Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

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

Most recent archives
1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227

(Please remember to

So, I just wanted to see what edits are okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvisoryOnMixer (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable source for the information you are introducing or the change you are making. And if anyone reverts or disagrees with your edit, discuss it on the article talk page before attempting to re-introduce it. Does that help answer your question? Hug^syrup 11:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

AdvisoryOnMixer, the article Help:Editing contains more than technical advice. It steers you away from risky editing practices as well. I'd recommend a thorough perusal, along with any relevant articles or essays it might cite, including Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.--Quisqualis (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, AdvisoryOnMixer. I assume you are asking about this reversion of one of your edits by Dartslilly. You asked about it on their talk page, to which they replied to go on the article talk page (but you probably missed it because they archived/cleaned up their talk page two minutes later).

I would agree with the reversal: the sentence you add was unsourced, and we on Wikipedia are big fans of

reliable source

as citation for every fact in an article (such as a news report by the specialized press). You might answer that "popular as a montage song" is not an objective, well-defined fact, and nobody has written about it yet; but those are reasons not to include it in Wikipedia. (I will also add that beginning a sentence with "And" is usually frowned upon in semi-formal English like we use in our articles.)

Dartslilly's actions were not very newbie-friendly (in particular, although they are right that content issues should be discussed on article talk pages rather than user talk pages, an explanation of verifiability would have had its place on a user talk page) but they were probably scrolling through a long list of new edits and reverting poor ones by the tens or hundreds. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, @

WP:DIFF to the reversion. The editors above have it right, and I see you have received a response on the article talk page. Please write in complete sentences and take some time to review the policy links here and on your talk page. Dartslilly (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I was trying to fix some typos on an article about a television show that was translated to English from another language. I saw the content while correcting the typos and the whole article has been written in a way that makes it impossible to understand. It's terribly complicated and the article introduced the characters at random times as it explained the story. It had loads of grammar mistakes, I corrected around 2% of the total grammar mistakes and It got harder as I tried to correct more because it was very hard to understand what the writer had meant. The story was explained in such detail that I found myself sweating while trying not to forget the it. When I saw that it was classified as "Simple English" I almost had a seizure. I decided to translate it from the original language so I changed the language. The moment I did that, I got some messages in the language (which I don't understand) and I think it damaged my brain cells beyond repair. It should probably be corrected/rewritten as soon as possible to not cause any permanent brain damage for other users. And please don't make me do it, I beg of you. Here is the link, I reccomend you to hide behind something and tie yourself to it as the content will shake you to your core and the horror of what the world has become will probably cause some suicidal feelings. Open at your own risk: By the way, I think it feeds on the souls of the users it kills. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Appears RV is referring to Bojhena Se Bojhena (TV series)

It is not unique to see articles about TV shows with endless meandering plot summaries like that one. Plot summaries should be MUCH shorter, but it is a frustrating and probably pointless task to try to edit them down, given that there are at least dozens of enthusiastic well-meaning fans for each TV show, who feel very strongly that every minor detail in hundreds of episodes belong in the Wikipedia article. The poor English is also par for the course, I'm afraid. (By the way, the article is not written in Simple English. It looks like the same IP user added the identical plot description in Simple English Wikipedia and here – it's not a translation, unless it is a translation from Bangla.) --bonadea contributions talk 22:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as the one you mention,

LOTR and anime stuff. If I were interested, things would be different, but I mostly try to keep all those doors shut.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

RegardsRodrigo Valequez (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem just the right person to do the cleanup. You can be bold and trim the plot, removing excessive details. This section usually has two or three paragraphs. The current information is best moved to a section devoted to Episodes on account of the sheer details involved. Just noting that the bulk of the content is unreferenced.

I have recently tried to draft an article but was rejected due to a lack of discussion on the parent article and it being a request to spin out an article. It was then that I found out that an (English) article already exists but was stubbed down to a redirect possibly due to the lack of sources or possibly due to Notability.

Because I am rather new to editing in Wikipedia, I would like to check when is it possible to edit/populate an existing redirect article with content. But because the draft was rejected due to a lack of discussion, I am confused on the next steps I can take. (Should I have edited the stubbed down article?).

It is worth mentioning that this article exists in a different language (Japanese and Chinese).

Existing stubbed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Y%C5%ABki_Wakai&redirect=no

Rejected Draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yūki_Wakai

Thank you!

Happynaru (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background: Three of the six members of

Iris (Japanese band) have existing articles, but not Yuki Wakai. David notMD (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh? Does a redirect article (linked above) not count as an existing article (it was an article before 19 November 2019 based on the history of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yūki%20Wakai&action=history)? Is it possible or permissible to 'revive' the redirect article by editing directly onto it (essentially copying what was on my draft and pasting it on the existing article) then mark the draft for deletion? Happynaru (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happynaru, Yes. You can turn a redirect into an article. I haven't looked at the sourcing to decide if it's a good idea, but it is possible. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of your responses. I will take a look at my draft once again and further revise it to remove any possible biasedness or anything that could represent promotional material before actually moving it over to the stubbed article. As mentioned by David notMD just now, three of the members do have proper articles, which I assume could possibly justify creation/re-activation of the other three members' articles and their respective biography and filmography without a call for discussion on the parent talk page. Adding individual members' filmography on the parent page might be confusing or might make the parent page longer than it should.

As Robert McClenon have previously rejected the draft, with the current context, would you consider this issue to be resolved? Apologies for tagging you here despite your busy schedule but I was hoping to get your blessing on this. Thank you! Happynaru (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Iris (Japanese band). That is what you should do, discuss. If the other editors at the group talk page agree that she should have a separate article, I can accept the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh! Thanks for the clarification! Happynaru (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t know the best way to respond to this threatening warning on my talk page. I can’t guarantee I’ll never add unsourced content to any article, as a rule I build articles with sources. Is this really a thing that Wikipedia is now warning that content has to be sourced to be added? My understanding was that it had to be verifiable in reliable sources. Not that one was required to add those sources at the same time. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I came here a few days ago to inquire if that is an actual rule; the result being no, just a perennial rejected rule. In practice anyone can add unsourced content, it may be questioned or removed but that’s also true with sourced content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:VERIFY still notes that "This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Doug Weller talk 19:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

First off, it should be easily seen from the articles I create or improve that indeed I source pretty much everything on them.

I was alarmed that someone insisted in deleting perfectly true, and easily verifiable content solely because a source wasn’t added at the same time. In my albeit limited experience, anons add unsourced content all the time and editors incorporate it if it’s true, or remove it if it’s not. I felt Serg’s approach was aggressively destructive and possibly hostile to newer editors. Their threat is implied within the official warning. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to add unsourced material (except in a few cases such as unsourced defamatory material about a living person), and others are allowed to remove it as unsourced. If you add material without giving a source, editors are likely to assume that you don't know of a source, otherwise you would have cited it yourself. Maproom (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase perfectly true, and easily verifiable content confuses me. If you know that it is easily verifiable, what reason could there be for you not to add the verifying refs? --bonadea contributions talk 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ref I had was off video, so not in print for me to easily add. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see from this user's closing comments here, the warning had no effect whatsoever and the user intends to go on adding unsourced material at will while expecting others to source it. Might that specific problem be more serious than what a teahouse item is able to address? Just asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption of bad faith here is as off the mark as your assumption that verifiably true information had to be deleted because a source wasn’t added at the same time. People just might be better than your assessment of them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to go on adding unsourced material while expecting others to source it later? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve stated already my articles created and improved should answer that baited question fairly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you make an edit to Wikipedia,

Edit summary It has plenty of room to explain the origin of your material in the absence of a citation. In the interest of both your efficiency and the value of this encyclopedia, I encourage you to use it to its fullest.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I continue to be concerned about this user after h refusal to answer the "baited" question about adding unsourced info while expecting others to source it. The fact that the warning about that on h talk page now has been archived withour resolution only heightens my concern. Looks like the only result here is that we can expect the user, in a now self-justified modus operandi, to continue adding unsourced material while expecting the rest of us to source it. Have we actually authorized such a thing here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The refs just vanished from the page

I have undo the ref related edits done in the last couple of hours or so, including those done by @John B123:. Technically, it should take on at least this revision (before the series of my edits) in which the Reflist and Navbox appears ok. However, with the added content by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold and a couple of other editors, the Navbox template is not showing while Reflist template is ok. robertsky (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@PrimeHunter: A content split would be the quickest way to resolve this issue then? robertsky (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Events, reactions, and measures in mainland China would solve it for now with the first part using 68% of the template limit and the second part 37% (not counting reference templates which would have to be copied to the other page). Currently it would only need a 7% template reduction to fit in one page but the article is expanding fast so that looks like a short-term solution. Two articles may become insufficient later so maybe it should be split by month. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Split content by month completed. Thanks for the advise. robertsky (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the problem has been fixed for now.  :) Thanks you @Robertsky:. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 is using 92%. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BOLD edit in the next couple of days to remove the case statistics template from the monthly pages and put it in the list article instead, while putting a notice on the impacted pages describing why it is done so, and for any other editors to pick up on how to downsize the case stats template. robertsky (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Can someone please fix the bot archiver template on Talk:MARCOS. It doesn't seem to be working.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I've corrected one obvious error, so we'll wait to see whether that works when the bot next runs. I've also added an index and search for the archives when they appear. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 18:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The archive bot has now picked it up. I spotted one further error & corrected it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need website on wiki but have not been tried it but now I need to learn more about Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gootaorom12 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello

HELP:YFA carefully and decide if it's a good idea. If you want to create your own wiki, Fandom (website) may be worth looking into. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 07:15, 9 February 2020

Hello

NOTWEBHOST. --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

idk hopefully yall can either just remove the claim written in or find actual citations for it. here's the link to it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics#cite_ref-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.99.100 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads-up. At some point the wrong ISBN was entered, and a helpful bot then added the links to the picture book. (And yes, it's ok to swear, as long as it is not directed at another person – general profanity is fine, attacks are not.) I've fixed the ISBN and other parts of the reference. --bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - thanks for that. In future, you might simply wish to leave that kind of information on the article Talk page (there's a tab right next to the article tab at the top left) To offer an alternative answer to your question: profanity doesn't bother me personally (I use it from time to time IRL), I think that as Wikipedia matures (it'll soon be 21 years old!) and we have higher and higher expectations that we all act professionally and respectfully, it is incumbent upon us all to set a good example and not use offensive or profane language in any of our writings - especially when welcoming newcomers, as we do here at the Teahouse. It just sets a poor example. That said - we wouldn't have told you off for using it as you did, but avoiding using it is far better, methinks. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Indeed, different individuals have different personal opinions on the subject, none of which is more or less valid than any other – but it does seem relevant to mention the fact that there is no policy or guideline forbidding the use of peofanity as long as users are not uncivil to each other. --bonadea contributions talk 21:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am doing the criteria to finish mission 6 & mission 7, I am unable to move forward. My contributions list my accomplishments, but I do not earn the badge or move forward. Please assist me in this dilemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL Fenger (talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:VPT. Interstellarity (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It has allowed me to do mission 9, but do I have to write complete "New" article to continue? I am not finding any category that does not already have a Wiki post of some sort already done...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL Fenger (talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Derek Mackay wikipage the following reference needs to be used twice https://www.parliament.scot/msps/currentmsps/98609.aspx How can this be done by only having one link in the references? presently theres two.

Devokewater (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At present that ref seems to be used only once, but if it needs to be reused the process is at

WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks David Biddulph Devokewater (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor has been removing edits from

Devokewater (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You and another editor have left messages on that editor's Talk page. If the editor persists, then reported it as edit warring (

WP:EW), which could lead, initially, to a short-term block from editing. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

EC@

Edit War Noticeboard. I note that their user name literally means "True Scot", which may be meaningful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Eggishorn + David notMD

Devokewater (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like for advice in how to properly submit this article so it is not rejected. I've read several wikipedia pages about how to properly send an article however I can't quite grasp on why it is not notable enough. thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukoner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about User:Sukoner/sandbox, it already has been rejected. You submitted it and it was declined, and the feedback in the box on the draft page gave you lots of useful links, including to WP:Notability, but without addressing the problem you resubmitted it and not surprisingly it was rejected. Before you try again you need to to read all the useful links in the feedback you received on your sandbox page, together with the other useful links in the welcome message on your user talk page. When you've read those, if you want to write about a subject which is notable and you have specific questions, please free to ask them. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also appear to be writing about yourself. Even if you are notable, this is strongly discouraged.

talk) 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

SSIXS buoy: Submarines are equipped to launch signal flares or a small buoy while submerged. A SSIXS buoy can be programmed to transmit an outgoing message to a satellite (NAVY SATCOM.) The outgoing transmission from the buoy can be delayed to permit the submarine time to depart the area so as to not reveal its location. After sending its preprogrammed message the SSIXS buoy scuttles itself to avoid compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick w g 007 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patrick w g 007. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to help improve this encyclopaedia. As there is no page about SSIXS, I am guessing you refer to the page called Communication with submarines? If so, providing you can supply a link (url) to an online source, or a reference to a printed manual or book, you would be welcome to go to that article's 'Talk' Page (just look for the tab right next to the 'article' tab). There, you can post your information and source, and leave it to others with knowledge of the topic to consider how relevant its addition would be to the Wikipedia article. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm writing an article about the bible. Its a summary and I'm going to be explaining a lot of events that taking place in it. Im asking wether is accepted if I use pictures that are already existing in the wiki on ather articles but not owned by me??? And what should I follow to use that pictures???Sethabi ba sethabi (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources

that discuss the bible, you could add that to the relevant page, such as a specific book of the bible. What exactly do you wish to write about?

In terms of images, yes you can include other images on Wikipedia, as our images are generally free use, as long as attribution is provided. A complete guide to images can be found at Wikipedia:Image use policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give a light and a describtion of who is who in the bible and to whom do certain culutres and norms belongs to. To put to a paper of what I have uncovered. To tell the trueth that the bible tells. Sethabi ba sethabi (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources to expand on that content, please offer it- but this is not the forum for posting your own views. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Any a way thanks Sethabi ba sethabi (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article page which I hope will be accepted which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Russell_Ashi But this page appears in the search engine when i search for Russell Ashi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russell_Ashi Is this normal , or have I done something wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Ashi (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell_Ashi, it seems that quite a lot has gone wrong.

• You are trying to create an article on your Wikipedia User page. Your User page is intended for informing other Wikipedia editors about your activities on Wikipedia, not for creating an article.
• You appear to be writing what is intended as an autobiographical article. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
• Instead of citing newspaper articles, you have cited images of those articles. You should cite the newspaper articles themselves, giving the name of the publication, the name of the author, the publication date, and the page number.
• The images you have cited are violations of the copyright of the newspapers. Giving links to material that is in breach of copyright is forbidden on Wikipedia.
• One of the sources you have tried to cite is the Daily Mail, a newspaper which is not accepted in Wikipedia as a reliable source (except for sporting results). Maproom (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Ashi (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first page you link to, User:Russell Ashi(better to link this way, the whole web address is not necessary) is your user page. It is not article space, and is not indexed by search engines(note the "user:" in the title). It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia use only, it is not a social media-style page for you to say anything and everything about yourself. The second page is your personal Wikipedia contribution history, which can be found by a search engine.

If you intended to write an autobiographical article, please understand that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read the

a notable person

). If you reviewed the definition of notability and truly feel that you meet the criteria, it would be best if someone else wrote the article about you. In order for you to be successful at doing so, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people cannot do this about themselves.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article

is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I have put in 15+ inline citations showing verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources One of the editors commented, "Still rather thin on references, where has all the unsourced content come from?" I am still new on editing, can someone help on what am doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfisch3 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notable, you need to cite several reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject in depth. In your opinion, which four of the sources cited in your draft best do that? (The four that I randomly checked are all based on interviews with Ategeka, and so are not independent and do not help establish that he is notable.) Maproom (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Welcome to the Teahouse,

WP:PAID if you are an employee or other paid person in one of his companies or organisations. You have obviously wanted to create this page since your first edits on him five years ago (then deleted back in July 2014) so it seems not an unreasonable question to ask what connection you might have. You should not edit the page further until you have addressed that question, please. All that said, I suspect he might be seen as borderline notable, especially if you can find some really good sources that talk about him 'in depth' rather than just lots of little short mentions. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)  [reply

]

Sorry - I realise that sounds a bit harsh, especially as I see that the deleting admin pasted in a copy of the article onto your talk page for you to work on in draft. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How can I delete an unwanted citation from a draft article in my Sandbox? I have progressed well beyond this citation and Undo doesn't seem to work. Besides I don't want to Undo my subsequent citations or content. Thanks in advance for you help! E54495a (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Appears to be about

User:E54495a/sandbox. For any section, you should be able to click on Edit for that section, then delete the reference. This will automatically remove it from the References and renumber all the subsequent references. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to post an article. How to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.9.138 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken a look at your past contributions and some of the the warnings you've received, plus the latest test edit your IP address has made and then reverted, and I'd really like to know what the article you want to post would be about, and maybe a few of the

[ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I just heard about the U.S. Black News Channel on the radio. It debuts tomorrow. Rather eye-opening that it has not been written about on WP. Am I dreaming, or is this the case? I assume other news media have refrained from covering it, but, really??--Quisqualis (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources of this news channel, feel free to write about it. Articles can only exist if people choose to write them. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I am a new editor here and would like to know the policies to keep in mind while RC patrolling. I am a editor from wikihow so I do have some expirence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real EJ (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Real EJ. Take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which will get you started. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon me as this type of question has been answered before, but I found the references confusing.

Someone else has written a page about my late father, Nicholas Clinch, a famous mountaineer. I would like to fill out a few gaps, factually, without turning it into a hagiography. I understand I'm supposed to reference only facts reported elsewhere. I can refer to his New York Times obituary, but there are items missing. His personal life paragraph did not mention his parents' names or his education - he started serious climbing while a student at Stanford. Key reference items such as his birth certificate, college degrees, major awards, and his climbing journals are in my house.

Since I can't edit, "He is the son of Virginia Lee and Nicholas Bayard Clinch, and and I know because I'm their granddaughter," what is my approach here? Thank you. Coachlbridges (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141D:9:E92:1D99:A203:AF57 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses published

original research and couldn't be used to support changes to a Wikipedia article. Thank you for asking the question. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 14:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I added that Alpine Journal obituary ref to the article. Left suggestion on your Talk page about adding Infobox and photos. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been working on gathering a lot of information on Draft:Laia Cabrera, a videoartist. I am non-native english speaker, and I would love to have some help regarding the writing style to be able to improve the overall article. I believe the references are fine, and the construction of the article is correct. But if you also have feedback in that regard, I am most open to suggestions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessadeouve (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yessadeouve: it can be hard to sum up what is an encyclopedic style, and opinions may vary, but I think that the key point is that an encyclopedia article should read like an unbiased summary of what other (reliable) sources say about the topic. If you have information, opinions, or descriptions that have no basis in a source then probably they should be removed. I would go through each section and ask yourself 'is this what the source is saying, or is it what I am saying as a writer of the article?'. If it is the latter, then it probably needs to change.

With regards to your specific article:

• Most of the career section is ok in tone, in that it is fairly factual and unbiased but it is a) too long and detailed and b) hugely lacking in sources.
• The Art Work section is highly unencyclopedic and I suggest you delete this and start again. Phrases like As a filmmaker and visual artist, she uses a variety of media: music, video, narration, projected images that fuse cinematographic arts; music, dance; Photography; theater; visual arts; voice; writing. Feeling of timelessness, human landscapes: faces, fragments of the body. or "Is there an edge of belief?", "Claim your place" and "Shifting Gaze" were a step forward in the search for forms of identity: the projects explore the relationship, the lack of communion and the ethics of desire-belief-beauty. or, most of all Where are the limits of our understanding of emotions, how do we relate to others and how do we handle differences? sound like art gallery brochures, not an encyclopedia.
• Video art projects and Video Installation Projects suffer from the same problems as Art Work above. The film intends to frame the connection between micro and macro, the invisible labyrinths that connect us with the unconscious and the sudden changes that are beyond our expectations in life. is not the language of an encyclopedia. These are also far too long. An encyclopedia article is not the place for an in depth description of every piece of work an artist has ever done.
• You also appear to have the article copy-pasted twice on the same page. Make sure to delete one or it will cause no end of confusion.
• The references need fixing - in most cases the problem is that you have correctly used double {{ to open a cite, but only a single } to close it. You just need to go through and add a closing curly bracket to the broken references.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 09:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:PEACOCK etc.) but my general view is that a good Wikipedia article should be boring. If you elicit zero emotions (positive or negative) in the reader, they will be using their brain rather than their guts to process the information they are presented with (and if you do not think that is a positive, Wikipedia probably is not for you). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not without some merit, but another school of thought is that keeping the readers interest is a good thing. Boring compared to many news-media, sure. Dry, dusty and bland is often our style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i just simply want learning materials and how to locate them — Preceding unsigned comment added by DENNIS GBONDA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DENNIS GBONDA. Did you see the response to your question here last July, which is now archived here? I would ask the same sorts of questions - it's not clear to me whether you're looking to learn about Wikipedia, or learn about other stuff using Wikipedia. Perhaps you could clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all I am newbie editor and am trying to find the raw data used to publish the article on SARS. This one - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg#/media/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg

I have checked the WHO data source and it does not have it in this format readily so am guessing the user who put the chart together collated the data manually from the WHO data.

How can I access the raw data OR request the user who published the chart (Phoenix777?) to share the data?

Would appreciate any guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelmurty (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neelmurty. You can contact Phoenix7777 at their talk page User talk:Phoenix7777. (They should get notified of this discussion, because I linked to their user talk page). Since that File in on Commons, the person who uploaded it won't necessarily be active on English Wikipedia, and in general it might be better to contact them on their User talk page on Commons; but in fact, Phoenix7777 has been active on enwiki today. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British silversmiths are not represented on Wikipedia and if we don't do it soon, there won't be anybody alive that can write about them. Derek Styles wrote a fantastic book that I know he would be happy to pass on its content. Who should we contact? PS. I wrote about Alex Styles a while ago and the copy was knocked back because it came from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7D19:A000:1D5B:D031:E708:CD66 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the content of a book or merely documenting a subject; Wikipedia summarizes what multiple independent

other forums where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. As an encyclopedia, we include information from reliable sources, not from people's own knowledge or memory. I mention that to explain why, in fact, Wikipedia doesn't need to worry too much about there being nobody left alive who remembers a particular topic. As long as there are reliable sources about them, there is always scope for an article.

On this particular topic, there is already an article on Silversmiths, and I can't help wondering if there is enough material to make a whole new article about one particular nationality of silversmiths? Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a history website as such, and is not the place to document all the details of a historic topic.

As far as the Derek Styles book goes, if it is published then it can certainly be used as a source for any article. We don't need permission from the author, since we would be using it as a source and not directly copying content from it (a lesson you appear to have learnt before!) so there is no need to contact anyone. Hug^syrup 15:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:4th_%26_Reckless The page consists of information about my company. This does not contain any other self-promotion lines. Please tell me how can I make changes to it? How to improve the chance of the submission? Nicole.roberts19 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole.roberts19, because for anything to have an article here, it needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Your business has not, therefore we can't have an article about it here.

Please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

verify. You are finding out that it is difficult for company representatives(which you properly disclosed) to write about their companies because the goal of a company representative and the goal of Wikipedia are usually fundamentally different. Wikipedia has no interest in spreading the word about your company, we're just here to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this OK now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:4th_%26_Reckless Please check. I have added 3 references. Nicole.roberts19 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicole.roberts19: unfortunately not. Two of the references you added are to LinkedIn, which is not a reliable source. And the only mention of the article subject in the InStyle article appears to be the mention, in brackets no less, '(I actually grabbed a mint green suit for myself from 4th & Reckless)'. This in no way qualifies as substantial coverage. Hug^syrup 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are three mentioned articles. TrendHunter.com, InStyle.com and Who What Wear UK. Is it still not ok?Nicole.roberts19 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

promotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for any guidance! LindsDe (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LindsDe, it can be done, but you'll require the assistance of an administrator or page mover. Easiest way of doing this is to place {{Db-move}} on the correct title. Fill this in like so {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}.

If it helps with searching, this is what's called a round robin page move. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

round-robin page move is actually a little different where two pages are swapped but both page histories are preserved. The title should be singular Summer reading program per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). That is also a redirect but has a long page history which includes this version before The Official Summer Reading Program was added, so I'm not sure we should really start over with a new article. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 21:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Pakistan is the seventh largest tea consumer in the world, however, it is not even mentioned in the list on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tea_consumption_per_capita

Can this be corrected, please?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.10.249.2 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. The place to ask this is on the talk page Talk:List of countries by tea consumption per capita. The information seems to be sourced (though https://www.statista.com/statistics/507950/global-per-capita-tea-consumption-by-country/ requires a login, so I haven't checked it); so you would need to provide a reliable published source for your information.

I wonder if you might be thinking of this article, which does put Pakistan 7th: but it's not in tea consumption, but in rate of increase of consumption. Or perhaps you have some other source. In any case, please argue it on that Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I submitted my first article (on a living person) December 31 and it was promptly rejected due to lack of NPOV and reliable sources. I believe both issues are now satisfactorily addressed. Before resubmitting, I have a few questions:

1) Subject wrote a number of newspaper articles, many in major publications. Do I simply reference each one with a citenews footnote?

2) Would I do the same with her phonographs? (This would be in addition to a couple of secondary source footnotes.)

3) To substantiate her years at the United Nations, would pages from the UN phone directories be acceptable? (I have cover of ea directory showing year and her listing, including department. The other listings are illegible.)

4) If I cannot substantiate art awards, do I have to omit them?

5) If I cannot substantiate her broadcast work, do I have to omit? (I can cite few secondary sources, but not for most.)

6) The only substantiation I have for her creating the Nixon Coloring book (under several pseudonyms) is a receipt from the publisher and all the original art boards. Shall I omit?

Thank you for your assistance. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

MOS:WORKS

.

The answers to all the rest of your questions is in

WP:V

: if information cannot be verified from a reliable published source then it should not go into the article. So yes, in most cases you must omit.

Remember that a Wikipedia article is not an assemblage of everything known about a subject: it is a summary of what independent commentators have chosen to say about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, thank you for clarifying. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor to wikipedia looking to better understand the editing process. I would like to know do higher regarded editors get paid to edit on wikipedia? If so, how would one get that title? JEby1 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)JEby1[reply]

No, Wikipedia does no pay editors. Editors are all volunteers. Meters (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If only. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who self-promote themselves as editors' for hire. Not through Wikipedia. If they get a paying client, they are required to comply with

WP:PAID rules. David notMD (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

JEby1 Where would Wikipedia get the money to pay you with? 331dot (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wikipedia consider keeping it's own database of sources which editors can refer to and curious readers can refer to? It seems that sometimes sources that I click on in the bibliography refer to either an online book that I'm prevented for accessing, or a page with very little content, let alone a means of searching if the citations are used properly. With that being said, I feel that it would be an amazing feature of Wikipedia to store or have access to a library of books which can be accessed. Not sure if this is feasible economically, but I think it would be very nice to see. Thank you for your time.Jakes22 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this certainly sounds like a good idea at one level, it's just not how we do things. We provide guidelines as to what makes a good source (

WP:LIBRARY. I have a few subscriptions through there, and it's an invaluable resource. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Additionally, Google Books has free or limited views of many books, as does archive.org, and Wikisource (not sure about "books" here, but lots of something). The WL that Roy mentioned is especially useful for gaining access to newspapers.com, which has archived copies of newspapers with rudimentary search, from 18th century until current. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakes22: I want to thank you for your question here today, as it reminded me that some years ago I suggested that, on one of the WikiProjects I'm involved with, we should collate a list of relevant books that our members had access to at home. I just found it languishing in an old archive, so have moved it onto our main project page, (here). Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

How can I be sure if a website (blog) is reputable enough to be on a Wikipedia page? It is not a personal blog page, but instead an award-winning food blog...do I just post the name of the website here?

Thanks!Alwayslp (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:USERGENERATED. And if a blogger gets sufficient media coverage for their blogging, they might qualify for an article, as with the surprising to see List of Nigerian bloggers. (Disclosure - I haven't read the list in depth, but the bloggers listed are seemingly often notable for things besides their blogging.) So to summarize, a blog might be notable, but rarely will one be usable as a source. If you want to post the name of the blog, I can review its coverage for notability purposes. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

[1]

if it is considered a reliable source...

Thanks again for your input. Alwayslp (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RSN

), though personally I like to stick with my favourites: Worcestershire and Soy.

On a different note, might I compliment you on some incredibly detailed edit summaries that you use. Possibly the most detailed I've ever seen for minor edits. Thank you - though feel free to reduce the level of detail if it ever gets too much! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayslp: It already has an article. Serious Eats. It was considered notable or has somehow escaped deletionist attention. (I think it's fine - it's profiled in NY Magazine's own blog Grubstreet [[1]].) Therefore, if you wanted to use one of the blog posts as a source for information added to another article, such as for a fictional restaurant XYZ Restaurant, you could say something like "The Serious Eats blog showcased XYZ Restaurant for its soup dumplings." or something like that, and I don't think you'd have a problem. But context and content are key, so don't be surprised if you get any pushback for a different reason. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help and insight! Alwayslp (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Rural_Management - and realized that I could add/change much of the info as per what I have read about this institute in notable Indian magazines like India Today and Business India. Can I just go ahead and edit, or do I need to seek permission or follow a procedure for making any changes? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

WP:BOLD. Cite your additions, use edit summaries, and be prepared to discuss if someone disagrees. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for the guidance. Do I need to mention a code at the head of the article to indicate that am going to be operating under WP:BOLD? And after editing can I remove some of the comments on top, like the article being orphan, because it is no more an orphan? Many thanks, regards, Tycheana (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is operating under

WP:ES so other editors have a better chance to understand what you are doing. On the orphan thing, check the link near the top of the article that says "Learn how and when to remove these template messages". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Leave a message on the article's Talk page regarding your project, Tycheana, in order that other editors should be warned. Also, there is a Template, which perhaps User:Nick Moyes or User:Cullen is aware of and can refer you to, which you place on the page you are working on, which advises that the page is being edited a lot by one person, and not to edit at this time.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Template:Under construction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tycheana:The template {{In use}} is probably better for short periods of activity when you want to avoid edit conflicts, or being challenged half way through making changes. Remove it as soon as you're done. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Radhatanaya (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)) Respected sir,[reply]

I'm an old hag of 76 years from Mumbai, and has been an editor in kan wikipedia, since 8 + years. I want to add pics to my created articles, but I have been banned not to do so. The reason being. I have two pen names, 1. Radhatanaya, 2. Rangakuvara Created 900+ articles in kan language, (under the pen name Radhatanaya) Created half dozen articles in english (Under the name Rangakuvara)

I have uploaded several pics other than mine. It was my mistake I feel sorry and apologize for it.

Now please lift the ban on my uploading pics. I assure you in future I upload the pics taken by my camera.

With regards,

-Radhatanaya I will not use Rangakuvara in future.

@Radhatanaya: It is Commons that blocked you, not us. To appeal a block, add {{unblock|reason for the request}} to commons:user talk:Radhatanaya. However, as you had an unblock request denied last month, I'd wait a while before doing this. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Radhatanaya: The admin reviewing your unblock request at c:User talk:Radhatanaya#Requesting for unblock did so because there was no answer to the issues raised in the "Oppose" comment at the bottom (by elcobbola). If you do submit another unblock request (that page, not here, is the correct place), be sure to read and understand each of those comments and address them. I can understand the multiple account issue and why you might lose track of which account you were logged into. It just needs to be clearly stated that you won't use multiple accounts again. Violating copyrights is something a lot of people not familiar with the issue can make until they are stopped. Admit, show you understand what the correct action is going forward (as you did by stating you'll upload photos you take yourself Y), commit to communicating with others when they leave you messages about problems, and your contributions may again be welcomed. I hope this helps. (Non-administrator comment) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does editing of a page work and how is the talk option different from editing the actual doc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal210891 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Wikipedia:Tutorial may be a good place to start for you. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article with other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article Vishal210891, or for suggesting edits to be made by other editors.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drops_(company)

Is it too broad? One-sided? Not well written enough? Can someone help me with specific things to include / delete?

Thanks, G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappgab (talk • contribs) 08:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

new user tutorial

may help as well.

If you work for this company, you are required to comply with the

conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It reads like PR or advertising. You need to examine

good WP articles to observe proper tone, and then apply it to your article. Tone consists not only of wording, but also what is talked about. If an article is based on PR releases, it necessarily will not contain objective, outside material.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

У меня есть старый кабинет , но я не знаю информации о доступе никакой , помогите востановить доступ плиииииз — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.40.107.159 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, your IP is not blocked on English Wikipedia or globally. You'll need to follow the instructions on the block notice (or whatever notice you see) if you want us to help you. If you don't understand English, maybe try asking a friend for help. If you're having trouble on different language Wikipedia, such as Russian Wikipedia, you'll need to contact them for help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm new here, and i would like to know, what is the reason that certain articles get deleted, even ones that have been there for a long time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbob99 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletions

which are meant for completely uncontroversial deletions(but do not meet the speedy deletion criteria).

An article existing for a long time is not a barrier to deletion; as this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected for years. If there is a specific thing that prompted this question, I could give more specific help. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, Sbob99! Possibly Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion may be of some help for you. More at the list of policies in the Wikipedia:List of policies#Deletion section. --CiaPan (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbob99, during Wikipedia's early expansion phase, we accepted a lot of weak articles on non-notable subjects. Now, we have the luxury of reviewing them against current standards. If a junk article is old, that is little indication of its encyclopedic worth.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to rename the Page I am unable to rename 6 years ago a user redirected to Visakhapatnam Airport from Visakhapatnam International Airport but now Government Of India recognised Visakhapatnam Airport as Visakhapatnam International Airport In the same way Vijayawada Airport also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktdk (talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly,

WP:COMMONNAME. If you think the new name is now the most commonly used name, there is the Requested Moves process at Wikipedia:Requested moves. As this is a move likley to need discussion, you should place {{Requested move

}} on the article's talk page, with your justification. The closer will be able to either delete the redirect, or perform a round robin page move, in order to swap the article titles.

Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the airport's own website http://visakhapatnamairport.com/about.htm and the Airports Authority of India https://www.aai.aero/en/airports/visakhapatnam both referring to it as Visakhapatnam Airport, you would need some pretty convincing evidence to convince us that the name has changed. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktdk Note that an airport can receive international flights and not have "International" be a formal part of its name. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask if all the encyclopedia entries are updated in real time, because I find that most of the popular entries are updated quickly, but compared to some unpopular entries, few people update according to what happened in real time.Invokerishard (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Invokerishard: Wikipedia is edited by volunteers who choose what articles to work on. So, to a certain extent it is updated ‘in real time’ but you are absolutely right that less well-known topics tend to attract fewer editors and so sometimes take longer to update. Many of our entries are probably ‘out of date’ to a greater or lesser extent, but everyone is free to update pages if they see incorrect information (and if they have a reliable source for the correct info!). Hug^syrup 14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invokerishard (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can. Articles are only worked on when someone is motivated and has the time to work on them. This is usually the case for popular topics, as you already seem to be aware, but with less popular topics, fewer people are interested enough to update them constantly. Wikipedia has over 6 million articles, but only tens of thousands, maybe a few hundred thousand of regular editors(don't know the exact count). If there are articles that you feel would benefit from you editing or monitoring them, I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly common for articles on obscure subjects to fall out of date. If you are reading a biography of a long-dead person and the tense is wrong in the first lead paragraph (is instead of was, etc.) or (very commonly) in subsequent paragraphs, please feel free to change it.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a post on behalf of Brona C Titley, I was asked to by Brona. It is all from her CV of her own work. Could you help me get it posted or know how to get it resolved. Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brona C Titley (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please see

not notable.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There may be a problem,

autobiography policy, as well.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

do i have to change my typing ways or its fine? also, i know that writing like that while editing aint gonna get me anywhere so ill most keep writing like that on forums and discussion pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeRandomONE (talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine on discussion pages, as long as others can understand you, SomeRandomONE. You may sign your posts with four of these things in a row: ~ --Quisqualis (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:MOS, grammar, etc.; if you don't, you're making work that another volunteer editor has to clean up. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

So, I checked my watchlist, and it said that two "requests for adminship" were open. What are those, exactly? King of Scorpions 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scorpions, for users to be become admins, in order to be able to delete pages, block users, etc. there has to be a discussion first. At an RFA, users essentially vote (although it isn't a numerical vote), for if the user should become an admin or not. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question! Sorry to keep spamming everyone here so much... King of Scorpions 16:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "spam", King of Scorpions. Your questions are, in fact, rather interesting, insightful and educational.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quisqualis, I am very glad to hear that. I have found the Teahouse really useful in my editing... King of Scorpions 16:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I work at a University as a writer and communicator. A large part of my job is writing about scientific papers coming out in peer-reviewed journals, with the goal of helping non-technical audiences understand the science and other research being conducted. My background is in science and science writing rather than in marketing or communications, and I know how to write in a non-promotional, encyclopedic style. I've noticed that a few of our very prominent faculty members are not in Wikipedia, and I'd like to remedy that. I am not worried about their notability, but I was wondering about the conflict of interest issue. I've read that I should disclose any conflicts. I'm happy to do this. However, I'm wondering if I will go to the trouble of creating the article and then find that the article is immediately removed. Someone suggested that I find a non-University employee to post something I compose, but this seems dishonest. Thanks for your thoughts! CatZan (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation system. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ThatMontrealIP, You have no idea how grateful I am someone was honest for once. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ThatMontrealIP, Thank you so much for your advice! CatZan (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Moonythedwarf, Thank you so much for your advice! CatZan (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a new to editing on Wikipedia and wanted to understand how to get involved with specific projects - particularly those focusing on education, universities and in terms of location, Oman. I have visited some of the project pages - but could do with some useful and practical tips on how to get involved. (NUSTOMAN (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NUSTOMAN Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think most if not all of the projects have no formal process to become involved, but if there are specific things required to "join", those will be described on the project page. Most of the ones I have seen simply invite the user to add their name to a list of participants- then you have "officially" joined. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new editor and I am taking a course using the Wiki Education course program. What does your editing process normally look like? Does it vary based on the specific article you are editing or do you have a process that you adhere to? Also, what sparked your interest in editing Wikipedia articles - why did you start and why do you choose to continue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oludara Orederu (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

articles for creation

project by figuring out whether draft articles meet the standards to become full wikipedia articles. My original interest and motivation to edit on Wikipedia came from a variety of sources: I wanted to help share information with people, but also my teachers had cautioned against using Wikipedia as a source because of misinformation and vandalism. I wanted to help make Wikipedia into a source where that was less of an issue. If I could give you any advice as you take this course (and perhaps continue your Wikipedia journey) it would be these little tidbits:

1. Don't let this website become Serious business. What do I mean by that? I don't mean make
   own an article
   because you did a substantial amount of work on it. To be honest, we are all collaborating together, and there is a whole world outside of Wikipedia that it is not worth getting into petty fights with people on the internet.
2. Understand Wikipedia's ideas around
   the life, the universe and everything
   . We are here to compile information about topics and put it in a format where people can understand and become better informed. Do you understand what I mean?

Thanks for asking your question! I hope that helps, and drop by again if you have any other questions. Bkissin (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to find the edit button on fandom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cast217 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I was reading the Bio on Peter Pratt, the British singer. I was quite surprised to see that Wikipedia had defined him as English. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I would state, 'I'm British, born in Birmingham, England and went to school where I was taught English'. Any thoughts on the subject? J. goldenthroats.fandom.com/wiki/Peter_Pratt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotabug (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page for which you provided the URL is on Fandom, not on Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but

MOS:ETHNICITY. It depends on what sources say (I'm not saying the article is currently following what sources say, I have no idea). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

How do you participate in a request for adminship? What I mean is, are there any guidelines on how to vote in one? (This is sort of a follow-up to my previous thread a few hours back, I just didn't have time to come back until now.) King of Scorpions 18:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scorpions, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters is essentially the guide. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Noble Thanks! Will go check it out. King of Scorpions 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, King of Scorpions. Has anyone told you that your recent change of background colours in your signature makes it quite illegible? Dark blue text on a black background requires perfect vision to discern. And not everyone online has that perfect vision; maybe you might consider altering it a bit, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Moyes, I actually already did; here's my new one: King of Scorpions (my talk). Is it more readable? King of Scorpions (my talk) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Scorpions: Great stuff! Much clearer. Good luck with the mentorship, by the way. Looks like you've got a great person guiding you. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:My mentor is teaching me a lot about Wikipedia... King of Scorpions (my talk) 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to know, what must i do before i can start writing articles myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbob99 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbob99, Writing articles is difficult. On a technical standpoint, however, you need to have an account registered for four days and have ten edits (I think). You can create the article as a draft immediately, however. It might be better to request the article's creation, though, so more experienced editors can help you create the article... King of Scorpions 19:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Your first article provides some guidance. Wikipedia:Articles for creation provides process. Neither of these is about getting experienced editors to help you create an article. Rather, they provide instructions on whether a topic is article-worthy, and how to. Lastly, no one "owns" an article. With certain limits, once it exists, anyone can change it. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theres is an editor who is changing the Northern Ireland to the Union Flag, on numerous wikipages this appears to be political see Cumbria for example. Wales + Scotland usually show their own flag, Northern Ireland should be the same. Is this acceptable?

Devokewater (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since as I've already explained to you - Northern Ireland does not have a flag. See

WP:IRISH FLAGS, Template:Country data Northern Ireland#Other information, and one I didn't mention before Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations

. The latter states to "take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts" such as:

• "Use of the
  Wikipedia:Irish flags
  for details."

FDW777 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777: The template actually shows the correct Northern Ireland flag. Devokewater Devokewater (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been reading the ANI board a lot (hard stuff to read, but am trying to get a feel of what NOT to do. Also, the Wiki essays are absolutely fantastic,) and I was just curious if anybody is allowed to comment on various matters on the board? At times I wish I had the ability to an outsider's perspective, but I am uncertain if that is unwelcome, against a guideline, a policy, not how the board should be used, or if only people's involved or admins can comment on it. It is in fact a good tool for looking up how not to be an asshat, though. That is for sure. It points you to many guidelines and polices to learn, and how not to break them. As Yoda said: "Failure is the greatest teacher." XD

I hope this is the right place to ask this. Still have a lot to learn. SageSolomon (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SageSolomon: Unless someone has been blocked or topic banned, they're generally allowed to post on ANI.

That said, ANI is for matters that require (near-)immediate administrator involvement that are not covered by other boards (such as

WP:Help Desk

While non-admins can comment, it's not supposed to be a peanut gallery (...not supposed to) and comments (admin or otherwise) are supposed to be attempts to apply policy or common sense to a situation (not continue disputes, whether content or personal). That said, one of the things that lead to me becoming an admin was regularly commenting on ANI threads. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Actually that was very helpful. And yeah, the last thing I would attempt to do is to stir the pot, or bludgeon, or make any of those situations worse than what the people involved are already dealing with. That isnt any kind of help what-so-ever. From what I understand, its suppose to be an incident and conflict resolution board. Not a place to go take sides in an argument and continue drama for drama's sake. On that we agree. My question did get answered though, and for that I kindly thank you. ^_^ Is it the same way with the other boards and here at the Teahouse? Or should some places be left to more experienced editors and admins? SageSolomon (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SageSolomon: I don't recall anywhere on this site where we say "admins only," though there are certain actions that can only be done by certain individuals. A good rule of thumb would probably be that if you can't help, don't post. Asking questions so you can help the site is helping us to help you, so don't worry about that; I mean situations where one has no useful information, insights, or capabilities (that sort of stuff tends to end up more on the administrators noticeboard rather than ANI specifically). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:ANI quite a bit before I stood to become an administrator (which only happened the other week), and only chipped in rarely when I felt I could make a useful contribution, or maybe to announce an offer that I would go off and deal with the situation that had been raised. If you can help defuse a situation, that seems the best time to contribute. But it's also fair to say that we all work by community consensus, and often it is non admins expressing their opinions on what action to take about an issue raised at ANI that leads other admins to implement that action. I think this

was one of my earliest contributions there - some two years ago.

Just like

WP:ANI, you can also learn a lot by watching and reading posts here at the Teahouse. I'm sure I learned more here than I ever did at ANI! And just as at ANI, we welcome anyone contributing answers here, providing it's done in a spirit of friendliness and welcome. That's the ethos of the Teahouse. You know, sometimes a new editor can bring a perspective and relate better to another new editor facing difficulties than some of us older hands can. The trick is to know when to keep quiet and let others respond, and when to appreciate that one can offer just as good a helpful answer on another topic as anyone else can. If they decide to stick around, editors with a reasonable amount of experience might then want to sign themselves up as a 'Host' here. It's not a formal permission, or anything, but we do expect hosts to have a broad experience of editing, and we gauge that by asking new hosts to have a background of some 500 mainspace edits before they sign themselves up. I can't check how many edits you've made, thus far, as the tool to do so is not functioning right now. But I must applaud you on your sensible approach to understanding how Wikipedia works, as you've explained on your userpages, rather than diving in at the deep end right away, and ending up drowning as so many impatient new editors do. I wish you well on your own exciting Wikipedia adventure. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]