Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1037

≪<ref><ref><ref>{{WikiProject Albums|B-Class-6=}}</ref></ref></ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.199.213.107 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, IP editor, it is not at all cleat what your question is. Did you want to do something with Project Albums? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Illegal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.72.130.145 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia, or how to make an edit request? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, my article on kitchenshaming was rejected "because it is not sufficiently notable". As a social scientist I believe that it is notable. An articles on a practice of "eye-rolling" is on Wikipedia, I do not see why kitchenshaming is any worse. Please help, I would really love to positively contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alieneggs (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Alieneggs,

For anything to have an article here, it needs significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't a judgement on article topics, just that it would impossible to verify the contents of our articles without this coverage to check it against.

In your case, you haven't demonstrated this level of coverage in the article - we can't cite ourselves, and social media sites aren't reliable sources. The article that is left is more of an opinion piece that significant coverage. ~~

- talk

14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,

Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

18:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

See also

WP:Other stuff exists. —Tamfang (talk

) 05:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the table is displaying correctly, but currently has ten blank rows. My guess is that one of the editors who've been working on it recently plans to add more data. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this diff I could see the error. But now it appears to be fixed. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

hello i'm Alex and i'm new to Wikipedia. i'm just wondering if it is worth writing an article about someone named Deborah Gail stone who was the first staff member to die at a Disney park and i'm just wondering if she is notable enough to make one of her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dernoncourt8 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alex, welcome to the Teahouse. We have a policy here about

Deborah Gail Stone to America_Sings#Deborah_Gail_Stone_Incident, which is entirely appropriate. I hope that helps. Hug^syrup

09:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A new article on this artist has emerged. Can I request verification on this? https://asai.co.za/self-as-ghost-lizza-littlewort/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbasounds (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I've only skimmed it, Simbasounds, but that looks like a good source to me. It covers her in depth, and as far as I can see, it is indpendent and the source reliable. The only question that came to my mind is whether Littlewort is closely involved with ASAI: I have no reason to suppose she is, but if she is, that might compromise the independence. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

David notMD I have been told by David notMD that the below insertion I made into Elhaik's page cannot be inserted because it is 'opinionated':

'The paper by Das et al employs his so called 'Geographic Population Structure' (GPS) algorithm which, like much of the quantitative methodology used by Elhaik, has now been statistically refuted and transparently shown to be completely flawed by Flegontov et al.'

I get the feeling that this is amounting to censorship, howvever, I will rephrase and insert this sentence instead;

'The paper by Das et al employs a so called 'Geographic Population Structure' (GPS) algorithm which was statistically refuted by Flegontov et al 2016 in their section 'GPS is not Suitable for Inferring Ancestry'.^[1]'

Anyone: Does this achieve the 'objectivity' evidently required by Wikeipedia rules?

Elbeavo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbeavo (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Eran Elhaik.

@Elbeavo: While not quite as flagrantly point-of-view as the first version, your new proposed text is also not neutral and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. As another editor mentioned, last time you posted about this at the Teahouse, a better place to discuss the subject would be Talk:Eran Elhaik. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Elbeavo: Requiring a neutral point of view and writing articles in a balanced way is not the same as censorship. Your new proposed line is still not balanced. The two biggest issues I see, without knowing anything about the topic or the sources are:

1. use of a term like 'so-called' is deliberately inserting your own viewpoint, and is not
   impartial
   .
2. Linking the two papers in a single sentence and stating that the first 'was statistically refuted' by the second is also potentially not impartial, as this appears to be you putting your interpretation on the two papers and is a type of subtle
   synthesis
   . Does the second paper explicitly claim to refute the first? Or does another reliable source state that the second paper refutes the first? If so, just say that. If not, you as an editor should not make that claim, no matter how obvious it might seem to you.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 10:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

EDITORIALIZING may also be helpful. --ColinFine (talk

) 11:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue, raised by other editors in August and September, was that the content you want to add or amend in the article Eran Elhaik is worded in a way that it is read as original research and opinion. All I did was point out that persisting to make the changes when being reverted by other editors is considered 'edit warring,' and can lead to a temporary block of editing rights. I am not an administrator and do not have that power. The best path forward is to work at the Talk page of the article to reach consensus with the editors who disagree with what you want to write. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Just like you can do an internal "Wikilink" to enable the reader to jump from text to a related article or section of an article, is it possible to link text directly to an image, either within a Wikipedia article or as it's found on Wikimedia Commons? I'm envisioning something like a photo that pops up as the reader hovers over text. What would be the markup for that? If this feature exists, I would appreciated being directed to an example. Thank you. – Kekki1978 talk 13:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

- talk

14:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Although using that in an actual article isn't done. It would cause big problems for people using disability access tools like screen readers etc. - X201 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I sort categories on an article and how do I know what to assign it to? --ThereIsn'tMuchToTalkAboutButHere (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sort categories"? —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

​Categories appear in the order they're listed in the page's source code. Finding the correct categories can be difficult, but you can usually find a related article and see which categories it is in. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a small error but a major issues on the BLP article. Please assist and guide me on rectifying the Date of birth on the article Heli Daruwala as birth year is not available on the Web. Hope to get the assistance and thanks for helping new editor. FascinateGuy (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

birth-date}} template), or you could just remove the DOB entirely, unless and until you unearth more reliable sources. Does that help? WJ94 (talk

) 17:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi WJ94, thanks for your assistance. It really helped me to contribute and make Wikipedia grows. FascinateGuy (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have come across a few instances where there have been copyright violations and I have removed them. Do I then need to contact an admin to revdel the diffs where the copyright violations still occur? LampGenie01 (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

- talk

15:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Superb. I'll add that to my toolbox. LampGenie01 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking that on,

backwardscopy}} to the article's talk page with an explanation of your reasoning and evidence. This will save others from incorrectly flaging the page as a copyright issue. If you are unsure whether there is a copyright violatiuon present, list the article (or draft) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, frollowing the instructions on that page, which are extensive and detailed. Again, thank you both. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

17:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem, DESiegel, happy to help. Thanks to you for mentioning backwards copying (truth be told, I had never thought about it, so I appreciate you bringing it up. I'll be sure to be vigilant about that going forward. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi everybody, please help me as I have just faced vandalism or at least huge unjustified mistake from someone. I created the AnyChart article and User:Jaclar0529 taggeed it with the G11 based speedy deletion nomination and in just a few moments or minutes this article was deleted by User:RHaworth and I did not even have time to finish my claim contesting that speedy deletion nomination according to the rules. I created this article just recently (among several other articles I created about JS libaries and other subjects these days) as and consider it to be a legitimate article which cannot be subject to speedy deletion in particular on the basis of G11. The article cannot be considered exclusively promotional, for example, and moreover, it definitely describes the subject from a neutral point of view (I do not have another point of view here as in any other article that I have created so far, only neutral, and I believe I managed to implement this neutral point of view when describing this javascript library) and, in particular, G11 says that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." So User:RHaworth and User:Jaclar0529 (by the way, Jaclar0529 have multiple warnings and vandalism claims oh their talk page) did not even let me even contest the speedy deletion nomination. I am close to considering the deletion of AnyChart vandalism or error (Update: I am terribly sorry, did not mean it is vandalism, just was afraid it could be, but I am not thinking even like that anymore thanks to additional research, thinking, and kind explanations from other editors. Please accept my apologies if that hurt somebody of you guys.Avbgok (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)). Please help with restoring the article as the nomination for speedy deletion and deletion itself are unwarranted. If you guys or someone else feel any edits are needed, let's work on improving it together, because that is what Wikipedia is all about as I understand it. I put efforts in this article, and the subject is notable, and the article was written from the neutral point of view, and we can improve it, of course, then. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to disturb you everyone here but I am upset and hope someone can explain and help. For your information, the user who initially placed the G11 tag on the AnyChart article has just replied on my talk page: "The article has already been deleted. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator, which in this case is RHaworth, as I cannot assist you further. -jaclar0529 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)" - could you please look into this issue with deleting the AnyChart article and restore it? That user jaclar0529 even has been warned with "Final warning" on vandalizing Wikipedia on their talk page, so the nomination is likely to be just another vandalism attempt from them. I left messages on RHaworth's talk page but see no replies. Am I doing something wrong? I really want to do things right. Please help me understand the situation right and solve the issue. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. Volunteers may take a while to get back to you; so I would say be patient. Just because you've left a message on someone's Talk page, does not mean they are likely to respond to it immediately. It's good that you've left a message to ask for feedback, but only some users (admins, I believe? I can't remember) have permissions to view deleted pages, so unfortunately I cannot give feedback on exactly where you went wrong.

However, based on what you've said, I'd say your issue was undeclared Conflict of Interest editing, and that what you consider to be an implemented "neutral point of view" likely wasn't. Again, I can't actually view the deleted article, so I couldn't say for sure, but "I created this article just recently (among several other articles I created about JS libaries" speaks to me that you potentially have personal involvement in these subjects. You need to declare this on your userpage if so. --12:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineffablebookkeeper (talk • contribs)

Hello and thank you, but no, I do not have any conflict of interest here. I do not understand how my words can mean anything like that allegedly I have one with some subject at all. I heard about JavaScript libraries and what they are, of course, but I just recently learned about the existence of AnyChart, Highcharts, Chart.js and some other similar subject I worked on these days just recently. And you can see in my contributions I also made articles about other completely different subjects and not only from the software field, come on. I have no personal involvement in these subjects, sorry. I am trying to become a good contributor to Wikipedia as I like it and I am just trying to be helpful. Sadly it appears to be quite nervous to write something which then gets deleted for nothing and then get accused of conflict of interests or anything else like that when I need to try to convince someone I am just trying to be helpful to Wikipedia... Well, I hope other editors and admins can help. At least I am ready to learn. But I just see no reason in deleting that page by that or basically any other reason. Improving - well, maybe, but like everything else on Wikipedia, of course, that was only a draft, not a finished article by any means... And yes, I understand no instant response should be demanded, but who knows, if one user tagged it (wrong) and then immediately another user deleted it (wrong), can't they be connected somehow, I don't know, or what if they do not reply at all... Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that I'm connected to RHaworth? -jaclar0529 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I mean I said I don't know. Well, I had this idea come to my mind when I realized your actions happened just one after another, in an instant, while I was writing a contesting claim, and then I noticed your user page had been deleted by RHaworth by your request... But I do not insist, sorry if that is wrong or if that offended you somehow else. Honestly, I just think you were wrong with the nomination and deleting the page was also wrong because the subject has notability, the point of view is neutral (well, let's correct if you feel anything is not, but I was doing my best as a young editor to do it neutral, of course), and I do not have any conflict of interests with any of the subjects I write or edit articles on here (Ineffablebookkeeper asked me above), so I hope for the community's help in figuring out the situation. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion probably isn't going anywhere very useful right now. @Avbgok: you have done the right thing by approaching RHaworth and you now need to be patient and wait for a reply. When that happens, RHaworth may be able to tell you more about why your page was deleted or, in the unlikely event they have made a mistake, they may undelete it. More likely, they may be willing to convert it to a draft so you can work on it and improve it before releasing it to mainspace. In the meantime, a different admin may come along here who can view the deleted page and give a better idea of what was wrong with it. Until one of those things happen, no one currently contributing to this thread has much else they can do to help, so continuing to argue the point is a little futile. Hug^syrup 13:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, understood, waiting for undelete and maybe tagging it where clarifications are needed if that is the case or other things mentioned. Just if it was not deleted so fast, I am quite sure everyone including RHaworth would agree that deletion is not the way to go. Or if it is the case, then all other articles I created on different subjects need to be deleted along with edits I made to other articles as they are made in the same form... Well, waiting, right, thanks.Avbgok (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Avbgok. Admins who deal with speedy deletions, such as myself, and even more often such as RHaworth, tend to go through all the pages currently tagged (or as many as the admin has time for) one after another in close succession, taking just enough time to review one and then on to the next. Some, such as user requests and blatant advertising, take only seconds to review and delete. Other take longer. So having two pages deleted in quick succession by RHaworth means nothing at all. Note that "advertising" here on Wikipedia does not mean just commercial advertising, any page that seems primarily designed to promote the subject qualifies for a G11 speedy deletion. I just looked at the deleted article, and text such as AnyChart supports more than 90 chart types including variations of basic charts, Gantt charts, stock graphs and maps, flexible custom drawing, and multiple options to work with data. With developers claiming it to be a "one-size-fits-all" tool, it works with all major languages, frameworks and databases. is characteristic of the promotional attempts at articels we often get here. Souring the same sentence to 6 different citations is also something of a red flag, it suggests that the author is overly eager to seem to have sources, and often that no one of the sources is strong. of course, sometimes it is just a new editor trying hard to comply with Wikipedia policy. Also, in future, avoid he use of blogs as sources. Still several of the sources look very reliable. I think this deletion might be reconsidered. Please wait for RHaworth who tends to be a bit irascible but usually reasonable in such matters. If he disagrees theere are other options, his need not be the final word, but it must be the next word. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh and this is clearly not vandalism. The tagging was reasonable, and the deletion not outrageous in my view. RHaworth has long and prolific history of contributing here, and is clearly attempting nto improve the project. I ahve disagreed with RHaworth at times, mostly on deletion issues, but I have no slightest doubt of good faith on that part of this editor. I don't know Jaclar0529 (it is a big project) but I see nothing here that even suggests vandalism. In future please be cautious in using that term. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello DESiegel, thanks for explaining this and expressing your opinion. I am the creator of that article and I actually am a freshman here who joined just last month out of my long-standing interest to Wikipedia, now trying to understand better how it all works and to improve myself as an editor. I was not going (and am not going) to promote this subject or any other subject of any other articles I created so far. I am here for contributions, not advertising or promotion of anything in any form. That is why those accusations I saw quite touched me, but I understand a few people here know me yet.

As far as the number of citations for the same sentence is concerned - I just sincerely thought it would help to show multiple sources, because sources for notable subjects are required to be multiple. But yes, I have already received similar signals from other editors regarding my other articles (I acted the same way everywhere, to be honest), and now I seem to understand it clearly that multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage for the subject indeed must be present as such out there so the subject can be considered notable but there is is no need to cite all or multiple of them in the articles in support of one or another particular point. So I merely was confused with properly understanding this, and thank you for making me realize this, finally. I agree there are some very good sources anyway. I also understoot you about blogs. Well, good learning, and I just hope for your understanding and thank you for giving me this deeper understanding.

As far as the number of chart types is concerned - when creating Chart.js, for example, I found out that that library has 8 chart types available and when creating AnyChart I noticed that that library has so many chart types and thought it should be mentioned as an important thing. Other features were added to not make the article show that this library only exists but instead to add some more about what it actually is since it is notable as such. If that is excessive, can you please help me understand what to do in such cases? Or how to change it so it sounds better from the point of view of a Wikipedia article?

I understand that I need to wait for RHaworth's decision, yes.

Regarding vandalism - I did not state that (Update: I have just striked those words at all to not raise any confusion anymore.Avbgok (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)) I guess I wrote that I was close to thinking it was either vandalism or error. I am terribly sorry, I did not want to hurt anyone with any statement like this or even create such a feeling on anyone's side. I respect and appreciate Wikipedia and the community. Maybe I was too hasty and did not formulate myself clearly. I do not know personally neither the person who made the nomination nor the person who actually deleted, so I cannot judge, of course. Sorry again, I really did not want to hurt anybody and I promise to be more careful with words like these. Avbgok (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Why the Wikipedia is reticent with neologisms?! It is a mistake! This why: if I am looking for the word „oak” I find it anywhere, I don't need an encyclopedia for that. So, if Wikipedia provides the definition for „oak”, its grade of utility is close to zero. But if Wikipedia provides a definition of a neologism such „Picture Performance Index”, then its utility is maximum because nobody else provides a definition for this expression and if a user wants to know about this expression he will be very happy to find an article related to this expression, especially in Wikipedia, the first place where he will look for. Avoiding neologisms is like avoiding utility. Everybody will praise Wikipedia if the encyclopedia is able to spare few hours from the user's time dedicated for Google search about an obscure term, is it? Am I right or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristi Lavin (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

notability. Neologisms generally have a high bar, as many are not widely used, and thus poorly defined. Draft:Picture Performance Index would need sources that show widespread use. If we allowed just any neologism, we would have a very large bank of very short articles that could not possibly be expanded further. Your article could yet be approved, if you improve it. You will need to find more sources that cover it. You will also need to write in a formal encyclopedic style, as the current style is overly casual. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Cristi Lavin: In addition to the above, if we take your example, the article oak is not a short stub "oaks are trees with wobbly leaves", but it contains lots of other information, for example that certain oak species are deciduous and other evergreen (and many other things). The utility of an encyclopedia entry is not in giving the definition of a term, but in giving details, context, history etc. of a concept. The problem with neologisms in that regard is that usually they lack such backstory and the associated sources that we require (partly because once it starts to accumulate some history, it stops being a neologism anymore). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Cristi Lavin, nobody comes to Wikipedia for a dictionary definition of "oak", but rather for our encyclopedia article Oak which provides a comprehensive overview of approximately 600 species of oak, supported by 60 references for more in-depth study. We set a high bar for articles on neologisms, because they come and they go, and they are far too often the subject of promotional editing by people who coined a term or are actively engaged in promoting it. If the term is truly notable, then it will be discussed in detail as a concept by independent reliable sources. If so, then an article is appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: High bar means smaller content. Of course, we should keep in mind that quality is more important than quantity, but if you include all neologisms you don't consume paper, so don't be afraid to put more than necessary. The web page supports everything, including junk-words. Nobody is God of linguistic to decide which word has a future and which one doesn't. You must give a chance of life to each one. For a word to be very well defined is a process, not a status. A word which is now „poorly defined”, as you accuse, could be tomorrow in a different position, a better one. I used a casual style because I am NOT so familiarized with TV field (or with advanced English). Somebody with more experience should perform a better job with my article, if it is too rudimentary. Cristi Lavin

  notable in that they are widely used by independent reliable sources. Neologisms which are not yet notable have their chance of life in the wider marketplace of ideas -- if generally adopted Wikipedia will pick them up in time. And no articles here should use an overly casual style. A notable topic is one which should have a permanent article here, which ephemeral topics should not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

  08:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @DESiegel: Wikipedia (and, on another side, Wikileaks) leads the world, so don't tell me Wikipedia does not lead the sources! And about your point that my neologism (which, by the way, is not mine) has its chance only in the wider marketplace of ideas but not in an encyclopedy... well, nobody has time to search marketplaces, that why you should take out this from the discussion. It is here or nowhere. But in spite of „poorly defined” status, my article has a big utility... I will try to elucidate that once for all. Somebody from here told me: „If the term is used only by three companies, and defined differently by each of them, it's not a standard; so who cares?” My reply to him: Yes, it is a problem of standard, but not just that. Something is more annoying. It is a chaos among TV manufacturing companies, but it is also a chaos in linguistic field, since we don't have the same definition for the same expression. So, from Wikipedia point of view, linguistic point of view should be more important than technical one. After we establish the absence of one and common definition for the expression, which makes communication impossible, we should wonder why is still useful to skip the theoretical requirement and proceed to publish my article. I tell you why. Because when a company says about its TV that has 5100 PPI you think automatically it is about Pixel Per Inch. But 5100 Pixel Per Inch means a TV which wasn't yet invented, something very good. But if you found out (from Wikipedia) that PPI may refer to something else, not at Pixel Per Inch, you suddenly realize you are not close to buy a very good TV, but an ordinary one. So, it is not important what „Picture Performance Index” means, but what doesn't mean.Cristi Lavin

  No, we follow the sources (or at least try to). See

  WP:NEOLOGISM

  . Please read those links before you keep arguing how things are (as opposed to how they should be).

There are ways to argue for the rules to be changed (Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposals), but to be honest following rather than leading the sources is such a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that I do not think you have the slightest chance of having it changed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Oh, and

Wikileaks has nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever, by the way. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

14:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC))

WP:NEO required here (let alone allowed). I needed that info some years ago to grok "pels per meter" vs. Dots per inch in the BMP file format. –84.46.53.211 (talk

) 19:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, Well usually we use the name that reliable sources use. But this article has a mere two sources, which are of poor quality. Can you try to find some more sources that more firmly establish the title? Translation may complicate the issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For movies I'd use the English

IMDb. –84.46.53.211 (talk

) 19:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm creating a new page for the dean of our school, but when I create a new article, it shows me as my username as the title. I'm wondering how to create a biography page? Thanks! — Preceding

Hello, Sayuri91, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no contributions in its history other than this question here; did you try to create that page logged in as a different user?

Thank you for wanting to help us improve Wikipedia. Creating a new article is one the most difficult tasks in Wikipedia, and takes a lot of care and knowledge about Wikipedia's standards and policies. Editors who try to create a new one before they have learnt these often have a very frustrating time: I would urge you to spend a few weeks improving some of our six million existing articles (many of which desperately need some work!) before you plunge into this. But please read

your first article

to see how the process goes.

As for your specific questio: it sounds as if you were trying to create an article in your (or somebody's) User page. That is not what User pages are for: your user page is for you to share information about you and your activities as a Wikipedia editor, if you choose to. --ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for an independent review by another editor, so you get feedback on the draft before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk

) 20:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine, Thank you for your quick response. I have to create a biography page for the dean of our school as it's the top priority, and a part of my job. What are different ways I can get started with having a biography page for someone.Thanks. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Having said all that, if you make the required declaration, then you may attempt to create the article (remember, it is an encyclopaedia article not a social media 'page'). I strongly advise you to use the articles for creation process to create a draft and eventually submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine Yes, the way you have explained me does sound discouraging, perhaps does not support the Teahouse Goal 2. I do believe in ethical writing and I use it meticulously.

articles for creation process, although review may easily involve several months of delay, as there are thousands of drafts in the review pool. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Lets say I'm editing a page about a foreign thing or product. Like bon ice. And on that page there are no citations, but the only sources about bon ice are in Spanish. Can I cite those sources? Btw im Honduran so i know spanish.

English sources are preferred, but it is OK use foreign-language sources. RudolfRed (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If you are using citation templates for your citaitons, you should use the |language= parameter to indicate the language of the source. You may use the |trans-title= parameter to provide an english language translation of the source title. See also

WP:NONENG. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

20:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@

YeeeeeeeEemumomoawaWimoweh: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello friends, I'm a rookie in wiki and have made modest contributions in order to learn and collaborate. A few months ago I wrote this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epidata) that still awaits approval. I need to validate with you if the article is well meets the standards of the community to be published or needs improvements. Thank you very much.

--Nlepanto (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nlepanto and welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot asses the non-English sources, which are more than half of the cited sources, and so i will not formally review the draft. But the English-language sources currently citred would not support an article. The two Crunchbase sources are merely directory entries and contribute nothing to notability. The Nearshore Americas quotes one of the people behind the company extensively, but says nothing about Epidata. It should be removed from the draft, it contributes nothing at all.

Please be sure that all the non-english cites use |language= tpo indicate the source language. Please understand that the |website = parameter is for the Name of the site, not its domain, and definitely not its complete URL, Please be sure to provide an access-date for all website sources.

Frankly, unless the non-English sources are significantly better than the English-language ones, or additional and better sources get added, this will not be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I would like you opinion on whether the ADRC Internet of Things technology created by Xped Limited is notable. I have done some internet searches and found more than 3 independent sources.

Best regards, Chris Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanticx (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Alanticx, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you perhaps link the sources? And no need to say sir, we aren't all men and we need no such formality :) We're just average folks looking to help. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, here are some links:

https://www.iotaustralia.org.au/2017/01/12/iotnewanz/home-gateway-maker-arcadyan-incorporate-xped-smart-home-technology/

https://www.iotaustralia.org.au/2016/07/09/iotnewanz/xped-goes-disability-iot-market/

https://www.afr.com/technology/iot-home-device-control-company-xped-to-backdoor-list-on-asx-20151027-gkj79n

https://www.wise-owl.com/stock-analysis/is-xped-ready-to-serve-the-internet-of-things-market

Regards, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanticx (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:Article Wizard. But I caution that I find the notability to be marginal at best. I personally would not write an article about that subject, as it is too narrow. Instead I suggest you add a section about it on Xped, an existing page about the company. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Captain Eek Thanks for the advice. I will do just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A002:D100:2C42:E886:9457:2CE0 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, could anyone help me out? I created the category Politicans (instead of Politicians) arrested in Turkey. I'd like it to change the name to Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey but I can't move the page... Thank you.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: it looks fine to me now. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have been editing/rewriting my Wikipedia article all day according to the recommendations of the Wiki editors. I uploaded it for review according to directions, but I think I lost it. Can anyone help or perhaps retrieve it?

Kathryn Kramer Ahjazzer (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@

here, but not your recent edits. They may be lost if you didn't save (publish) them and can't click back on your browser. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

23:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahjazzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahjazzer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Draft:John Rennie Short

since 5 November 2019‎. Nor did anyone edit that draft today, so it wasn't you editing logged out. Nor was the draft ever deleted or hidden in any way, according to all the logs, and as an Admin i cna see pretty much all article logs. I can only guess that you did not click the save button, which is labeled 'publish changes' some people find this confusing, thinking it moves a draft to the main article space. It doesn't. It is only called that because anything saved to any Wikipedia page is publicly visible to anyone (aside from deletion and suppression).

In any case the draft is present, and you are free to edit it. Drafts may be declined for lack of content, but help on any formatting issues should be available -- in fact I have given lots of such help myself. Note that a decline says "This isn't ready yet, but you are free to try again", while a "rejection" says that the reviewer doesn't think there is any chance of a valid article.

Please do feel free to continue working on the draft, and I advise you to click the "publish changes" button after each small change. Ther is no downside to saving often -- I usually work that way.

Do impolement the suggestiosn of

independent sources that discuss short in some detail. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

01:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if there is a guideline to differentiating between music albums and spoken word albums in Wikipedia discographies. I was under the impression that if an artist, for example a poet and songwriter, releases both music albums and spoken word albums that they should be placed within different tables/lists. Some argue that the distinction is unnecessary. Is there a Wikipedia consensus on this question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter: You might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Because I've never edited anything on Wikipedia in my life, and this IP address is mine and mine alone, so getting WARNING and FINAL WARNING is a bit odd to see when I've never done anything to begin with so what's the big deal? I don't very much appreciate being threatened for things I did not do, and would like an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:72 (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

IP addresses get reassigned from time to time, some more often than others. You happen to have currently been assigned an IP address that was previously assigned to someone who used it to vandalize Wikipedia. Those warnings thus aren't meant for you, but for the previous user(s) of that IP address. AddWittyNameHere 08:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Also note that you can remove the warnings from your own talk page yourself, if you wish. See

- talk

08:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't wish to get warnings meant for what other people did, you should create an account. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We are a US cargo airline ; 21 AIR LLC , we would like to appear in the Wikipedia , just as other airline Atlas , Air , Cathay Pacific , etc etc How do we achieve this ? Do we create a page and send it , do we send the info and you put it in the template? I much appreciate if you can give me a hand on this , directing me to the right person , application or Wikipedia area. Best regards Rodrigo De Narvaez 21 AIR LLC www.21air.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.213.242 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a business directory where any and all businesses can be listed. This is an encyclopedia; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent

are a paid editor; please review and comply with those policies(the latter is mandatory). 331dot (talk

) 14:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know if you could please provide the steps for me to edit the scientific classification of a plant I am working on. I found a reliable source for the Phylum and Class for the plant species. I am not able to edit it directly, it is saying that the access for editing is denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djenki12 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be successful in editing Annona aurantiaca. Is your problem with a different article? David notMD (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Djenki12: It seems unusual for a plant article to be protected, but the normal process is to present your suggested edit at the article's talk page. It's best, when asking a question on a talk page, to be as specific as possible; i.e., which article is this about? Also, when posting to a talk page (like this one, or any page with "talk:" in the title), please add a space and four tildes ( ~~~~), which will be translated into your linked username and a timestamp. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Djenki12: I suspect that what you wish to update is the green "box" on the side of the article? If the article involved is Annona aurantiaca as linked above, that one uses a {{Speciesbox}} template (part of the WP:Automated taxobox system, which is somewhat complex to handle for new editors. @Plantdrew: Any chance you could guide this editor in how to handle the automatic taxobox system? I would do so, but you're much better on the plant taxonomy side of things than I am. AddWittyNameHere 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the taxobox draws the information from Wikidata, Djenkil2. If you pick "Wikidata" item from the sidebar, you can edit that: you'll see that one of its properties is "parent taxon", and you can follow that up the tree to the place you want to change. If it is a matter of reassignment to a different existing taxon, you just edit the property; but if you need to add a taxon which isn't already in Wikidata, it's a bit more complicated, and I advise asking for help at d:WD:CHAT. --ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Djenki12:, Wikipedia's classification of flowering plants follows the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. The APG classification doesn't recognize any Classes or Phyla; there are instead several clades that are not assigned a taxonomic rank. The classification in Annona auriantiaca doesn't need to be changed.

However, if there were something that should be changed, you would click on the red pencil icon to the right of the line "Scientific classification" in the Taxobox, which would take you to the templates used to build the taxobox. Templates at higher positions in the taxonomic hierarchy may be protected, with new users not be permitted to edit them. Plantdrew (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Plantdrew, I didn't know anything about that. I have struck out my answer above. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Why my article Ganeshwadi Mangalwedha is deleted?Sianka (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sianka (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sianka The article you created was redirected to an existing article about the same subject. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• why article Ganeshwadi,Mangalwedha redirected? Sianka (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

reliable source to support. 331dot (talk

) 14:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ganeshwadi appears to be one of the more than forty villages listed as being in the town of Mangalwedha. Unless there is published content specifically about Ganeshwadi, it does not qualify as being the topic of a separate article. David notMD (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

could someone please add 'Kristin's Christmas Past', a Lifetime movie from 2013, to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C60:4180:1851:A9BF:EDE1:FD8D:5A36 (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, unregistered editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can make such an edit yourself. If you don't want to, the best place to sugest such changes would be on the list talk page, in this case Talk:List of Christmas films. As thre is an articel about Kristin's Christmas Past, and it does seem to fit the list, there shouldn't be any problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I began this submission a couple of years ago but then tabled it. I am not revisiting. I would like to invite my friend Erin Hichman to take over writing the content. Her username is erinhichman. Can you kindly tell me how she can find what's been done so far? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbenegal (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sbenegal: Anyone can work on an a draft, by simply going to the draft page and working on it. You don't have any drafts in your edit history, so did you edit another another account name? RudolfRed (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Sbenegal,

As a draft not edited for six months, the draft was hidden from view.

I've requested its restoration, after which it should be located at

- talk

17:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Drafts that haven't been edited for six months are hidden, as they have typically been abandoned. However, any draft hidden under G13 can be restored by request at

- talk

17:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I have restored the draft, and it is open to any editor. @

OxonAlex: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

18:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Would someone mind checking my user page to confirm that I've correctly noted my COI with the correct template and at the right location? Thank you! Kgberg (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:UserboxCOI. Interstellarity (talk

) 15:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Thank you, I will do.Kgberg (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kgberg, No problem. I'm really glad that I helped you. If you ever need help using Wikipedia, please check out our help page where you find some of the most common questions asked here. You can also use the search box in the center of the page to find a help page that has the info you need. If you need additional help, the Teahouse is always open to you whenever you feel you have any questions using or editing Wikipedia. I wish you best on your Wikipedia adventure. Cheers, Interstellarity (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity Great advice. I'll nose around in the help page, and always (to a fault) rely on the Teahouse.216.165.95.143 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m a new user here and I have a question about the use of primary sources. I’d like to use an example to clarify my question:

The wiki page that I have started to help edit is Mullvad. (Mullvad is a virtual private network (VPN) service.)

The following maintenance template message appears at the top of the page:

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Archive 1037" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Indeed, of the 17 references in the article (as of this writing), it seems to me that 9 of the 17 could be considered to be primary.

However, the page Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources notes that primary references are not automatically "bad" or unacceptable. In that page's section "Primary sources should be used carefully", the paragraph “An article about a business" states:

"The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities."

Applying that criterion to the 9 primary references in the Mullvad article would seem to indicate that 8 of the 9 primary references are acceptable and one primary reference is questionable, i.e. the reference for this sentence in the “Privacy" section:

"Mullvad emphasises (sic) on its website that 'privacy is a universal right”\' and claims that their VPN service allows users to keep their 'online activity, identity, and location private.'"

Please help me in interpreting the guidelines for primary sources relative to the Mullvad article and the relevancy of the template message at the top of this article about too much reliance on references to primary sources.

Thanks! Jimmac05 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jimmac05. I am not an expert on software notability but I know a lot about the "red flags" that often pop up in articles about fairly new tech companies. In my opinion, primary sources should be used only for utterly uncontroversial information about a company, such as its founding date, the name of its current CEO, and its headquarters city. Any claim that hints or implies that "this company is really good" must be cited to an independent, secondary source.

In this case, primary sources are used for a claim of a "partnership" between this company and Mozilla. Since Mozilla is a better known brand name (although I thought it had faded away long ago), that is a promotional and evaluative claim that should be cited to an independent, secondary source unconnected with either Mozilla or Mullvad. Who says this partnership is important? Mullvad saying so is not acceptable. We need an independent secondary source to say so in a Wikipedia article. The same standard should apply to all the evaluative content now cited to primary sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with

ENGVAR). --ColinFine (talk

) 10:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments of Cullen³²⁸ and ColinFine and I believe I understand the reasoning behind their notes regarding the parts of the Mullvad article that they discussed.

I'd appreciate some further comment on the use of primary sources. E.g., in the Mullvad article's "Service" section, the sentence:

"In December 2019, Mullvad's server list showed details for 463 server locations across 36 countries."

has a reference to the Mullvad website as a primary source.

As I interpret the directives in

PRIMARYCARE

, this would be an appropriate use of a primary source because this is a basic fact about a product of the company. This bit of information cannot be resonably expected to be verified by a third party because verification of all the servers that Mullvad states that it offers would be a massive undertaking. Thus, that verification likely does not exist. However, this server information would be important to a potential user of Mullvad. Since there is no other source of independantly verified Mullvad server information, use of the primary source in this article is well-justified and appropriate.

Again, further comment on my thoughts about this use of a primary source would be appreciated. Jimmac05 (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, Jimmac05. The problem is that the number of servers is exactly the kind of information which an unscrupulous or careless company may inflate in their publicity. It is, at least potentially, not an uncontroversial fact, but a piece of marketing hype, and should therefore not be sourced only to the company's publications. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Attention: Darwin Naz. I am referencing our previous chat on 7 November 2019 regarding the creation of a new page on "World Igbo Congress." I am delighted to hear that you found it "notable" and that you have some practical help to offer. A family emergency had kept me away but I am back and ready to complete the project. Please let me know what books you found. I have finished the draft so I am ready to submit it for review. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@

Hi. Obie Njoku. The following references include entries about the World Igbo Congress (I have included the pages for your convenience):

• Albert Okechukwu Ikpenwa: Economic Emancipation: The Crisis of a Christian Value System and the Alienation of the Human Person in a Globalized Economy : Global and Nigerian Perspectives (ISBN: 978-3-643-90132-3), p. 89-90
• Kalu Ogbaa: The Nigerian Americans (ISBN: 0-313-31964-2), p. 96
• Nnamdi Ijeaku: The Igbo and Their Niger Delta Neighbors: We Are No Second Fools (ISBN: 978-1-4415-2546-8), p. 9

A cursory search in Google's News Category also lists relevant coverage. Later, once you set up the draft or published the article, I could check if I could contribute content. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Obie Njoku. As was explained by —[AlanM1(talk)]— in the new topic you created, you can use this thread for your other related concerns. If you would like to write a new article, you can create your draft using the Article Wizard. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz, I have uploaded my draft to the sandbox. Can't wait to have you go over it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm new, and have been using the Random Article button to find interesting articles to read/improve. I came across this page (Jeff Stilwell) and had a few instincts I'd like to ask a more experienced group about:

-The page reads as pretty self-promotional, or at the very least it makes some claims that would be hard to verify... I'm inclined to trim quite a bit of it out, but I'm a bit wary of using the delete key for so much content. -The sources have suffered quite a bit of link-rot... if I can't find an alternative, should I remove the now unverified material from the article?

Lastly, the article doesn't interest me much (not intended as a statement about the subject). I would be most interested in tagging it for someone who might be and moving on to another one. The most appropriate tag seems to be the NPOV or verifiability. Am I completely off base? PedanticLlama (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

PedanticLlama, You seem pretty on point, actually. This article does in fact seem very self promotional. My personal action would also be to trim it a bit, but this much i'm not sure about either. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

- talk

18:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(

cn}} to indicate that a citation is needed, but unless the statements are controversial or seriously challenged, please give some time for others to find sources if you do not care to search. If you have searched and are confident that the statement cannot be supported, remove it, but it is often a good idea to place a copy of the removed text on the articel talk page with a note about the reason for removal, in case some other editor is able to find a source, perhaps offline. None of this is required, but i think it good practice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

18:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That's really helpful. I'm not sure why it's easier to understand something like this when other people explain it to me rather than on the various policy pages, but it is. I appreciate the time you took to condense all of that information for me. PedanticLlama (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)