do happen. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• How does one go about "recinding" a donation? I've ran a 501(c)3 for many years and that has never come up. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is real then it may refer to donate:FAQ#What is your refund policy? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I get templates Tram1203 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tram1203 and welcome to the Teahouse! Can you clarify what you would like to know about templates? There are many different type of templates used on Wikipedia, so it'd be easier for me to answer your question if I know what you need help with. Clovermoss (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Just wondering about a little typo I found on the main section of an electronics article. It's a lovely article. There's no 'edit source' link to fix the typo - though there're 'edit source' links next to subsections. How do I fix a typo in the main article? Thanks heaps :)  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchgatematerials (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On a computer there is an "edit source" link at the very top above the title. Not sure about on a phone though! --Bduke (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Researchgatematerials and welcome to the Teahouse! The edit button (if you're using a web browser instead of the app to edit) looks kind of like a pencil. It's at the top of an article and is the last button on the right. If you need clarification or help with other questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to come here again and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible for something on Wikipedia to be notable if they are a YouTuber with a million subscribers? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@CheatCodes4ever: We've always held that subscriber numbers don't matter when it comes to notability. ミラP 02:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What's up guys. Is there anything I could do to improve the lead section for Anthony Barr (American football) (or in other words, what to include)? --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 03:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi UCLAgirl623. You can find out more at MOS:LEAD, but the lead of an article should basically be a brief summary of the main points that are covered in more detail later in the body of the article. The current lead of the article doesn't seem badly written to me; if, however, you think you can improve it then go ahead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I recently merged Swaminarayan Sampraday to Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) as outlined in WP:MERGE. While I reconciled the talk page tags from the source page, do I need to also copy the source talk page (here) posts into the destination talk page (here)? Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would place on the talk page of the target (destination) article a link to the talk page of the source article, with a note that relevant discussion might be found there. They won't be significantly harder to find than old archived discussions with no merge. I would not advise copying old talk page discussions onto the new talk page or its archive pages (if any). If there are really significant discussion (major RfCs or agreements on significant points, say) you could include a separate note with a link right to the relevant discussion section, on an archive page if it has been archived. As long as there is a way for readers to get to all the old talk discussions without too much trouble, I would think that enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

DES Excellent, thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Aloha! Need help moving Draft:Hawaiian Lullaby into main space by experienced editors. Once done I can upload image. Thanks! Allanbcool (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Allanbcool. Your draft needs a "critical reception" section, which should summarize reviews of the album published in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Okay section added with sources as requested.--Allanbcool (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I was trying to make a new article up and it has been rejected. Please help me understand how I can make this page up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediaKind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethomas4 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stevethomas4. Do not try to submit advertisements posing as encyclopedia articles. Any neutral uninvolved editor would see your draft as an advertisement. Start by removing every single promotional word or phrase, and removing every single solitary bit of unreferenced content. Then, change your ugly, uninformative bare URLs to informative and correctly formatted references with titles, authors, publications, dates and so on. Check to be sure that every reference remaining is to a truly a reliable source, completely independent of MediaKind. Please comply fully with WP: PAID if it applies to you in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328. I have removed the unwanted text and links and submitted it again for the review. Please suggest your feedbacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediaKind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethomas4 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers will doubtless comment in due course, but one obvious point is that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference, see WP:CIRCULAR. Where relevant you may, of course, use wikilinks. It is also worth noting that in your questions it is better to use a wikilink Draft:MediaKind rather than the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MediaKind. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The other point, of course, is that you have totally ignored Cullen328's wise advice about resolving the bare URLs in your references, and about removing unreferenced text. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(Courtesy link: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC))

Hi, as you may know the Coppa page is out of control. I know the public outrage, and I feel it too. But for heaven's sake please lock the page, as it's getting out of control. Plz help us admin you are our only hope. Oh and happy New year 🍾  link— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.68.50 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi 98.246.68.50 and welcome to the Teahouse! I started a request for pending changes protection (which means review before edits are seen by non-logged in users) at Requests for page protection. Ultimately, it's up to an administrator to look at my report and decide what the best course of action is. Thank you for posting here, and feel free to come here again if you have any other questions about editing. Happy new year to you as well. Clovermoss (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 98.246.68.50. Thanks for pointing this out, but next if will make it easier for others to help you if you can provide a link or at least the exact name of the page where the problems exist.

In addition, you might want to take a look at WP:UP#NOT and WP:TPG because your user talk page is not really being used in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; so, you may want to save that content somewhere else before the page gets blanked by an administrator or another editor. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Lafée, also known as Sherry or Lee Sae-Bom, is a K-Pop artist who appeared on season 3, episode 9 of Korean music game show I Can See Your Voice. She released a single called Love Fever on November 8, 2018 and an EP called HELLO on January 10, 2019 (can be found here and has music videos, distributed via GENIE YouTube). Her voice is notable for its distinctive huskiness, which is more noticeable in her busking videos. Before appearing on I Can See Your Voice, she was a medical resident in Los Angeles.

Benefits of adding her page: People will know what happened to Sherry on the ICSYV page if they really liked her.

My main concern is that she might not be 'notable enough' to have a page, as per Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choerrybom (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC offers some "notable" chart position for bands/musicians. For claims like "husky voice" you'd need reliable sources. New articles are always a gamble, if you pick the draft route it could be rejected. If you go directly to the article namespace there can be a "speedy deletion request" in less than one minute, later followed up by an AFD, but an article surviving its AFD was good enough. –84.46.52.46 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have made a submission title "Romaine Morris" where it was declined due to " The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.", as I am inexperience on the platform I would appreciate some help in order to meet the above requirement. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarendon Post (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In the Declined, the reviewer recommended you go to Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

An article I wrote Draft:Tibet House US was taken down and made a draft for articles for creation. Aside from the fact that the article was live on Wiki for months, had well over 1000 views including views and edits by other editors, it was taken down without any prior notice, and tagged: "Do not copy-paste material from sources, or your submission will be rejected for copyright violations. Write from a neutral point of view and base your article on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself or your own business. If you do so, you must declare it." -- I checked all the instructions related to these claims and do not understand why the article was taken down. Nothing was copy and pasted except for direct quotes from reliably sourced articles that are listed according to Wiki standards as quotes with citations. All the citations are from reliable sources independent of the subject. It was not written about myself or my own business. I also improved the general Tibet House article so the Tibet House and Tibet House US entries were up to date and in line with reliably sourced facts. I took a lot of time on this article and would appreciate some insight and help. Thank you. (Ogmany (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC))

Those bullets (copy-paste, neutral, not you or your business) are standard for the template that is placed atop not-yet-submitted drafts. You are not accused/suspected of any of those activities. As for why the article was moved to Draft, that is because the reviewer (User:Rosguill) who took this action did so because what you wrote does not meet Wikipedia standards, yet has potential if edited properly to become an article. Query the reviewer on the reviewer's talk page for more guidance. David notMD (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I've been adding the logos of the Spanish football clubs that were missing and made a mistake - my logos were .jpgs with white background. I wasn't sensible enough to read the guidelines first, but I am willing to correct them to the .pngs with transparent background. However, when I tried to upload a new correct version, I've got this error: "File extension ".jpg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/png)". It's my first time dealing with images, so I have no clue what's going on. I've read guidelines on images now but I can't find anything about this error there. Can please someone explain what am I doing wrong and how to upload a new logo? Would also be grateful for a link to read about it. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Less Unless. Since the previous versions of the file's are in jpeg format, the software is telling you in its own way that it's not going to replace them with a newer versions uploaded in png format. So, you should upload the png version as a new file, not an update, and then replace the jpeg files manually with the png versions in the relevant articles. You can then add Template:PNG version available to the jpeg file pages. Once the jpeg files have been removed, they will become orphaned non-free files as explained in WP:F5, and will be tagged for speedy deletion by a bot. If you uploaded the jpegs, you'll receive a notification of this on your user page that you can just ignore. If someone else uploaded the jpegs, they receive the notifications. If nobody tries to reuse the jpegs, they will be deleted after five days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly for the detailed explanation. Happy Holidays!--Less Unless (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone hat/hab or cot/cob portions of a talk page or is this right reserved to admins or selected editors. Can anyone provide a link to the policy and guidance page which discusses the appropriate use of these tools. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I'm not sure I quite understand your question. Could you please rephrase it so I or other Teahouse hosts can better answer it? Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Oldperson. There's nothing special about the templates {{hat}} and {{cot}}. If you can edit a page, you can insert these. See the links for how to use them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As ColinFine says, no special rights are required to use these and other similar templates Oldperson. However, one should be careful not to disrupt discussion or hide legitimate comment. See WP:TP, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and the documentation for each individual template. If in doubt, suggest that another editor close the discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegelHow does one get another editor (I presume you are referring to an univolved editor) closing out that discussion. If so how does one do that without WP:CANVASS. What I have notice in the use of hat or cot is that it is often employed as a censorshp tool to hide talk conversations that an editor does not like. That's the way I see it anyway. As a "legal" way of hiding a talk conversation, in as much it is not kosher to modify or delete anothers conversation, and a revert on a talk page can only be done if it is obvious vandalism. Or am I missing something.Oldperson (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I changed the brackets so that this was linking to WP:CANVASS rather than transcluding it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

oldperson tha tis one of the concerns with the use of such templates. I have seen people post in a discussion "I wish someone would close this, but I am too WP:INVOLVED". The general ruel is that when there seems to be consensus that a conversation is not closed, or pre-existing consensus that something is outside of the scoup of a page, using {{hat}} is reasonable. (For example, a person asking a question not in English was closed recently right here on the teahouse.) Like any other edit, use of such a template can be reverted, and I have seen people revert such a closure when they thought it was incorrect. Like many other things here, it is a judgement call. A general appeal for closure in the discussion itself would clearly not be canvassing. A request to an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help, which resulted in a closure by that editor's judgement would probably not be either. A specific request to a specific person to close, might be. If the discussion is basically trolling, hatting is often reasonable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I think there's a important distinction be "CLOSE" (i.e. WP:CLOSE) and "close" (as in "shut down" or "stop"). Most talk page discussions don't seem to require a formal CLOSE; they sort of just slow down to the point where the posts have stopped and nobody seems interested anymore or there seems to be an obvious WP:CONSENSUS which is then implemented and enforced by WP:SILENCE. Some discussions, however, might benefit from a more formal CLOSE and these can be requested at WP:AN/RFC. Ideally, as explained WP:ACD, a non-involved editor will see the request, look at the discussion, decide whether a consensus has been established and then implement it. The editor doing this doesn't need to be an administrator and anyone can CLOSE a discussion as long as the do so in good-faith and in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Many people, however, seem to prefer to have administrators CLOSE discussion because of the following reasons: (1) an administrator can do certain things like delete pages that non-administrators can't and thus can more readily implement whatever close is reached; and (2) administrators (at least most of them these days) had to actually go through a somewhat formal process to become an administrator and thus have already been vetted in a sense by the community as being trusted to make appropriate decisions. This doesn't mean mistakes are never made; a CLOSE by an administrator is not automatically considered beyond reproach just because it was made by an administrator anymore than a CLOSE made by a non-administrator is automatically considered suspect just because it was made by a non-administrator. Any CLOSE can be challenged/reviewed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but there needs to be a good reason that generally has to do with the actual CLOSE itself and not the person making it.

A "close", on the other hand, has to do more to do with WP:TPG#Off-topic posts and is more related to things like WP:NOTFORUM and other parts of WP:NOT. It's sort of a way to remind others to stick to the subject at hand, which in the case of an article talk page usually always means the subject of improving the corresponding article in a Wikipedia sense and not a general discussion of the subject of the article. Sometimes these posts are simply answered by a polite "stay on topic" type of answer or just ignored; collapsing/hatting seems to reserved to case where things have started to get a bit out of control or the post is a rather long wall of text that does nothing but really take up space and has no potential for positive discussion related to Wikipedia or the post otherwise disrupts an ongoing discussion and risks causing it to go off in some weird unproductive tangent if left to as is. Figuring out such things can be a bit subjective and not everyone may agree; so, care needs to be taken in doing so with respect to contentious and complex discussions.

It seems that you have a particular discussion in mind; so, you kind of need to self-assess whether you're looking for a CLOSE or just want to close a discussion. If all you're looking for is the latter, then often the easiest thing to do is just stop posting and move on. Other people will either stop posting and the discussion will slow down and eventually end of its own accord, or new people will post and keep things moving towards some consensus. You can always return to the discussion later on and post. One thing to be careful of though is WP:BLUDGEON because even when one's intentions are good it can create a situation where others may be less inclined to participate because they don't want to get caught up in a heated back-and-forth between two sides which show no sign of even wanting to try and reach a consensus but are more interested in WP:WIN instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have recently come across this draft a few months ago when it was declined three times by two different reviewers due to the same editor resubmitting the article without thoroughly following advice. In the following months since I found the draft, I have added several reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of the song, while also adding primary sources to support these statements. The draft was then rejected due to the lack of secondary sources and for the same reasons as the previously declined submissions, despite adding several more reliable secondary sources.

I have since followed the reviewer's advice to discuss the state of the draft over at the main article's talk page two weeks ago. However, no other editor had responded over the two weeks, and I have not been able to gain consensus about whether contents of the draft should be merged as suggested by the reviewer, or if any other editors are willing to assist in the editing process. I am also unsure about the approximate number of reliable secondary sources that would be acceptable for the draft to pass submission, as information in most sources are combined with the announcement of the DNA World Tour or only solely mentioned during a television performance of said song.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: in your opinion, which four of the 20 references in the draft do most to establish that the subject is notable, by linking to reliable published independent sources with in-depth discussion of the subject? Maproom (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you for responding. I'm not sure if these two references establish detailed notability of the song itself, but both [7] and [8] exclusively mention the song's publicity through televised performances. Billboard is a reliable reference for the publication of the subject, as it documents music events and charts. Even though the song may be overshadowed by the announcement of their world tour and album release, these four secondary sources briefly detail the song's release.[9][10][11][12] This source [13] only spends half of the interview about the song itself; however the content found in the article is extensive and thoroughly used within the draft. Although barely any of these sources individually discuss the subject in full due to the announcement of the album's release date and world tour overshadowing it, the seven secondary sources listed should indicate that the song is somewhat notable, in addition to charting on multiple music charts as seen in the draft's Charts section. Thank you again for taking the time to respond. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: I've added around eight references to the draft since from several secondary sources, which should help establish the song's notability. Feel free to comment if you have time. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: the problem was not the number of references. When a reviewer assesses whether you've established that the subject is notable, it's the quality of the references that counts, not the quantity. I'll repeat my previous question, which you did not answer: in your opinion, which four of the references in the draft do most to establish that the subject is notable? Maproom (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: These sources [14][15][16][17] all provide context on the song's notability. The song was released alongside the announcement of the album's release date and world tour, which doesn't conflict with the notability guidelines that excludes sources derived from an album review. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Angryjoe1111: I can't judge 8, as I'm not registered with the site and so can't read most of it. 9 is based on an interview with a band member and so not independent. 10 does have two sentences of discussion of the song. 11 is based on a press release, and so not independent. That's really not enough to establish notability. I have to agree with Robert McClenon, who did not just decline your draft (meaning that it did not establish the notability of its subject), he rejected it (meaning that he considers the subject is simply not notable, and no amount of work by you can change that). Maproom (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Angryjoe1111 - I don't often reject a submission unless there is something wrong with it or unless it is hopeless. In this case the problem was that the reviewers were ignoring the advice to discuss at the album talk page and were just tendentiously resubmitting the song. The discussion at the album talk page is only after I rejected the song. So if there is a consensus at the album talk page that the song should have a separate article, I for one will re-review it, but only if there is discussion. What I do not like is repeated resubmission without following the reviewer advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Thank you for clarifying what went wrong with the draft. It seems that the initial editor's constant resubmissions had a negative impact on how I would have needed to make drastic improvements from where he last left off. I am also at fault for not following your comments on the draft, as I was trying to ensure that the draft would be validated by several reliable secondary sources. Since the album talk page is inactive, there is no consensus on whether they would approve of the draft or whether I could merge contents into the article, which is also another reason why I brought this question here. I will notify you again when the draft is agreed upon in the talk page. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Angryjoe1111. If you get consensus at the album talk page, that will override the rejection, and the rejected draft can then be deleted to make way for a new draft. In the meantime, there should be discussion at the album talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this situation is relatively common at Articles for Creation with music drafts. Often an author is advised to discuss a draft on an album at the talk page about the group, or the author of a draft about a song is advised to discuss it at the album talk page. For some reason, some authors don't understand the idea of discussing at another talk page. So this happens from time to time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I am confident that there is a term that is not adequately defined and I have questions pertaining to it. The term is vascular and anthroprocentrically in wikipedia it goes to the the human anatomy. This is a term that could refer to plants, how water or energy flows through ecology, how goods and services are distributed in an economy, and in finance it can deal with the velocity and the trajectories of the flow of money...it can also deal with the spread and distribution of ideas and thoughts throughout humanity and possibly biology. If vascular is searched for in wiki an immediate link to "Blood Vessel" ...how do I communicate with the right people to make this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.250.144 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi 71.12.250.144 and welcome to the Teahouse! This is the article on Vascular plants. Vascular is currently a redirect and that is why Blood vessel showed up when you typed vascular as a search term. As for the other terms listed, do reliable sources provide in-depth coverage (think several paragraphs) on these terms beyond a dictionary definition? If so, you might want to start a draft for an article. If not, you should know that Wikipedia is not dictionary, but dictionary defintions are welcome at Wikitionary [18]. Clovermoss (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a draft currently being reviewed and I would like to know if accomplish with reliability --152.207.241.206 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi 152.207.241.206 and welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your contributions but the only edit I could find was your edit here. This is likely because the IP address that you are using to edit has changed. Could you provide a link to your draft so I can see it? Also, it would be helpful if you clarify what you would like help with. Clovermoss (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I edit a semi-protected article? If it is only a minor change in the way the word is spelled can I use in brackets? tufah /tofah توپھ تفع — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haridallas (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Haridallas and welcome to the Teahouse! Most articles can be edited directly, but a small percentage are protected. You could fill out an edit request on the talk page of the article you'd like to improve with the changes you would like to make. If there are any other questions that you have about editing Wikipedia, feel free to come back here and ask. Clovermoss (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed a possible edit-war brewing on Emilia Clarke, but wanted to ask whats the correct format to use anyway in the lead. is an English actress or is a British actress? What would be preferred? Govvy (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Govvy. The simple answer is to ask what Emilia would prefer, to start a discussion on the talk page, and to request sources (which don't confuse England and the UK). We have a rough guide at WP:UKNATIONALS. One way to think about it (which can probably be pedantically debated but I'm not going to argue about) is that British is the sovereign nationality, whereas English is more like an ethnic or national identity - and identity is normally self-defined. In other words, unless she's identified as English, she's probably British. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: She is both English and British, yes, but I couldn't find any documentation for the correct way to open the lead for an article. You didn't seem to give a straight answer. There should be some MoS for that surely? Govvy (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If you read the linked 'guideline', you'll realise there is no standard solution, and any straight answer would depend on the specific details and consensus. Yes, this is one permanently tricky area - it always has been, and always will be. The starting point however, should normally be nationality, as in citizenship. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Govvy, Happy New Year from all of us at the Teahouse. Further to the advice above, the best format is to repeat whatever the reliable sources use that describes someone's origins. Speaking from myself, as someone born in England, of English parents, I would describe my nationality (q.v.) as 'British' and my country of birth as 'England'. So that also allows you describe me as 'English'. So I tend to think British actor/actress sounds fine, though if all the family origins stated in article relate to only one of the UK component countries, I'd also say that 'English' is more accurate, and possibly better and equally acceptable. In the article about Emilia Clarke, neither source in the lead says anything about her origins, bar one which reports she believes she is 1/8th Indian. But as that source is just stating what she has said she believes, we might not regard that as reliable. But if not, what do we believe? Best to say nothing on that, perhaps.

But, to answer your general question, I did find this rather long essay: Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. It's not a policy or a guideline, but it can be helpful to steer us. Within that, note section 5 (Changing an existing UK nationality) and section 6 (Cannot decide?). They key messages there are don't try to enforce one uniform approach across Wikipedia, and don't edit war. Hope this helps.

Finally on a somewhat humourous note, it has often been said that the English media likes to describe the tennis player, Andy Murray, as 'British' when he wins, but as 'Scottish' whenever he loses. (Regards from the UK!) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: @Zzuuzz: Cheers, I am certainly not going to edit-war, I was just trying to work out what approach to take with what I was seeing happening on the article. Happy New Year to you to btw. Well, I am going out now to enjoy New Years Day, peace by with you. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

About this program does every one know that people with similaar intrests can join here and create and improve wikipedia articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venu ryalapati (talk • contribs) 06:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia, Venu ryalapati. I assume you meant your question to be a new topic? I don't think everyone here knows about The Teahouse, though we include links to it in many of our welcome messages and help pages. And I see one of our hosts left one on your own talk page. We also have an automated bot which sends out invites to the Teahouse to a selection of brand new editors. I hope this answers your question. If you have any others, come back anytime to ask. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Regards from the UK, and a Happy New Year. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the way to unlock an archive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.144.194 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll need to be more specific, IP user. What kind of archive? How is it locked? Why do you want to unlock it? Are you even asking about something in editing Wikipedia (if not, this is not the right place for the question. If it is about computing unrelated to Wikipedia, WP:RDC would be a better place). --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know how many archives are present on wikipedia but I want to know about that archive which contains information about awards and accolades only( which are given to notable persons).I'll extract some information from it and use it as a reference in one of the article. I'll not copy any information for personal use. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.144.194 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Wikipedia contains many archives of various kinds, but almost none of them are in any sense locked. Most can be read by any editor. I don't know of any archive dealing with awards and accolades Most information about awards and accolades is included in articles about people who have received them, or organizations who have given them out.

Do note that no Wikipedia article should ever be used as a reference in any other Wikipedia article. However if a reliable source is cited in one article, that citation may normally be reused in other articles, if it is relevant.

Note also that any information on Wikipedia is available for personal (or commercial) use under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license (or the GFDL). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

223.230.144.194's only other edits are to this discussion about Shamsheer Vayalil, where AlanM1 removed an award claim as the cited source and the "archived version as of December 2011" did not support the claim. Presumably, this is the "archived version as of December 2011" to which they referred. 71.234.210.113 (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This has become an WP:IDHT and WP:CIR problem, likely due to the IP editors' age (it's supposedly two pre-teen/teen brothers). The discussion on the talk page shows consensus that the award is not notable, which is ultimately why it is not in the article. The IP editor keeps on it, though, on help pages, user talk pages, etc. He's found an issu/scribd-type document pile with limited access to a PR announcement and is trying to get full access to it (without paying for it or whatever that particular site's deal is). Note the document is classified under "Arts & Humanities – Communications – Marketing". The part that they don't/won't get is that it doesn't matter – multiple editors have decided it's a pay-for-promotion award, and therefore doesn't belong here. The IP editors are not old enough to have the real-world knowledge to gauge such things, and apparently not old enough to understand the explanations that they've been given, why what they're doing is wrong, or have a clue that they don't know. In any case, it's just WP:TENDENTIOUS at this point. I've already asked an admin about this situation privately, because I'm stumped about what to do. Now I guess I'm asking publicly. (Reminder: see the range for their contribs – the IPs change frequently: 223.230.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• @AlanM1:I don't believe this. I'm in shock that " Stevie award " is pay for promotion award. How can anyone buy an award for his/her organisation? As per my knowledge awards are given for appreciation . You must be joking with us or fooling around. Is there any proof which describes it as pay for promotion award?

Thanks. (223.230.171.242 (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

Welcome to the real world. There are also diploma mills where you can buy an academic degree, predatory publishing where you can pay to have any "academic paper" published, and so on. Read Stevie Awards. In 2019 you must pay an entry fee of up to $545 to be considered for an award.[19] https://stevieawards.com/aba/frequently-asked-questions#Q25 says:

Q: How many Stevie Award winners will there be?

A: In the Stevie Awards' system of judging, all nominations that deserve to be honored (by their final average scores), regardless of category, are honored. Unlike other awards programs, we don't limit the number of winners per category. Historically 30-40% of all entries submitted are honored with some level of award.

So maybe they do disqualify the worst entries. But if you pay for a 1/3 chance to get an award then I still consider it a vanity award. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• So, this is the reason behind, removing it from all the articles.
• Can anyone tell about some of the articles name from where it's name (Stevie award) has been removed? (223.230.171.242 (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

I had posted article on Kashmir Observer, a 22 year old English daily newspaper from Kashmir, India. However it is no more available on wiki. Is there a way to restore it? Below is the link https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Kashmir_Observer.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulfazal1966 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Kashmir Observer explained the rationale for deletion, and includes a link to WP:Deletion review. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if this is obvious or the answer is unclear. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 18:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thatoneweirdwikier, Happy New Year. I've not contributed at Peer Review for quite some while, but it very much depends on whether the topic of the article that you or someone else has put forward for review happens to attract the attention of someone interested enough to work through it. It could take many weeks even before someone picks it up to start work on it. Of course, for GA and FA topics, I imagine it could be even longer, as there's a lot of time commitment that goes into those two formal processes, and many more weeks (depending on complexity) before it passes through the other side. (I have a GA article I keep telling myself I must put forward again for FA re-assessment, but it needs signficant time commitment not only from reviewers, but also from the nominating editor). Of course, you could probably have answered your own question by going to Peer Review and looking at the date stamps on discussions, or asking on the project talk page. I haven't checked them myself, so let me know if you think I might have advised you incorrectly. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a bit of a puzzle that I would like some advice on, assuming things play out as I expect. I have nominated a stub biography article for deletion on the basis that the person mentioned does not meet notability guidelines. However, I have then discovered that this article is one of thousands (about 6,000 in all) created by one editor, and many of these stubs are little more than one line long, although usually with a couple of references (often the same ref for all of them).

So a sample of these pages are the Archdeacon of Raphoe, and one editor had the idea of redirecting one of these stubs to the Archdeacon of Raphoe page and placing the information there. Thus I collated all the information from all the stubs and put them into a table on the Archdeacon of Raphoe page. 20 stubs are now copied in their entirety into that page, bringing all the information into one place, preserving the editor's work but allowing something more encylopaedic.

My question is this: If the AfD goes through (i.e. editors agree the stub is for a non notable figure), and if we all agree that the Archdeacon of Raphoe page is a good way of going forward, is there a quick way to nominate the 19 other stubs to be deleted and redirected en masse? And bearing in mind that there are 6,000 of these stubs, is there a repeatable way we can do this for other similar collections (bearing in mind that a few of these biographies will be notable after all, and thus should stand in their own right)?

Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sirfurboy,

As you copied the content from all the stubs, the appropriate venue would be WP:Requests for merge instead of AfD; these titles generally should not be deleted because they preserve attribution as mandated by Wikipedia's license (but this could be discussed at that venue).

In general, with large-scale nominations, the best advice I can give is to include all 20 stubs in one AfD if exactly the same rationale applies. It would go against community consensus to use one AfD to "speedy" delete/redirect another article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS dictates that every page in an XfD must be discussed based on its individual merits, so the result of one AfD will be irrelevant in determining the fate of other articles outside said AfD. There's no shortcut: if there are 6,000 stubs, best practices would necessitate discussing all 6,000 of them unless a broader community discussion (not an XfD) decides otherwise. ComplexRational (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What do I do when a user deletes a portions of edits I have made? I was working on an article and all the sudden the work I was doing got deleted. I've contacted them and I am waiting for a response. Page of concern: Algodoo (ThisIsKen (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

Hello, ThisIsKen. Lightningmatt has now replied to you on their talk page. Please have a look at BRD for how the process is supposed to go, and look at the various pages he has mentioned, (such as WP:OR - though it would have been kinder to a new user if Lightningmatt had actually linked to them rather than just naming them.) --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I have responded back to them and I'm going to try to start a discussion on the talk page. (ThisIsKen (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jitendra_Kumar_Soni
Draft:Jitendra Kumar Soni

Jitendra Soni is awarded with Sahitya Academy Award in the year 2016 for "Rankhaar" - Rajasthani Poetry, i have given sufficient references for the same. On the other hand he has published more then 10 books.

Mr. Soni is also awarded with Uttam Jeevan Raksha Padak, to save 8 people.

Following are the reference :

• https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=135762
• https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/jeevan-raksha-padak-awards-2015-announced-1453717402-1
• https://www.sify.com/news/jeevan-raksha-padak-awards-2015-announced-news-national-qbznKiacgdhfb.html

Kindly guide me how to improve my article and get it approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmohta (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Dkmohta, You need many more good sources. If you could find these sources, then why are they not in the draft? You need to find as many good references as possible, that have significant coverage of the subject, and add them to the draft. Expanding the draft with a section about the subject's life and career would also help out greatly. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dkmohta: I second what CaptainEek said above. But please be aware you should not put too much emphasis on “You need to find as many good references as possible” but rather concentrate on “as many good references as possible”. (Please don't consider this note an evaluation of your links – I didn't even check them. This is a general hint on referencing: quality before quantity. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for detailed guidelines.) --CiaPan (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I will add that a rule that has recently been gaining popularity with reviewers is the rule of three high-quality sources, in particular if a draft has been declined due to a lack of references. Some editors will reference-bomb their draft with a large number of sources. It is better to find three preferably unrelated sources. Additional sources beyond that are good, but it is more important to find a few high-quality sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to create a bio of a friend who has recently passed away. How can i start?Richie Racer (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Richie Racer. I would start by making a note of as many of the published sources about your friend as you can, and then deciding whether they are sufficient to meet Wikipedia's "notability" criteria, which are summarised at WP:GOLDENRULE. If there is enough coverage, further advice on creating a draft article is available at Help:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Richie Racer: I am sorry for your loss. You might take note of the section above this (#Creating a Biography Page for my Father), WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and consider memorial hosts like [20] and [21]. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)