Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Contents

Most recent archives
904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923

Remaining newby problems of a not-so-new-editor[edit]

Dear teahouse host

First of all thank you very much for being here so that I have somebody to talk to. I started editing in September 2017, but I am still struggling with problems. Probably what I need is mostly is being redirected to the right places.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: We don't normally get a volley of questions like these. I'd not realised they were from the same person (hence your comment at the end!). I've split them up into subheadings, so maybe they can be answered seperately under each section. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation[edit]

I feel that Wikipedia provides too many ways of citing sources. Ideally I think that there should be a Wikipedia house style for citations. I know that has been discussed and rejected, see WP:CITEVAR. I feel that the "sfn" and the "citation" templates should be recommended for newbies. The variety still confuses me and I think it gives a chaotic impression. I started with <ref></ref> and then the "reflist" template but changed to "sfn", "reflist" and a list of sources below it that should perhaps appear between "refbegin" and "refend". Originally I used "cite book", "cite web" etc. to describe the sources but later changed to "citation" template for all types of sources. I feel the parameters should always be listed in the same fixed order, but the template documentation (e.g. cite book and citation) do not seem to prescribe a standard sequence of parameters. I simply think it does not look nice (or professional) in the code when editors add source descriptions which show different orders of parameters (e.g., url at the end or after the title). The "efn" template should be recommended for explanatory notes.

I had problems with the "sfn" template in the article "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1640-1709)" where I cite passages in three volumes of Saint-Simon's Memoirs: The link between the notes and the references in the list does not work.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I've run over the article for you. First I added standard headers to differentiate notes, references and citations. Next I've forced these aristos to just use surnames which fits the sfn/citation templates. Hope that helps, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield, thank you for fixing my link problem on "Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (1460-1709)". It seems to me that the link is on the parameters "last=" and "date=". I also looked at Siege of Derry and got it going there by changing from "cite book" to "citation" template. It seems it must be either citation or cite book etc. with ref=harv. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You are quite correct, the link is formed from the last name (or all of the last names for multiple authors) and the date, prefixed by CITEREF. For instance the link for your last comment would be CITEREFSchade2019. In general you should avoid mixing or changing cite XYZ and {{citation}} templates, some editors get very worked up about CS1/CS2 differences. If the article you are working on uses cite XYZ, just add |ref=harv. If the article uses {{citation}} |ref=harv is automatic. Personally, when given the choice, I use {{citation}} and let the system sort out the fine details. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield, thank you for alerting me to the danger of changing an article from CS1 to CS2. I know from WP:CITEVAR that one should adhere to the cutation style established by the first reference added unless this style is changed by consensus. I must admit that I forgot about CS1 (comma separated) and CS2 (point separated) in the list of references. There are many thorny details in this rule where an editor might be accused of disrespect to the established style. - Besides I see that you double-space after points (periods) when you write is that recommended? - I am not so sure how to seek consensus: by writing a note on the article's talk page? or do you also need to write on the talk page of the user who added the first citation? With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The WP manual of style covers this: "Software condenses two or more spaces to just one when rendering a page, so editors may use any spacing style they prefer (e.g., a single space or two spaces after a period/full stop ..." (MOS:PUNCTSPACE, subsection 10.13.1). For monospaced type I always use a double space, it makes it much easier to read. Not surprising really, this is the style developed during the manual typewriter era for typewriters that are inherently monospaced. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Martin of Sheffield, I did not want to attack you on the double-spacing. It is good to know about this, it probable is another thing that one should not edit and should probably be then done consistently through an article. I learned a lot from you. Thank you so much. Bye. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Projects[edit]

I still wonder how you can join a project. Do you need to be invited? Do you simply barge in by adding yourself to the list of users of the project? There are a lot of local projects. In my case that is Project Northern Ireland as that is where I live. Such local projects could eventually take over some of your Teahouse workload. They might be ready to go beyond this and really mentor newbies because the local project will be able to profit from it.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

There is no formal 'joining up' process. You can either add your name to their 'participants' list, or simply just align yourself with their activities and ambitions. Projects are very good places to give specialised advice on a topic, and the Hosts here often send people to specific Projects for that guidance. If you wish, you can even add a Project 'Userbox' to your main userpage to show which projects you support. (also forms a handy quick link to get there, too!) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nick, thanks for your advice. I added myself to the list of participants of Wikipedia project Northern ireland. I will see whether this leads to something. Thanks for encouraging me. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Promotion[edit]

Articles should be created as stubs and then be assessed and improved. After substantial improvement they should be promoted to Start-Class, C-Class, B-Class, GA, A-Class and finally Featured Article. This does not seem to happen. Who should do all these assessments and promotions? Probably not the editor who did the essential improvement. What is the procedure to be followed? There seem to be big backlogs of articles to be assessed and promoted.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

So as not to be seen as congratulating oneself, editors who put in a lot of work improving an article tend to not also upgrade it. Any editor can upgrade from Stub to Start to C-Class to B-class, although if articles have glaring shortfalls, a subsequent editor is free to downgrade. Getting to GA and FA requires an article be nominated and another editor conduct a review process, identifying weaknesses of the article in question and requiring fixes. Before a GA or FA nomination, the editor intending the nomination is expected to do a lot to improve the article first. GAs and FAs can also be downgraded via a formal process. Lastly, many experienced editors work on a draft until it could be considered to be past Stub class. The person conducting the Article for Creation review might be willing to approve and rate it Start- or even C-class right away. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more info on this. Assessment is very subjective, apart from WP:GA and WP:FA which involve a review and scrutiny process. I try to avoid creating stubs; I think any good editor using their sandbox to draft a new page ought really to be able to begin with a 'Start' class article at the very least. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nick, I surely agree. I thought there were automatic review bot.Johannes Schade (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Contents Template[edit]

The Contents template is automatically added to articles that have more than 3 sections. The Content box always lists all headings. The Content box therefore can become very long and this may discourage editors from adding deeper levels of subdivisions. Sometimes the citation apparatus with its headings Notes, References, Further reading etc. contributes more headings than the body of the article.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

@Johannes Schade: Yes, true. Sensible section headings help users find the right information that they need. I've set my system up so that each heading and sub-heading is numbered, thus allowing me to navigate more easily within a long page. (For example, this subsection currently appears as 66.4 when I view it. I've had it this way for so long I've temporarily forgotten how I set it up. Let me know if you're interested in doing that, and I'll nip off and refresh my memory. (Or somebody else may remind us). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spell Checker[edit]

There does not seem to be an English spellchecker. That would be a useful tool when editing.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

I know what you're saying, but many browsers like Firefox and Chrome (to name but two) allow built-in spellcheckers which can assist you with that task. (A nifty trick, if you're aiming for the highest quality work when you're editing, is to save your edits and copy the displayed page into a wordprocessor (like MS Word) and do a spell and grammar check there.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
But... Be aware that Wikipedia has several different spelling conventions (UK, US etc). If starting an article from scratch, that's not a problem - you can write using whichever national convention you normally use and set the spell checker accordingly. But, when editing or adding to an existing article, you must follow the convention already established on that page. Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Johannes Schade, a note on the above. Whereas it's fine to copy info into Word to spell check it, it will not work to copy from Word to Wikimedia software. There are invisible formatting artifacts that will copy with it if you copy from Word to Wikimedia software, and it is a pain in the rear to remove them. If you compose offline, use a non formatted word processor like Notepad. Also, a further addition regarding ENGVAR. If you start a new article on a British topic it's best to use British English. If you start an article on a US topic, use US English. If the topic is international in nature, then you can use your choice. John from Idegon (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Nick Moyes, Emeraude John of Idegon, I found that the spellchecker in my Chrome browser was not switched on. Now I get unknown words underlined in red which is very helpful.Johannes Schade (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning Templates[edit]

Templates like "More citations needed" display warnings indicating that the article has some shortcoming, e.g. does not have enough references. Having done something to fix a shortcoming should I remove this warning? I feel that somebody else should do it as I am now biased. Un unbiased person might find that the the fix does not go far enough (e.g. added too few references) or was of poor quality (e.g. the references were not not reliable). The article Siege of Derry has a warning "Needs additional citations" at its beginning, but there are 51 footnotes.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Yes, if you address the issue flagged up by the notice, then feel free to remove it. Another editor can always add it back in if they feel you haven't addressed the key statements that still need citations. Complex or contentious pages contains many 'factual' statements; each needs to be supported with a reference. The Siege of Derry article still has many elements unsupported by references. One should read through and consider each statement in turn. Are there citations to support each one? If not, it's under-referenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

I feel that quotes in the footnote are not used often enough. References often cite a source like "A Smith, 2010, p345". The reference might be a recent book that is difficult to access unless you buy it and the reference is therefore difficult to verify. The editor who added the reference obviously must have had access. I feel he should have quoted the relevant passage. Another reason to quote is that in some works pages are huge and without quote it becomes difficult to decide which passage on the page might have been intended. On the other hand having a quote also makes it easier to identify which piece of information in the text is supported by the reference.Johannes Schade 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Once again, I tend to agree with you. I have mixed feelings about seeing quotations within a reference/footnote. There are obviously copyright issues over long quotes, and a bad-faith editor can potentially create a false quotation. But, in general, my own view is that these would be helpful...and I should probably start doing it myself on the rare occasions I use references to real books, rather than online sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Images are not numbered in Wikipedia. I find it difficult to refer to an image in the text. The text is sometimes a better place than the caption to discuss information that can be gleaned from the image. WP:CAPTION does not seem to forbid Figure numbers, but I have not found an article yet that does use them.

Perhaps I talk too much. Just tell me to go somewhere else.

Johannes Schade (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Crikey, Johannes Schade if you think you talk too much, you should read some of my replies here. They can go on foreveeeeeer! Oh, and Wilkommen to the Teahouse. Erm, as scientists, we're used to reading journals that refer to Fig 1, Fig, 2 and so on, and that's really helpful on a static page. We know precisely what to look at and when. The problem with a user-edited encyclopaedia is that content changes all the time. An image that might have been used for some years could, one day, be replaced with a completely different one, or simply removed as unnecessary, or the whole article restructured or rewritten. So, it's really unwise to try to link text and images in the way you allude to. One of them is bound to be changed sooner or later, and would bound to cause confusion. What we do is use images and write captions for them that stand on their own merits, yet which nevertheless add to the encyclopaedic value of the text on the page. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: Not wanting to appear rude, I had not realised every one of the above question were yours. Wow. Prizes for the longest TH post, eh? Maybe in future you'd consider just asking specific questions about editing issues at the Teahouse. But I really welcome your comments, though it can be quite a drain to respond to general observations like these. WP:VP is the place to suggest changes; your own userpage is a good place to collate suggested improvements, until the time comes to unleash them upon an unsuspecting wikiworld. My own personal list is here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Johannes Schade: @Nick Moyes: I have numbered images and referenced the numbers in the text before for clarity. See Hexacyclinol. shoy (reactions) 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. Thanks for the example page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's a very good idea at all to add location/numerical identifiers either to image captions or to inline references to images, and a properly captioned and inserted image shouldn't require such a thing to be done. If there are concerns that an image's location or description is confusing to the reader, then perhaps the image should be moved, recaptioned, or even removed. People read Wikipedia in all kinds of ways so an image that you see to the right side of some text may appear below the same text to someone else; there might also MOS:ACCIM issues for people using machine readers. The same thing can be said for numbering because there's no way to ensure the numbering remains consistent, esepcially for articles that are frequently edited, and trying to do so might be seen as more of a personal preference than something in accordance with MOS:MOS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks to people with titles[edit]

Hi, I'm sure this has been answered before but I've searched and can't find anything that relates to it. When I've been editing pages and adding links I often include their full title. For example, Queen Elizabeth II but other editors have been modifying this to Queen Elizabeth II. I noticed this also happens for 'Dr' etc... Should I be including their title in the link or not? I can't seem to find any rules on this. Thanks! Loweredtone (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Loweredtone: I don't know of any specific rules, but my personal opinion here- if the title needs to be there, include it in the link, unless it's a weird case (example, soon-to-be-Queen Elizabeth II, or the current Queen of England, Elizabeth II). The title might not be necessary in all cases, though- in the case of "Doctor" that's probably only needed if it's relevant, and if, say, it's Paul McCartney, you probably don't need to spew off "Sir Paul McCartney" every time. Thanks for asking! -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@A lad insane: That's great, thanks for the information! I was just a bit confused as I had some of my links changed to exclude the title (by other wikipedians) so I wanted to check if there was an official method for doing that.Loweredtone (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Help!! - I am a new user trying to avoid getting into an edit war -- can an experienced editor please look at the talk page for Steven Strauss[edit]

Hi - I am completely new (as my name implies) so I might be missing something, messing everything up, etc (this might be entirely my fault). But, I seem to be drifting into what could become an edit war, and that is not what I want to do. So I was hoping to bring in some experienced editors to help.

The page in question is Steven Strauss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Strauss, one user accused another user of having a conflict (it is not clear, to me, if the first user did have a conflict). It seemed like a place for me to get started, so I tried sorting out on the talk page:

  • is Strauss notable - should we even have a page for him? (he might not be),
  • was he an academic (I think he is without question),
  • what were reliable sources we should definitely retain (e.g., NYTImes, Guardian, etc) vs what was likely to be less reliable
  • and so on
  • and since I am new around here, I tried doing this in great detail on the talk page (as much for my education)

I left it up for a couple of days, no one responded, so I started editing adding back what I thought were reliable sources, and noting that Strauss was an academic (Strauss has a Ph.D. from Yale, was on the faculty at Harvard, and is now at Princeton). All of my edits have been reversed out, without much of an explanation. The user who (IMO) has an animosity/potential conflict on Strauss seems to know things about him that (IMO) are not supported by the material he cites.

Material has been added to the page about Strauss's politics and Israel, which seems pretty irrelevant (Strauss, so far as I can tell is known for his work in technology and economic development, from what I can tell on the page out of 100ish things he has published only one was on Israel - it is not what he is known for or cited in media about).

Anyway, I would appreciate if someone with experience could look at the page, the Talk Page and the edits I made that were reversed out and provide me with some advice and guidance. (And, of course, if we conclude Strauss is not notable this becomes irrelevant, but would still be educational for me)

Thank you I.new.around.here (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One glance at the reverting user's Talk page will tell you much.
You have done the right Wiki things so far. It's ideal to explain yourself as you go, and your observations and reasoning are spot-on. As to Srauss's notability, he definitely makes the cut for notability on WP.
My perception is that you stepped into a tussle between two oppositely-opinionated editors. According to the article's history, User:Avaya1 recently sort of "took control over" the article started by User:NYC.Geek (one can only guess as to motivation).
Nine days ago, the article looked like this. Anywhere facts which you or others have previously placed into the article have been reverted, you may feel free to replace them, citing sources. Depending on the views of other involved editors, the political material may appear to be unduly emphasizing a minor aspect of Strauss's persona, and may be subject to "toning down" in the future, following a discussion on Talk:Steven Strauss.
WP is assailed by various activists (acting on behalf of groups and as individuals) trying to make their case, on the sly and boldly, 24 hours a day. It's as bad as anywhere else on the Internet; fortunately, policies have been developed to deal with this. Sadly, some highly driven activists from all over the world believe they can alter reality by making En:WP conform to their view of "the world as it should be", even mistakenly inserting "facts they know" without citations. On WP, "facts won't fly, citations will". Most activists also believe that, by being rude, they will intimidate other editors into submission. Some even threaten lawsuits, (a really poor idea).
Your choice of a user name ("I.new.around.here")is somewhat unfortunate in this situation, and perhaps for some time to come. It is possible to change your user name through a "process", to something less provocative (if that's what you desire). The name you currently are using will encourage certain bad behaviors in others, and it has way too many little words and spaces.
Also note that people who think they "control" an article get really stressed when an editor with a short history of editing suddenly makes numerous changes to "their" article. I would plan to make one solid change per day to Steven Strauss in this situation; you should not feel cowed in editing your next article. With Strauss, you have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, I think.
Feel free to ask any further questions in this thread, if applicable, or ask me on my Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem here is Conflict of Interest - the editors (or editor) has a conflict of interest in the article, as a result of seeming (without wishing to "dox") to be the subject of the article. I'm not reverting the editor's edits because he/she is new. I'm reverting them because of evident COI. According to the guidelines, the first thing to do is to discuss this on the talkpage, where the edits to the article can be discussed. Otherwise, it can be reported to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, which would presumably be the next stage and they will do an investigation into the alleged COI. However, it would be easier to discuss it first and decide on the edits on the talkpage. Avaya1 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think a sock-puppet investigation is called for? You seem to be saying that "i am new" is "geek" (is Strauss). If you are familiar with WP:sock, please bring this to the attention of WP:SPI. Having been so thoroughly fooled, I give up!--Quisqualis (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Avaya1 As far as I can tell you have never been willing to engage in a substantive discussion of these issues on the talk page. I asked extensive questions, and by large your answers were non-repsonsive on a content basis
QuisqualisThank you for your advice and interest. Sorry, I am getting a little lost. As I understand this situation Avaya1 accused User:NYC.Geek of being Strauss or in someway related to Strauss (I am still not sure I know the evidence for this accusation).
          • Avaya1 without discussing it with any other editor (is that the way things work around here?), deleted almost all the content from the article. He claimed it was deleted because it was primary source material, peacoockery and not encyclopedia quality.
          • I looked at the page and noted that most of what was deleted would meet normal Wiki notability standards (as I understand them): e.g., interviews Strauss did with major media such as CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, quotes citations in major newspapers, etc. BTW the general advice (I think) is in the event of concern about COI, we should not delete encyclopedia quality content, but rewrite it.
          • I did not immediately revert the changes made by Avaya1, instead I took the time to look at the material, and made the case for notability, made the case for Strauss being an academic, etc raised questions about information that Avaya1 added to the page that does not appear to be sourced (I still don't know how Avaya1 determined Strauss spent 5 years at McKinsey, nothing on the page seems to support that)and made the case for material that I thought should be restored. Avaya1 made no substantive response on the Talk page.
          • So I started making what I thought would be non-controversial changes, just restoring factual well documented material that related to Strauss notability
        • The next claim from Avaya1 was that because this material came from someone Avaya accused of COI it could not be used. And reverted deleted what I had done
          • Instead of responding to any of my concerns, or questions on the Talk page, Avaya1 has now (apparently) decided I am a sockpuppet (just as a side point, why would Geek do that? It seems very cumbersome.) Also, pardon my ignorance, why would a sockpuppet go out of his/her way to attract attention to themselves by trying to bring in additional editors? If the page is a vanity project that should not exist (which is what Avaya1 originally claimed) why go looking for attention?
          • I also expressed concern (based on Avaya1's determination to delete what appears to be normal encyclopedic material)if perhaps he has a COI in this matter (and having looked at his talk page several other people have had that concern about his work)
          • I am a little confused

I.new.around.here (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Imagine[edit]

Can an uninvolved administrator review the discussion listed in the heading of this post? Djm-leighpark says that I might be disruptive editing. I understand that disruptive editing can lead to a block. I was blocked before for a different reason. Am I at risk at being blocked again? Should I worry that I will be blocked again? What is the best course of action I can take with this editor? Mstrojny (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take for my question to be answered? Mstrojny (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As long as it takes an uninvolved volunteer admin with an interest in the matter and enough knowledge to help to see what is needed and respond. Britmax (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Britmax: Would it be appropriate to post this thread to WP:AN instead of here? Mstrojny (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mstrojny: I think you're overreacting. Djm-leighpark simply cautioned you about making changes (the suggested move or merge) without getting consensus first, because your statements made it sound like you were just going to move or merge it, if you weren't going to be able to delete it. Your AfD has only been posted for two days -- be patient. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: Sorry about that. I did not mean to be impatient. What I will do instead if the consensus is to keep this article, is to open up a discussion on the article's talk page and like you said before, a consensus first. Mstrojny (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References that are physical news clippings[edit]

Hi, I know a very old and notable company that has many news clippings that can be used as references. How can someone include physical news clippings in the references? It has news clippings from 1890s to 1960s. Please help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.76.101.159 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For information on citing newspaper articles, please click on WP:HOWCITE and when you get there scroll down a bit to the newspaper section. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@331dot - Sorry, I guess I said it wrong. The newspaper clippings are in my system. How do I add that in the Wikipedia article as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.76.101.159 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be online. You cite the newspaper and date the clipping is from. Has it been clipped out so you don't know it? In that case you cannot use it as a source in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the earlier comments, anything that was published in the United States before 1923 is in the Public Domain, which means you're free to upload those newspaper clippings. I think old newspaper clippings are accepted on Wikimedia Commons, in which case you can use their Upload Wizard. I'm not sure about the copyright laws in other countries, so if the newspapers were published outside the US, you'll have to do your own research, or ask another question. rchard2scout (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Rchard2scout, As a slight revision to your comment, works published in the United States during 1923 also are now in the public domain. This article gives some details about the change. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The most important thing when using a newspaper article not available online as a reference is to provide complete details. I call them "bibliographic" details although that applies more accurately to books. For a newspaper article, that would be the name of the newspaper, the title of the article, the author's name (if given), the publication date, the city of publication (unless part of the name of the newspaper), and the page number. As PrimeHunter points out, the bare minimum would be name of newspaper, the publication date and the complete article title. Without that information, the refererence cannot be verified and verification is required by policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your guidance @331dot, @Rchard2scout, @Teblick, @Cullen328 and @PrimeHunter. I will see if I have the bare minimum credentials of the newspapers. I will come back if I am stuck somewhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.76.101.159 (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing Incorrect Information[edit]

How does one go about changing an error? Also, how does one go about removing and replacing the error's footnote? The location is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_1972#December_20,_1972_(Wednesday) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THO2 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, THO2! please tell us what error you are seeing. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
THO2, I checked what you're trying to do. The link you have goes straight to:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /cgi-bin/view_details.cgi on this server. Apache Server at www.airdisaster.com Port 80

Ten may be the correct number, but, with an invalid source citation and no idea how to cite sources (see your Talk page), you cannot make that edit. It will be reverted. Get a better source citation.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at my edit and read Wikipedia:Inline citation.It's quite simple, but you need to learn it.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you revert an edit?[edit]

How do you properly revert what someone’s done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathew hk (talkcontribs) 17:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Which article and edit?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Just out of interest - Mathew hk (talk)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mathew hk. There are many methods for reverting. If you simply want to remove the most recent edit from an article, open the "View history" tab and click "Undo", being sure to leave an edit summary such as "revert vandalism" or " not in the reference". You can also manually edit the article, removing incorrect or inappropriate content, again leaving an informative edit summary. Please read Help:Reverting and WP: REVERTING for more detailed information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you trying to revert the "{User 100,000 edits}}" on your user page? Or the"{User Wikipedian for|year=2019|month=3|day=15}}"? It's highly improper to have then both.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

New article help[edit]

Hello all. I've been registered on this site for a while, but only recently have I begun actually editing and contributing. I recently created an article that details the 1825–1827 Mackenzie River expedition, and I was hoping to get some input and maybe some help cleaning it up a bit. Any assistance or general thoughts on the prose and quality of the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --SaltedSturgeon (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SaltedSturgeon. Broom in hand, I am at work on your article. I have no subject knowledge, but am a Jack London and Robert Service fan. Help me, please with some confusing syntax in the "Departure and first season" section: "permitted further exploration for the season". I take it to mean "afforded them additional time for exploration". Thanks,--Quisqualis (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Just another question. I notice that your prose is excellent for the most part, but is punctuated by some very strange word usage. This leads me to ask whether the words you use are all your own, or are they perhaps taken from your sources? Please let me know.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank for your kind words. Regarding your first question, yes, that is more or less what I meant. It was not yet mid-August and the expeditionaries had been making such good pace that Franklin figured he would have enough time to proceed downriver and explore before winter's onset. So your re-phrasal is correct. Yes, besides quotations, which are clearly marked, all of article was written by myself. Might you be able to present an example of this strange word usage? I am curious, and it was one of my concerns that part of the article may not have been encyclopedic enough, so it would be beneficial for me to know where the prose could use work. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltedSturgeon (talkcontribs) 21:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It's all edited now (as far as I want to edit); my alternative explanation was that perhaps your first language is other than English. My favorite examples (no offense intended): " Navigatory instruments", "When the boats had become interred", "The constant fog obfuscated visibility", "narrowly escaped a likewise attempt", "a more desirous pace". Even if you were born in some other galaxy, I commend a solid article.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Huh. Well, forgive me, but I fail to see the issue with any of those statements, even if the vocabulary is a little bit outlandish. Regardless, I thank you for your contributions and help. --SaltedSturgeon (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I ran a text check for copyright violation and did not come up with indication that text was lifted from sources other than what was clearly being quoted. David notMD (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I Googled a few phrases and results were WP. Good writing.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying to edit external links[edit]

Hi,

There is a Wikipedia page about me, Bill Jones (musician). All I am trying to do it now edit the external sources. This shows my website which is defunct from around 2002. I am just trying to update this to my website which has been active since then, which is www.brickwallmusic.com, and to put a link to my Youtube channel.

So, my edit was removed under my username BillJonesFolkSinger. So my husband tried under his username Whisperchrissy.

Now messages about how he is not allowed to do this either.

I am not trying to advertise, I am trying to make the links correct and the information correct. This information feeds across to other things, like the BBC Music artist profiles via MusicBrainz, and I am trying to make sure it is correct.

Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisperchrissy (talkcontribs) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Whisperchrissy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest(please read that link), what you need to do is make a formal edit request on the article talk page(Talk:Bill Jones (musician)) explaining your situation and what you want to do. If you just want to change an already listed(but incorrect) website to a current one, I don't see a problem there(without knowing any more than I do now). 331dot (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Whisperchrissy: I have added the revised external link for you but the article has no sources, so I have proposed deletion, you need to supply multiple in-depth coverage in reliable sources, NOT your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Whisperchrissy, the word that Theroadislong left out there was "independent". I don't believe they are saying that your website is not reliable, but that Wikipedia requires most sources to be independent of the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProjects and edit revisions[edit]

I've been working on improving some things on WP:DISNEY and it seems to be very inactive. There's a list of members, but there's no easy way to know who joined and is still active. Seems to have been many years. I'd love to redo a lot of how the project works but don't want to step on anyone's toes. I think I read somewhere that it's part of some wikipedia committee or something. Any advice on how to move forward?

My next question(s) is about edits specifically. Currently I've just been using the basic web interface and it's really slow for editing and especially when inserting data into an infobox (adding a data label between existing infobox and having to manually renumber everything). I tried looking up tools to make this easier. Any suggestions. Finally my questions on editing are quick. Is there a way to add a comment to an edit if you forgot, or to undo marking an edit as minor? Also is it better to use a Sandbox page for major edits to a page, copy and paste it with a summary of changes, or is it better to just to very large edits in live time with the ''{{In use|time=~~~~~}}'' designation?

TLDR:

  1. Tips for working on an inactive wikiproject
  2. Tool(s) for editing wikipedia more effectively (especially templates)
  3. adding comments to edit afterward & undoing "minor edit" label.
  4. Best strategies for major edits

Sorry it's long, but any help would be helpful! GeekInParadise (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi GeekInParadise, welcome to the Teahouse. Reinvigorating an inactive WikiProject can be challenging. I've been involved in trying to do that with two of them, with varying degrees of failure (WP:WikiProject Alps and WP:WikiProject Derbyshire). In my example, both had very low numbers of theoretical participant - WP:DISNEY seems much larger. The key thing is to kick off some activity! So, why not just drop by its talk page and say what you'd like to do, ask the odd question and see what response (if any) you get? Here are some random thoughts on what you can do to get a Project more active again:
  • What are the stated aims and objectives of the project? Has it now met them all, and is that why it's inactive? Does it even need to be reactivated?
  • Do its aims and objectives need revising? What do you think they should now be? So think of suggestions to offer up for a discussion, or a manageable list of priority tasks that you think need addressing.
  • Make a copy of the participants list onto a spreadsheet and check each participant's contribution list. Identify those who have not edited Wikipedia at all for, say, 12 months, and then go and remove them from the participants list (or move them down into an 'inactive' section for later deletion). Contact the most active ones (and especially those who are still editing Disney-related articles) and explain your interest in reinvigorating it. See if they're supportive. You could do this by pinging them from a new Talk page topic.
  • Check the list of editors who have {{User WP Disney}} on their userpage. (see here). Crossmatch and check out their current activity status. If not already signed up as a Participant, ping them and get them to so do.
  • Check out the Project's own Portal. What state is it in? Could it be updated/streamlined/stripped of old content?
  • Post a list of any relevant new articles you've worked on/ or maybe post a small list of articles that you think either a) need to be created or b) need work to improve them c) photos needed.
  • Check the Article Assessment table. Is it actually updating correctly? Work through a selection and see whether the assessments of stubs is valid, or do they need updating? See this list of high quality 'stubs' and then see Marc Davis (animator) to appreciate that there's work to be done in upgrading some of these. Can you enlist others to help?
  • Keep coming back to the Project Talk page to ask questions/make suggestions/or ping active editors which are all ways of increasing engagement and activity.
I'm sure there are many other ways to get an inactive project going. But it does take time, and it is possible that a Project established years ago has fulfilled its mission and is never going to be revived unless it has new goals and new effort injected by yourself and one or two others.
Edit summaries: You asked about marking edits - No, once an edit is made you can't amend the edit summary, or un-minor it. But you can go back immediately afterwards and make a Dummy Edit which allows you to add a comment in the edit summary of that edit, relating to the one just gone before.
Major edits: I think it would be a bad idea to copy an entire article in full to your sandbox to edit it there. By the time you had done so and got ready to paste it back in, others might have edited the real article, and you would overwrite them. However, unless you planned a massive restructuring of an article, I'd be inclined to use the {{in use}} template. Or I'd just paste in one paragraph to my sandbox and work on that before reinserting it, and then move on to another.
Infobox and slow editing. I'm afraid I didn't quite understand this question. I don't find using source editor slow, and I would never use Visual Editor to create an infobox. Not sure at all what you meant by "(adding a data label between existing infobox and having to manually renumber everything)" You might have to explain that one a bit further.
Anyway, hope these ideas help get you going. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you so much for your detailed reply about WikiProjects. That was incredibly helpful. If there's a guide section, it might be helpful for your suggestions to be included there. Okay onto the infobox question.
You know how a lot of infoboxes are created using attributes such as data1, label1, data2, label2, etc. etc. Well Let's say I want to insert a new value in between the existing data33 and data34. If I want to do that, I have to rename my new one to data34, and rename every data attribute afterwards as they're off by one. GeekInParadise (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
GeekInParadise You know, I've never used an Infobox in the way you have for multiple locations, as at User:GeekInParadise/draft/bly. I'm sorry I can't offer a solution. Maybe someone else can, or you could ask on the Infobox's talk page, or better still, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Greetings TeaHouse,

I'm a bit disappointed that my draft was declined and deleted because of a copyright issue with the cover art. Any suggestions on how I can obtain permission to use the cover art? Thanks for your help!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nineminutesuntil: Is the cover art for a piece for music? If so, if you use a low enough resolution photo, and use permissions correctly, you can upload the photo under fair use. Examples of this include File:Hannah Montana 3.png. Take a look at permissions there for an idea of how this is done. You can learn more about requesting permission here. Additional information about requesting copyright permission can be found at WP:Permissions. GeekInParadise (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nineminutesuntil, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you are misinterpreting something: your draft would not have been deleted because of a copyright infringement in an image, because images are separate, and can be deleted separately. What StraussInTheHouse is saying is that the text in your draft comes from the source [1]. If they are right (I cannot see the deleted draft, so I can't tell) then the draft had to be deleted, because Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright infringements anywhere. You may also have had a copyright-infringing image deleted (though I haven't seen any evidence of that), but that would be a separate issue. --ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@TeaHouse: Thank you for explaining that to me. A link to the film's IG page was noted as where the copyright information was derived. I wholeheartedly disagree with that decision because I included my own wording and changed some of the wording for the character descriptions in my draft. I also added additional characters with their descriptions that aren't present on the film's IG page. I can cite the film's IG page as a reference. I'm hoping that would satisfy the issue. Yes? Your assistance would be very helpful. Thanks in advance!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nineminutesuntil, I appreciate that the issue of copyright is one that many people have not come across outside of Wikipedia, and it isn't obvious, so bear with it. Like the folks above, I cannot see the draft that was deleted so I am commenting in the dark. But I notice that you only mention one source. An article needs to be based on a number of published reliable sources, which you then summarize in your own words. Not just "changed some of the wording". If you want to get the deleted draft back so you can fix it up, contact the deleting Admin (StraussInTheHouse) and request it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nineminutesuntil. "Changed some of the wording" is nowhere near good enough. Everything you add to Wikipedia must be your own original writing in your own words, and changing a few words is not acceptable. You must summarize the reliable sources in your own words, with the only exception being brief quotations clearly identified as quotations and cited to the original source. As for copyrighted cover art, we allow low resolution images of such covers only in a main space enyclopedia article, usually the article about the specific album, film or book. Non-free images are never allowed in drafts, or on user pages or talk pages or anywhere else except main space encyclopedia articles. So, get your draft approved first, and then add the non-free cover art image. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Gronk Oz, Thank you for detailing the information. I feel confident that I have a good grasp on it now. I recently completed a new draft that is saved. However, I am unable to submit it for review. Please assist at your earliest convenience. Thanks in advance!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Greetings Cullen328, Thank you for even further detailed information. I have taken your instructions and redrafted my article. Thanks again!Nineminutesuntil (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nineminutesuntil: I see that you have successfully got it into production now, with several references, at Out of Bounds (2019 film). However, you still need to put it all in your own words, not copied from the source. For example, the following was copied word-for-word: "Travis Elliott is a high school senior and star basketball player from Memphis, Tennessee. With graduation approaching, Travis has dreams of playing college ball and making it to the pros. Unfortunately, circumstances reroute his plans, and now he's no longer chasing a dream...he's running from a harsh reality." --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Now at: Draft:Out of Bounds (2019 film) David notMD (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how to proceed[edit]

The Southern Lord Records article is an obvious press release. It needs reduction to a factual article (opinions/speculation removed) with better references.

I’m on the iOS app, and I don’t see how to flag an article for review, but it needs work from a better editor than me.

How do I bring this to the attention of a more experienced editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galapogosian (talkcontribs) 23:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galapogosian: You can place the {{Cleanup-PR|date=March 2019}} tag at the top of the article. This puts an article message at the top. For more information on use cases for this template, see Template:Cleanup-PR. For information about article message boxes, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Article message boxes. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Our first contribution was deleted...wondering why[edit]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Username policy before proceding.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

how do i[edit]

how do i add a picture and how do i make my own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason113113 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just read this article, first of all, then the relevant articles listed on your Talk page. PS: plus this one.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to cite Google Map?[edit]

As the title says. Paijo17 10:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paijo17, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. This is quite a difficult question for me to answer. Personally, I would only use Google maps to support the existence of some named feature which can be clearly seen on Google maps, or to support a statement that place X is located some set distance in a straight line from place B. Wherever possible, I would first seek out written sources, and then printed maps of a region and then I would look for the online version of printed maps that are available in some countries. And only then would I fall back on Google maps (or their equivalents at Bing maps). I do quite frequently put an External Link in to Google maps or to Bing maps to help users see some feature (despite the fact that they can - if they know how- click on the coordinates often included within an Infobox to reach various mapping portals). I would generally avoid using Google maps if it depended upon some original research to extract complicated information from a map. An example of this might be to support a statement, say, of how far a glacier has retreated in recent decades through global warming, or that its glacial outflow runs as a braided stream. Instead, I would aim to find such information in written sources. As well as the standard {{Cite map}} template, we do also have specific templates available to help you cite them. See {{Google maps}} and {{Bing maps}}, though I can't remember ever having to deploy either of them. If you have a specific example in mind, do pop back and get further views on whether it's appropriate or not. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

how many hours should be allowed before deleting draft article reviewed 1x[edit]

I submitted an article for the first time Friday afternoon. At 2PM Saturday it was declined politely for a fixable copyright problem with 1, possible 2 of more than a dozen references. HOW DO WE RESTORE THIS ARTICLE Deleted as G12 three hours after review board gave me their first assessment? I do not believe this warranted a G12 at all and in fact the reference cited was the one of the last minute additions to the article that has a 7 month history.My article is on a relatively new agency within the NIH. Why would you delete an article on a government agency so hastily? Mrphilip (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

17:14, 16 March 2019 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://isgmh.northwestern.edu/2017/01/20/21st-century-cures-act-calls-for-expanded-nih-focus-on-sexual-and-gender-minority-health/, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/DBASSE_191476.PDF) (thank)

There is also a thread about this here User talk:RHaworth#DELETION SAME DAY AS ARTICLE FIRST REVIEWED BY WIKI?. MarnetteD|Talk 04:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no editorial board, and if there is so much as a hint that material you've added may be a copyright issue, it is going to be deleted. No one has done anything wrong in regards this. Very simply, PD or not, write in your own words. They will never be removed for violating copyright. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The answer to the question "how many hours?" in this context is "zero hours - instantly". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's try this one more time, Mrphilip. First our policies on copyright are more restrictive than the law. As this is a privately owned website, we are allowed to do that. Second, the holder of the copyright on Northwestern University's website is Northwestern University. They are a private institution too. Everything that appears on their website, even material that originally was published on a public domain website, is copyrighted by them. If you had copied the material from an NIH publication, there would not have been an issue (although, copying anything is weak practice and should be avoided). Copyright is a highly nuanced subject and can be difficult to understand. If you would have simply asked for an explanation nicely, and then waited until you got it, there would have been no problems. But instead, you were insulting and belligerent and you opened multiple threads in multiple places on the subject. There is no user manual here, and collectively, all of us are "the boss". Beligerence serves no purpose here. Decisions on all subjects are made by consensus. Consensus is formed by reaching agreement with the parties involved. Query: Do you think being insulting, belligerent and demanding is more, or less, conducive to forming a consensus? John from Idegon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Alerting editors of vandalism[edit]

Hello, I was just wondering about how I can inform experienced Wikipedia editors about vandalism on a specific page that can't be edited by Wikipedia editors who are new, and if this option is even possible in the first place? This is all I wanted to know. Thanks and I hope to talk to you soon. GordonMatthew (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Which article, please? The best approach typically would be to describe the vandalism on the article's Talk page. If you check back and find nothing got fixed, then this place is as good as any to ask for a reversion. --Quisqualis (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

How to publish my article page without denied?[edit]

How to publish my article without any problems in manner of declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koushik Shri (talkcontribs) 08:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koushik Shri: First, you must understand that Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects that are notable, as Wikipedia defines notability.
Second, you must learn how Wikipedia evaluates whether a person is notable, and in particular how a composer is notable. Citing self-published sources, authored by the composer or their representatives, is never acceptable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Siegfried Vogel[edit]

Hi, I've translated this article from the de. Wikipedia, unfortunately I didn't linked to the correct original page which is Siegfried Vogel (Sänger) [de]. Therefore, the Authority control doesn't appear on this Wikipedia. Could someone please correct my mistake, I've tried several times: way too complex for me. Thanks in advance. LouisAlain (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello @LouisAlain:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed this minor issue for you - the article was linked to the disambiguation page on Wikidata, not to the specific article about the singer. You can fix such errors editing the Wikidata information itself (with "Edit links" in the "Languages" menu to the lower left). Unfortunately the Wikidata interface is not the most intuitive one for casual users, to put it politely. GermanJoe (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, LouisAlain. In addition to the above, can I also point you to the guidance about crediting the source of the translation given at Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate? I see that you've added the {{Translated page}} template to the article's talk page, but ideally you would also give credit and link to the German source article in an edit summary. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Britannica vs Wikipedia contributors[edit]

What does Britannica (or Wikipedia) that contributes encyclopedia that anyone edits to those articles in English language? --Macropedia (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to understand your question, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that the edits you have made in extremely poor, borderline incomprehensible English have been fixed/reverted. It seems to me that when you do things like editing an infobox, references or categories it's mostly ok, but when you try to add English text/prose you just don't have enough command of the language to do that acceptably. I'll repeat what I said on your talkpage here:

"I've noticed that a lot of the content you've been adding has used English which is poor, and difficult to understand. In fact, at New York Fashion Week the edits you made were utterly incomprehensible in English. I assume that English is not your first language but it can be problematical when editors introduce so many errors that it takes others a long time to clean up after them. I wonder if it might be a good idea for you to slow down a bit and make some smaller, careful edits for a while until you become more accustomed to the formatting and style, and observing how others use English. If you are having difficulty editing in English to the high standards desired here then perhaps you should consider going to the the list of Wikipedias, looking in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and editing there instead, because you might find that easier."

-- Begoon 10:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Trapson[edit]

Hi, My page Michael Trapson was nominated for deletion around 3 weeks ago, but I don't see any discussion or activeness going on. There is only one comment and no others in the discussion, and I think that it is closed. So, should I remove the template or not? Catinthedogs (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: There are 3 comments. Catinthedogs (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Only Administrators close Articles for Deletion. David notMD (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Not only: WP:CLOSEAFD Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, some exceptions, but clearly, the creator of the article is not empowered to end the AfD. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting urgent help[edit]

Hi,

Just a while ago I completed my second article on Wikipedia namely Aurat_March - a Women's Day related article. while I was amidst to make correction and review request on various Wikipedia women projects. Some one has placed speedy deletion notice on the article for perceived copyright issue.

While most of the places I have tried to write in my own language, some of the third person statements reported by news portals may still need little corrections. While personally I do not think that is a serious copyright issue which can not be dealt with little more paraphrasing. But frankly I do not know how to deal with situation. Please help me either in necessary update or help me in transferring it to my sandbox page. Thanks for the help Bookku (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You can contest the Speedy Deletion. If you used content from news sources, then all of that must be deleted quickly. All copyright violations are 'serious.' The 'Mirror' question raised in the Speedy Deletion notice and Talk is whether you created content in Wikipedia that was used in the news feeds. That would absolve you of copyright violation. However, if reverse is true, delete all copied content and only then add to article, paraphrased. Copyright material cannot be temporarily parked in your Sandbox or a Draft. To preserve the entire article, I suggest you enter Edit mode and copy everything into a Word document on your computer. That would save your text and formatted referencing. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
AND the article exists (not SD'd), but now a stub. You can elaborate as long as not using other peoples' wording. David notMD (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

are stage roles under filmography?[edit]

hello, i’m trying to organise Sam Retford, and when i first wrote it, i included ‘stage roles’ under filmography. however, i’m now wondering whether stage roles would be under a different section, because theatre productions aren’t on screen. do i put it under a different section or not? and if so, is there a word for stage roles, like filmography, discography etc? (like stagography... but a real word) please add your thoughts? – DarkGlow (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DarkGlow, and welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, it's usually a good idea to see how other high-quality articles have done things. Thus, for instance Noël Coward lists them under the heading "Plays", and some under "Revues, musicals, operetta and songs". There is also a "Filmography" section strictly for ~films. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a page for all of the articles with poor grammar?[edit]

I remember seeing this page before, but my searches for it didn't show it. I'm good at English grammar, and would like to contribute by correcting grammar. Do you know this page's URL?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drone Better (talkcontribs)

@Drone Better: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a section of the Community Portal (click that internal link, no need for the URL) that lists articles that have been tagged as needing to be edited for various reasons, including grammar. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Query[edit]

I just wanted to ask, is Sputnik News a bad source to use in general for Wikipedia articles, or more specifically say for Jammu and Kashmir related articles? If this is not the correct place to ask this please direct to me the appropriate link on Wikipedia. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. No problem with asking here; there is also the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for future inquries(you can keep this one here, no need to duplicate). 331dot (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
331dot, thanks. So should I ask specific questions related to Sputnik News and the sources in question or keep it general? (This is related to a page I am currently trying to edit.) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2019

(UTC)

Actually, 331dot, and anyone interested. I think I need to ask my question directly. Is it possible to block someone from editing one specific article or a group of articles? In other words, I want to impose a ban/sanction on myself. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
this is the reason - Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#DYK_Rule_4a_requirements. I wrote this just now.
"This may have no connection but I have had it with this. Really. I am trying to do this in good faith by I don't like this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratik Sinha The delete nomination just now says the person support UN. This is immediately after i say I don't like a UN report here. The timing of this is uncanny and scary. I give up. I am discussing at the teahouse how to impose a ban or sanction on myself from JK related articles on Wikipedia. I give up. And this time I am serious." DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I reuqest an admin in good faith to ban and block me from JK related articles. I have worked on different articles in wikipedia. Just now my sandbox has User:DiplomatTesterMan/sandbox a new page related to an Indian media house. I will work on other things. But please, in good faith i request help in dragging me away from this. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
As an editor who has collaborated with you, I suggest- based on the speed and volume of your most recent posts- to take a break from your monitor for a few hours. Have a cup of tea, and look out the window, perhaps? Collect your thoughts and assess. I read the recent posts at the "Crowd control..." article, and my first thought was to opine to User:SusanLesch: "Nice to give free advice, but here's some for you; If you think you have something to add to the Wikipedia, feel free to do it. Do not "yell" at someone because they didn't do it for you"
Yeah, THAT's what I would have said there, I yet might do just that... But, I saw you post here about your very recent obstacle, and thought to respond here instead, directly to you. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
About your initial question, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

A friend of mine edits Wikipedia and claims he was blocked to the extant that he can't access Wikipedia at all, not even just to view articles. I was under the impression that this type of block does not exist, and said as much to him, but he is convinced that has happened. Is this type of block possible, and if so, what can be done to undo it? — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You can be globally locked so you cannot log in to any Wikimedia wiki. See meta:Global locks. This does not prevent you from reading the site when you are not logged in. If an IP address puts too much strain on the servers with a huge number of automated requests then it's possible that all access may be blocked but I don't know how it's handled. It's more likely to be a limitation at his end or Internet service provider. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Help on how to properly copy image.[edit]

I stumbled on an english page that missed a translation. I really tried to do it correctly but I think I sould have started with a "less touchy first page" :-/ I would like some help on "how to properly copy the image from the original page in due legality", and more globally if anyone want's to comment on my translation, please be my guest. Original : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coexist_(image) My translation : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coexist_(image) (missing the image !!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas.Bouthors (talkcontribs) 2019-03-17T19:37:28 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nicolas.Bouthors. The "Coexist" image is hosted here on English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), as you can see by clicking on the image and reading the details. There is a warning about transferring it to Commons although I am unsure if that would be a problem. Images hosted on English Wikipedia cannot be used directly in other language Wikipedias. Read WP:NFCI for the policy regarding non-free images on English Wikipedia. I assume that French Wikipedia has a similar policy, so I suggest that you ask for help at their help desk or Teahouse equivalent. You may be able to upload the image to French Wikipedia if they handle logos in a similar way. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Nicolas.Bouthors, and welcome to the Teahouse. Many images used on Wikipedia are freely licensed, and hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and can be included directly in any page of any Wikimedia project. Unfortunately, File:Coexist by Piotr Mlodozeniec.jpg is not in Commons, because its copyright status does not allow this: according to its description page there, it would be regarded as Public Domain in the US, but not in Poland, (its country of Origin), so Commons will not accept it; so it has been uploaded to en-wiki.
If you want to use it in fr-wiki, you will need to copy it there, by downloading it to your device, and then uploaded it into fr-wiki. But first , you must study the copyright policy of fr-wiki, and make sure that it is acceptable there. Each language Wikipedia has its own policies, and this is one area where they do differ. I know that de-wiki does not accept non-free images at all: I don't know about fr-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Newbie questions[edit]

Hi everyone,

I'm a newbie who is almost finished editing a longish entry that I found on the All Articles Needing Copy Edit list. I'm not new to copyediting in general (I have completed a program and have copyediting experience), just to copyediting on Wikipedia. My questions are:

1) My article cites socioeconomic statistics. Do I need to check all the "factoids" that the author cites to see if they were cited correctly? I find that I have to keep checking the cited sources because the piece appears to be written by an ESL author and I want to ensure that the information is cited correctly. As a copyeditor, do I need to bother with verifying cited statistics or should I flag the questionable facts for someone else to check once I've edited the article for grammar, usage, punctuation, consistency, etc.?

2) Where can I post the edited article for fairly immediate feedback from more experienced Guild editors?

Thank you!

LizKDVA

PS. In retrospect, I should have started with a shorter and easier piece, but I've done a lot of work on it and don't want to abandon the project.

Um, if this was an existing article, you edit in the article and your edits are incorporated when you click on Publish changes at the bottom. Your #2 suggested you moved the article elsewhere to work on it. Would help if you identify the article by name, and also to sign your comments by typing four of ~ at end of the comment. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi LizDKVA, and welcome to the Teahouse. Checking your history you only have 2 edits... on back in November to add your name to the list of folks over at GOCE, and then this question today. Are you editing under a different name? Or forgotten to log on while editing? If you were editing an existing article, which is what it appears you are saying you did off of the page, it would have logged those edits so we could tell what article you were working on. According to the GOCE page guidelines, checking the veracity of the assertions in the article is not part of what GOCE is about. But as per their project page, "you can ask questions on any of the project's coordinators' talk pages". You can find those coordinators at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors#Who coordinates Guild activities?. Regarding the second question, if you're editing an existing article, once you hit "publish changes", they become live on WP. If you establish a rapport with one of the coordinators, you can ask them to review your work. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixing sort order within a Category[edit]

I just discovered a new (to me) category, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New South Wales. And I noticed something peculiar - all the entries are in alphabetical order except for one: "Wikipedia requested photographs in Millers Point, New South Wales‎ (empty)" is listed under W instead of M. I looked at the code but I can'l see where to fix this problem. Where is the search order controlled? (By the way, I notice that sub-category is nominated for deletion, so it may not be there for long, but I would be interested to know the answer for next time I encounter this situation.) --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. The other subcategories have sort keys in their category page code. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Millers Point, New South Wales is sorted under its first character "W" because it has no sort key. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Got it. Fixed it. Thanks! Smile.gif --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes Patrol[edit]

Sometimes, I see users in the category, Recent Changes Patrol. I go there, but click the link that says, “IP’s contribs”. How do I have the Recent Changes Patrol group appear here? LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LPS and MLP Fan, welcome to the Teahouse. I found your question very hard to understand and answer, especially as your screenshot was so low res, and also because I always use desktop view on my mobile, even when patrolling Recent Changes. The mobile view you linked to was this one. Your arrow points purely to the name of the editor who made those changes.
Are you wanting to have a visible shortcut to the Recent Changes page? I don't think you'll ever get it there. I use a special script to give me a selection of a regularly used pages, like WP:NPP, WP:TH, WP:AFC etc, but this only works in desktop view. If you don't want to switch to desktop view, then the best way to make 'bookmarked' pages easily accessible, is to put one or more links to them at the top of your user page, which you can easily see and access in mobile view.
I do apologise if (as I suspect) I've completely misunderstood what you're asking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, I believe LPS and MLP Fan is asking how to get the Recent changes patrollers category in that section of the mobile view. I don't think this is possible, as it appears to be reserved to any of the user groups available on Wikipedia. This mobile view diff from Oshwah seems to support this theory.
Back to OP, if you do want to see more about Recent Changes patrol, check WP:RCP. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Newbie pest-on-the-loose[edit]

User:2405:205:128A:E6FD:0:0:1C19:50A4 (formerly User: 2405:205:1282:6986::11db:c8a4 and User: 2405:205:1284:9735:0:0:1B5C:A0A4) has caused some offense, to me and other editors, by their insistence on editing WP, armed with only their arrogance, self-confidence, TV news knowledge, no sources and no willingness to read or listen. They have just switched IP addresses again today, after seeing their first Talk page littered with warnings. I've wasted hours today, and others have for several days, undoing their mess. It's impracticable to protect all West African articles from this person. Would someone kindly put them on a list of pests or otherwise keep an eye on them, please? I'm tired of trying to corral them and of repair-editing outside of my interests. Thank you--Quisqualis (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Article replacing a disambiguation page?[edit]

A few months back, I created an article about a Canadian singer, bülow. Since then, the artist has gained popularity, and the hits to the page have increased to ~300 per day (per the wmflabs pageviews tool). This number is much larger than the other pages on the disambiguation page, including the disambiguation page itself (pageviews tool with some random samples). I was wondering, would it be appropriate at some point to change the article's title from "Bülow (singer)" to simply "Bülow" and change the disambiguation page from "Bülow" to "Bülow (disambiguation)"? Thanks, Hickland (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hickland, it's imperative to understand that articles are not named based on popularity/pageview but based on a well-developed standard called Article title policy, or the specifically relevant WP:ATDAB section and WP:PTOPIC guideline. You should read that. If you're still confident that Bülow (singer) should be at the base title, then open a move request at the talkpage of the article. Read documentation of Template:Requested move for how to do that.– Ammarpad (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

start a page[edit]

how to start a page about a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Name122134 (talkcontribs) 05:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Name122134. The person must notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Writing an acceptable Wikipedia article is difficult but not impossible. Familiarize yourself with our most important policies and guidelines. Read and study Your first article and follow all of the excellent advice that you will find there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What kinds of articles are appropriate?[edit]

I wonder which kinds of articles are appropriate. Please reply me. Harold Hutchins (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Harold Hutchins: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A subject merits a article on Wikipedia if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that shows how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Some subject areas have more specific notability guidelines as well, such as musicians and businesses. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Paramnesia vs False memory[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this, but I assume it could attract more of experienced users to solve the issue than the article talk page itself. There is an article called False memory with an item on Wikidata that mixes up articles on False memory and Paramnesia across different Wikipedias. Aren't they different topics? And if so, how can we split these up so that the Wikidata admins or users don't get angry Face-smile.svg? I'm just not sure about this, and don't wanna mess anything up. Can anyone give me any advice on this or take care of it right away?--Piramidion 09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

How to create a artist article![edit]

Hi i am lakshya. I am from indian. It is tought to understand wikipedia and how do we make a wiki page for someone! Hope if you can help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimix 808 (talkcontribs) 12:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Aimix 808. For a complete newcomer, trying to create a new article immediately is a bad idea, and is the hardest thing you could attempt to do here. We always advise new editors to take their time, learn to make smaller improvements across this encyclopaedia, before moving on to making new pages. Any subject covered here MUST meet our Notability criteria. You might find this page especially useful for an artist. If they don't meet these criteria, any attempt to make a page about someone is doomed to be rejected or deleted. To learn the basics of how Wikipedia works, try The Wikipedia Adventure, and should you be determined to attempt to create a page about a person not yet covered here, you should read and follow the instructions at Articles for Creation (AFC), where you can create a 'draft' article first and work on it until it is in good enough state to be submitted for review. This can be a far less demoralising route than trying to put a new and incomplete page straight onto Wikipedia, where very poor efforts are often immediately deleted. We do advise those whose command of the English language is perhaps a little limited to consider whether creating a page on their own language Wikipedia is a better place to start. But starting off by creating a draft article at WP:AFC is very definitely the best advice we can give you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Does RS conflict with NPOV[edit]

It appears to me, that much of the reliable sources editors constantly bring up on talk pages are propaganda pieces meant to push an agenda. "Fake News" if you will. Now I personally believe most, if not all, news sources to spurious in nature. So if we rely so much on these "News" sources, does this not conflict with providing an neutral point of view ? After all, I don't think anyone would dispute that CNN or Fox has an agenda to push. Cheers Baldr The Brave (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Baldr The Brave: Welcome to the Teahouse. To a limited extend I can agree with the suggestion that many very reliable and trustworthy newsmedia outlet can sometime tend to have an intentional or unintentional slant in one political direction in their reporting (eg The Guardian newspaper (leftwards-leaning) versus The Times or Daily Telegraph(rightwards-leaning) newspapers here in the UK. I would certainly dispute your suggestion that this is synonymous with Fake News of the type that Fox News comes up with. To suggest that CNN and Fox News are equivalent and that they take the same approach to their reporting is risible. All the stories I've ever heard on Fox News about the UK are utterly laughable. I would never say that about CNN, who's reporting would be regarded as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes Wikipedia editors may selectively choose to use only one news source that fit their personal agendas, whilst intentionally ignoring multiple other sources that do not. I am concerned you state "I personally believe most, if not all, news sources to [be] spurious in nature". I hope, therefore, you never attempt to edit articles on Wikipedia that are based on reliable reported stories on well-regarded news outlets. Where else would you propose to get your 'facts' from to use as citations? Personal opinion? Reddit? Fox News? Instagram? YouTube videos? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)  

With the widespread use of Cameras and the prevalent use of the Internet I tend to rely on the rationality of my mind to analyze clips on events. Of, course I will watch fox or CNN in order to get bits of the Story. My reason consists of the fact that if the one outlet represents the left and one outlet represents the right I get most of the story. The man I trust most (well 2nd from my own mind of course) is a journalist by the name of Tim Pool. I'm not entirely whether or not he could be listed as an reliable source. Overall I approach all media sources with the same level of distrust a wild beast has to a cage. Cheers. Baldr The Brave (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For print (New York Times, for example) newspapers have a policy of separating news content from editorials. There can still be a subtle-to-obvious bias to what stories are being covered and what not. I agree the distinction is not as clear for e-media. But even for Fox, there appears to be a divide between the newscasters (recently attacked by He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named) and the network's opinionators. Facts are a better foundation than opinion. The hot debate on what is NPOV appears to be about facts versus opinions, especially when some of the facts are in dispute. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, WP:NPOV doesn't meant that we can't report what biased sources say about a topic, so long as due weight is given and the POV is attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a dark mode (aka 'night mode' / 'light-on-dark mode') for Wikipedia on the web?[edit]

I can't find native support for dark mode on Wikipedia (Chrome browser, Windows 10).

Dark reader extension for Chrome gets the job done, but if I browse typography articles I get 'black on dark' font specimens, so this gimmick is not viable for all the situations. How comes that the Android app of Wikipedia is so rich, advanced and customizable in comparison to the web version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Hey GBE (talkcontribs) 14:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia, Kid Hey GBE. As you say, there are various Wikipedia apps for Android and iOs available (see WP:MOBILE, and some seem able to offer a nightmode. The only thing I'm aware of on the website version is to experiment by changing your 'skin' in Special:Preferences from the default (Vector), but none of these offer anything remotely approaching your needs, but you might find one you like more. Sorry I can't offer more help with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kid Hey GBE: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Use a black background with green text". PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thanks for that helpful answer. Whilst it looks horrendous to me (reminding me of my first computer, an Amstrad PCW, from c.1990), I wasn't aware of this colour setting as an option in 'Preferences'. Good call. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Frustrated by dichotomy between what Wikipedia says it wants regarding entries about women and reference requirements[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

This is a call to action for you and a query. I would like to include more pages about women leaders on Wikipedia but am stymied by undefined reference requirements.

Unfortunately, the majority of history books and references have been written by men about men, ergo there are not a lot of references for many women writers, artists, scientists, et al.

Without multiple references, draft entries are removed by Wikipedia editors. Frustratingly, when legitimate women leaders are not referenced, this is how we end up with 8 pages about Russell Wilson and 2.5 pages about Gertrude Elion. This is how Emma Edelstein, who co-wrote and researched most of the works her husband Ludwig published and got credit for, gets left with only a few hard-to-find references online - and because of it, Wikipedia editors reject a draft page for her.

I would like to know: does Wikipedia truly want more content about women as they've said publicly in the past? If so, please be specific about how many references will pass the test for an acceptable entry. Please know that if it's more than about 2 references, many historical women figures will not be included in Wikipedia.

And here's the call to action for Wikipedia: it's ridiculous that there's still such a gap between what's real (woman scientist becoming a Nobel prize winner for the drug that helps cure HIV vs. an American football player that no one will remember in 100 years) and what's published in Wikipedia. Please figure out a way to balance the scales on this. You could consider using part of the $75 million that the Wikimedia Foundation receives every year, to pay a few folks to work on this.

Thanks,

Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalishArchipelago (talkcontribs) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that you, or anyone really, could write to news sources in repute asking them to do stories on overlooked historical females in order to meet the requirement for reliable sources. CheersBaldr The Brave (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hey SalishArchipelago. Unfortunately there is no hard fast rule or specific number that can be referenced about how many sources are enough sources to demonstrate that a subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. The short answer is more along the lines of "enough sources to write an article with", but that will still vary from person to person, according to subject, and depending on what types of sources are available. One or two books can go a long way toward being able to write a well-sourced encyclopedia article, and conversely, an infinite number of passing mentions in the phone book and routine directories may never give you enough information to write with.
I see you've already gotten an invitation to the Women in Red Wikiproject, and if you hang out there you'll see this type of topic come up fairly often. But I'm afraid despite everyone's best efforts, no one really knows what a quick and easy solution would look like. GMGtalk 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Will people read my articles[edit]

Will people read my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokollo Tk (talkcontribs) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Gave this its own section title, as no related to the collapsed entry. David notMD (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tokollo Tk: Draft:Tokollo is gibberish. Is there another article you are working on? RudolfRed (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia page for a BBC children's wellbeing brand[edit]

Hello,

I signed up as I thought it would be useful to create a Wikipedia entry for www.bbc.co.uk/ownit. BBC Own It is a UK website and brand that my team run, offering internet safety and wellbeing advice to children in the UK. Our target audience is 8-12 year olds who need support to be healthy and happy in all that they do online. We sit within a network of partner charities and organisations, including the UK Safer Internet Centre, Internet Matters, and the Duke of Cambridge's CyberBullying Taskforce. We are a sister brand to www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc and www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies.

However, I note in the Wikipedia 'welcome' information that it is broadly frowned upon to create Wiki pages about your own site or projects you're involved in.

Therefore, please could someone advise whether - on the face of it - this brand and our work would be considered to merit a Wiki entry. I would be perfectly happy for someone else to create this page - and to provide any info required, if this was felt to be the most proper way to move forward.

Here is some background info:

About the website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/bbc-launches-own-it-site-for-kids About the (forthcoming) Own It app: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/childrens-app-own-it

Hope that's all ok.

All best wishes,

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davhow (talkcontribs) 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davhow. The first thing that you must do is to comply with our mandatory paid contributor disclosure. Whether or not BBC Own It is notable as Wikipedia defines that term depends on the amount of significant coverage that the website has received from reliable sources independent of the BBC. Please read Your first article and Articles for Creation. Wikipedia:Notability (web) is also relevant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I wanted to take a look at the website to evaluate it but it seems I cannot visit the website because I am in the United States. That seems strange. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that also - interesting. Maybe because it's targeting to young kids, they want to limit the problems they might have complying with other countries' laws relating to selling to and collecting data from minors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Event listings as Reliable Sources???[edit]

I've been studying a lot of artists and photographers' articles on WP to learn the best approach before I embark on attempting to create some - In noticing the edit history of some of the articles, I've noticed some editors (interestingly enough, usually the same few) seem to delete citations and references that are published in newspapers listing an artist exhibition.

My questions thus:

1. Does every single exhibition for an artist of photographer require a citation in order to document each single exhibition properly? This is nearly impossible for pre-Internet exhibitions and those in the 90s.

2. In many cases I am discovering that often the only only online reference to an art show is a "listing" of the exhibition in a newspaper or art magazine - are these references acceptable?

Again: The reason that I am asking is that, for example: an editor recently removed several exhibition citations from a Chicago photographer's WP article with the explanation that "event listings are not RS" - for the record, these exhibitions were listed in the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. I guess that I'm confused why an art show listing in a major newspaper is not a reliable source, as it documents the show and often other online references from the early days of the Internet are hard to find. Thank you in advance, --64.26.99.248 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@64.26.99.248: I'd have to see the exact edit to get the full context, but there's a difference between an article about an exhibit in a notable publication and a listing of upcoming exhibits which is usually there because a publicist sent it in. It makes sense if you think about it - the latter is unverified - anyone can say any exhibit is coming up, but only after the fact using the resultant media coverage can we say it actually happened. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. My own view is that every statement indicating an exhibition has taken place should be supported by a reference. (I don't mind if a few citations are missed off, but I expect at least every other one to be supported with evidence) Far too many artist-related articles try to show how 'notable' an artist is, simply by listing exhibitions of their work. To me, if an editor fails to support such a statement with a citation, then the whole entry is dubious. We do not require citations to link to online evidence. A citation to a printed exhibition catalogue is quite acceptable. But be aware that a commercial gallery (as opposed to a public museum or art gallery) producing a catalogue of an exhibition is rather akin to Walmart/Sainsbury's/Asda producing a flyer for what's in stock on their shelves this week. Hardly evidence of notability.
Yes, if you want to provide supporting evidence of an exhibition, then a newspaper/art magazine is perfectly acceptable. But bear in mind that simply having an exhibition in a commercial gallery doesn't contribute towards meeting our notability criteria for artists. (See WP:NARTIST).Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If you think about it, the only information which a listing could possibly support was that the event was scheduled to take place: not even always that it did take place. I guess that for an exhibition which continued over a period, a repeated listing would be a prima facie source for the fact that the exhibition did take place. But if that is the only source for an exhibition, I'm not convinced that the exhibition should appear in an article: generally an article should list only the major works (or exhibitions, productions etc) not everything the subject has done.
Note that sources do not have to be online: the important part of a citation is the information which would let a reader find the source, eg in a library. For most citations, a URL is an optional extra provided as a convenience. See WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nail clipping[edit]

I mistakenly linked to an external blog (didn't fully understand the rules - my bad), when editing the above topic. My changes were subsequently reverted, as expected. However when I attempted to add the same useful information, minus the link this time, my edit was once again reverted. Can you please advise the reason for this?

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfrolics (talkcontribs) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dogfrolics: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You just added the same information but without a link- that's a distinction without a difference, and violates policy as all information needs to be source to an independent reliable source- which blogs are not always. Blogs must have editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Furthermore, given your username, it seems to be your blog; linking to your own blog is a severe conflict of interest. Please review and comply with that policy. You will also need to request a change of username per the username policy; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)