Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

Contents

Most recent archives
949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968

(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Question about first article -- notability[edit]

I am preparing to write my first article outright on Wikipedia, but have a question about notability. The article is about a business person who is a top investor and top executive of a company, well-known in a specific industry. There are various independent sources referencing him in other online and print publications -- is this enough to make such an informational bio "notable" and able to be published on Wikipedia? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracewriter (talkcontribs) 19:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tracewriter, and welcome. It certainly sounds possible. It hard to saymore though without specifics. Would you be willing to list the best sources you have for your article here? Then we could look at them and see whether they actually establish notiability. LadyofShalott 19:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tracewriter: One of the things we frequently ask about when reviewing notability is the best WP:THREE or four sources on the subject you have. If you could provide these here we could make a rough determination on whether this businessperson would satisfy our notability requirements. As a note, we tend to be skeptical about businesspeople since many businesspeople articles may violate our WP:PROMO rule. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tracewriter. You also have to be sure that the third-party sources you mentioned do not merely contain trivial or passing reference to your subject.Darwin Naz (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe this process is highly arbitrary, and there is nothing to do but post it to see whether someone higher up is having a bad day. I posted a short article about Alexander Volokh, the law professor at Emory Law School, who is a contributor to the legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, and a former law clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor and Samuel Alito. I reasoned that people would want to know what had happened to the Alito/O'Connor law clerk and many top academics have pages. Welp, Quick Deletion! I had planned to go through all of the law clerks for current Justices and find which ones had become famous, yet didn't have pages. Now it doesn't seem worth it. CarlCanton (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CarlCanton. Biographies on Wikipedia summarize what significant coverage in independent, reliable sources say about the person. Your deleted article only had three references, two of which were to other Wikipedia articles. We never use Wikipedia articles as references for another Wikipedia article. Please read WP:CIRCULAR for the reasons why. Your third reference is to Volokh's Emory University staff page. This is not an independent source, and significant coverage in independent sources are required to show notability. Familiarize yourself also with the notability guideline for academics. I suggest that you read Your first article and limit yourself to writing about topics that are truly notable, as that term is defined in Wikipedia. In conclusion, the process is not "highly arbitrary" and deletion of the article you wrote was correct and in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Nobody was having a bad day. They were doing their job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

ask for help[edit]

Helped

I have created a route map of MacArthur station (BART), but it needs further refinement. I wonder if someone can give me a hand.
THIS is the route map.Johnson.Xia (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Johnson.Xia, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid it's not clear to me what type of help it is that you seek, nor can I tell that from your posting of a similar layout late last year on the talk page of that article what assistance you need. I do think that there - rather than here - is the right place to seek input from interested editors. So perhaps you'd like to expand on your post there and say whether it's technical (if so what extra graphic/coding input do you seek for your template), or is it factual (do you need better sources on which to improve your map?) It may be that seeking input at WP:WikiProject Stations or WP:WikiProject Trains might be one way, or perhaps try to find similar articles containing good templates of route that others have worked on and see if those template creators are currently active and available to assist. But either way, I think you may need to be specific on the input you seek. I apologise for this being a rather bland response; maybe other editors here can offer further suggestions for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:I am here asking for more detailed information about the tracks around this station.Johnson.Xia (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Johnson.Xia: OK, thanks. I doubt anyone here can help you directly, so I still think your best bet is to ask on the more topic-focussed pages. Another alternative is to see if there's any mapped data on www.openstreetmap.org that you can use, possibly assisted with a crafty check of some satellite or land maps, but beware of using copyrighted data. OSM is Creative Commons, so is fine to use. Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Getting my article back to edit rather than simply having it deleted[edit]

LordCricket (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)An editor kindly deleted an entire article rather than the part that I should have rewritten rather than borrow from the website heavily. How do I get it all back in order to complete it in an agreeable manner ? LordCricket (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @LordCricket: The article was comprised almost entirely of copyrighted material, which for legal reasons cannot remain on Wikipedia's site. See WP:COPYVIO. As you begin to rewrite the article, make sure you paraphrase and summarize in your own words, citing your sources with inline citations as you go. Orville1974 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

LordCricket (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks. Where do I get a copy of the draft so that I don't have to start from scratch?LordCricket (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. @LordCricket: The current draft, cleared of the copied material is here: Draft:Isaac Newton University Lodge and ready for further editing. The remaining material has been redacted/deleted from the servers and can't be retrieved since doing so would reintroduce the copyright violation. Orville1974 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

LordCricket (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC) NVM, TVM LordCricket (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

LordCricket: I notice that at least some of the material that was removed from the draft for copyright reasons was from the Lodge's own material. This is completely the wrong way to go about writing a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, and no interest at all in how they wish to be portrayed. The bulk of an article should be based on published material that does not come, directly or indirectly, from the subject or from their associates, but is what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. If there happens to be little such independent material published, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable). --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Us Award Section[edit]

Helped
Hi. I noticed that in This is Us's awards mentions, it's not written that they won a GLAAD Award in 2018. Is there any way to fix that? Can you guys remedy that situation?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Us_(TV_series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleexry (talkcontribs) 23:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ashleexry: Done. Thank you for pointing it out. Orville1974 (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CSD[edit]

Helped

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I need a help, if an article is already available of the Wikipedia. And now if an same article created with some other title. What tag should be added for speedy deletion. AR.Dmg (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, AR.Dmg. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your excellent question. You didn't give links to either article, so it's hard to be specific. The simple answer might be CSD A10 (i.e. "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic"). But maybe it isn't a recently created one? Before rushing to delete, I would first ask myself whether the new article's title might serve as a useful redirect to the main article. If so, I would simply blank the new page's content and create that redirect. (See WP:REDIRECT for help on that - it's quite simple to do). Alternatively, having looked at the content, I'd ask myself if there was content in the new page that could be merged into the older one before any deletion or redirect were done. If neither a CSD A10, nor a MERGE, nor a REDIRECT seemed appropriate, I'd then consider adding a WP:PROD template - which is a sort of 'notice of an uncontroversial deletion proposal'. This gives 7 days notice, in which time the template you add can be removed by anyone. If that happens, and you still feel the article should go, then a Deletion Discussion should be put forward. I'm ever so sorry for so many links to other guidelines, but each of the later alternatives would take a bit too long to explain in full here. But ask further if you need more answers. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi AR.Dmg, In addition to Moyes' comment, if the content is copied and pasted from the original article and there are no changes since the copied-from revision in either the original page or the pasted-to page, then CSD G6 is appropriate by tagging {{db-copypaste}}, and if there are new revisions then tag WP:History merge. If the new article is in draft space then the AfC reviewer could decline the acceptance of the draft. Thanks. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Postscript: I see you found one possible answer already, and have added the CSD:A10 template to Dennis Nana Dwamena. Actually, I think a REDIRECT would be far better and quite useful here to KiDi (musician), rather in the same way that a redirect from Reg Dwight takes users to Elton John. I will make that change for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Quoting a quote that can't be confirmed.[edit]

Helped

Wikipedia seems to have its own company lingo, so no idea how to post this Q. I can't even wade through the Help pages lingo. How do I add a citation (if that's what it is called) to a sentence where the author has quoted someone's quote of an organization that actually does not show that quote? EXAMPLE: Author claims "John Smith quoted the Department of Justice as saying Blahblah," but the Department of Justice cannot be confirmed to ever making that statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikievil666 (talkcontribs)

Welcome, Wikievil666 - that's a good question. I think what you need to do is mark the failed source as.[not in citation given] To do that, place this text: {{Failed verification}} right after the reference. (if you see the letters tlx in what you're pasting, please don't include them. If you don't see them - just ignore what I've said) If that's a problem, you could simply click the article's 'Talk' tab and leave a note there of your concerns. Hope this helps, and don't worry that everything seems strange at first. We all have to start somewhere. If you want to learn a little more, do have a go at our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wikievil666: I'm unsure of your scenario. Hypothetical descriptions often omit important information from the real case so please link the article you have in mind. If John Smith did claim the Department of Justice made that quote and the Wikipedia article only says John Smith claims it then this is not {{Failed verification}} but it might be {{Unreliable source?}} depending on circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

New template creation[edit]

How can I create a new template on Wikipedia? National Railway Company Limited, Department 1 of Jailbreak Company Limited 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi National Railway, welcome to the Teahouse. Your signature must link to your user page, talk page or contributions per Wikipedia:Signatures#Links. The easiest way to do that is to have no checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. What do you want the template to do? Maybe an existing template can do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Actually, a signed my edit already. My signature is National Railway Company Limited, Department 1 of Jailbreak Company Limited 10:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC). I want the template to show am I online or not, just like the template User:FlightTime/Status by FlightTime (I guess). National Railway Company Limited, Department 1 of Jailbreak Company Limited 10:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, National Railway. PrimeHunter's point is that your signature is required to contain at least one link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions: see SIGLINK. The problem here is exacerbated by the fact that the text of your signature is different from your user name: generally, that is allowed (though I think your signature is rather long, see SIGLEN), but without a link we cannot see what your user name actually is.
In answer to your question, see Help:Template. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

All of my edits reverted[edit]

I tried to significantly improve an article, and all of my edits were reverted. I am feeling discouraged- it is only the second article I have ever worked on. I wrote brief edit summaries and felt that my edits were constructive changes, certainly made in good faith. Now the page (Naomi Goldenberg) has been reverted to an incorrect birth date, redundancies and grammar issues. Thank you so much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLynnC2015 (talkcontribs) 04:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CLynnC2015. A proper Wikipedia article neutrally summarizes what published reliable, independent sources say about a topic. In this situation, you changed a date of birth but did not provide a citation to a reliable source that verifies the changed date. How does a reader (or any of us) know that date is true? This fails the core content policy of verifiability. You also added evaluative critical analysis to the article but did not provide citations to reliable sources. This is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. At least one of your edits eliminated a citation to a reliable source. Your edits are indicative of those made by a person who possibly has a close connection to the subject of the article. If that is the case, please study and comply with our guideline for editors who have a conflict of interest. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Mirza[edit]

Helped

When will my page be uploaded..currently I cant find my profile on Google search or wikipedia search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dulull (talkcontribs)

Hello, Mirza. Thank you for coming to the Teahouse to ask your question. I fear you may have the wrong idea of quite how Wikipedia works. At the moment, all you have done is create a userpage. These are not indexed by Google as they do not form part of this encyclopaedia. They are there simply for you to say a few words about yourself in the context of being a contributor here - and most definitely not as you have done in the form of a CV, like one might see on LinkedIn or Facebook. You've written it as if you were the subject of a page on this encyclopaedia, which I'm sorry to say, you are not. My advice is for you to quickly delete all that content and just add something in the first person tense to say briefly who you are and your interests in wanting to edit here. Otherwise, it's quite likely that another editor, on seeing that, might propose it for 'speedy deletion'. Unless you meet what we call our Notability criteria, it would be impossible for you to have a page on Wikipedia. And even then, we advise against a person trying to write about themselves. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi Dulull and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking about your autobiography at User:Dulull/sandbox, the answer is never in its present form. Wikipedia does not host profiles, only articles about WP:Notable people. Your sandbox has no WP:Reliable sources. If you think that you are a notable person in the Wikipedia sense, then you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources, such as newspapers, in which you have been written about at length, and the article should summarise these sources. Please read WP:Autobiography. Dbfirs 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Vijay Kumbhar Article for creation[edit]

I have been working on the article related to Vijay Kumbhar. I learnt about the notability issues and have rectified them. There are several articles that describe the subject and they are all third party RS. Below are a few.

https://www.harmonyindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Harmony-Issue-Jan-16-LR.pdf
https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-justice-smiles-on-vijay-kumbhar-after-13-yrs-1598225
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/sundew-apartments-order-was-victory-of-truth-tenacity/
https://www.mid-day.com/articles/victory-for-rti-activist-in-battle-against-former-cm-s-son-in-law/138595
https://www.rediff.com/money/interview/he-exposed-the-rs-2043-crore-dsk-scam/20180621.htm

Please help me understand if there are more edits required.PadmashreeGhangale (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI: currently at Draft:Vijay Kumbhar. DEclined at AfC on 23 May; resubmitted David notMD (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft Review Elie Akobeto[edit]

Hi,

I submitted a draft few days ago without adding references or consistent content. I have now made the amendments. Can someone please review my draft? Here’s the link to it : Draft:Élie Akobeto Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdalooz (talkcontribs) 14:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rdalooz: Hello and welcome. Your draft will be reviewed in due course, please be patient. Attempts to "jump the line" aren't usually successfull; there are thousands of drafts waiting for review by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of sources[edit]

I am trying to add this page as a source to 2018 German Grand Prix which is comprised of 13 pages. However the next/previous page buttons are a little iffy. When you press these buttons it takes you to the correct url (the url I linked/page/page number) but it doesn't come up with any content until you refresh the page. Is it okay to only include the ref once or do I have to insert an unique reference for every page that I get info from. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SSSB. Thanks for calling into the Teahouse 'pitstop'. I can't quite replicate the problem you describe, but my view is always cite the exact url on which a stated fact is derived. Each of those 13 BBC live blogpost pages is quite long, so use the relevant one. If you state, say, five facts in a row, all of which are derived from one url, I'd say it is fine to use just one reference at the end of the sentence or paragraph. If you want to use one reference in multiple places, you can allocate a refname to each one (e.g. refname=BBC20181; refname=BBC2018p13) and call that named reference up again and again without having to type everything out again. You can read more on how to reuse a reference here: WP:REFNAME. Does this answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)    
OK, thanks. SSSB (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

──── On a related note is it okay to only reference each page once in each section or do I have to do it at the end of evey sentence that includes information from that page. SSSB (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB:My view would be that, if it's just general statements that are not likely to be deemed contentious, then once at the end of each paragraph is OK (not each section - that's not sufficient). However, if you're including information that is liable to be challenged, then you are well advised to add a citation after each sentence to support that content. Better to over reference than under reference, but finding the middle, sensible way is best. Here are two alternative perspectives for you to consider: Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Citation underkill. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)  

Untitled post[edit]

I thank you for your generous invitation. I'm all for hearing/write (later analyze with Aristotle deductive logic or 1 of many form of modern logic) individuals unique perspectives. I have a question as to whether you think this would be useful for me as I'm very highly educated?! BS UofK Mathematics; (minor Architectural drafting. M.Sc. UofK Computational Physics xtra CH Mathematics. M.E. University Grad program 2nd Master's in Structural engineering. ( (Certified Recommended, Professional, PE, etc. Professional Engineer (Structural) Licensure - 18 years experience - Valid, Licensure is likely to be granted within 6 weeks in 4 states (Florida, Maryland, KY,AZ) Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Texas. I write our 3 proprietary design/architectural/committee Software. I know 90% of the 12 most common Coding Languages retained w/o noticed effort because I'm writing software for 15-18 hrs weekly also updating/writing/patching for all 6 Office Locations. Also am Certified as C|EH Ethical Hacker. Cybersecurity Specialist, HTML5,CSS3,Python, JavaScript-2.0 Advanced Specialist. ∑ M=(ɣ)K = E/√1-V²× K²/C² — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fools.philosopher (talkcontribs) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Fools.philosopher: - welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, you see to have a somewhat murky comprehension of how Wikipedia works - as an encyclopedia, it is built upon material published in reliable sources. Any content added to Wikipedia articles must be accompanied with citations, so as to ensure the verifiablity of the encyclopedia, one of Wikipedia's pillars. Thus, your expertise, while appreciated, cannot be used in lieu of sources to justify edits. However, they will come in handy when trying to correctly interpret and provide a synopsis of sources. Wikipedia also needs to be parsable, so altering your register when editing, and writing in a more cogent, coherent fashion, would be helpful.
As a community, we welcome all people, irrespective of education, but expertise is very helpful when making edits to niche, complex areas. Your software skills will also not be of too much assistance, as Wikipedia is built upon a modified form of HTML, MediaWiki.
However, if you want to assist editors in curating an encyclopedia, you can edit in any area you find interesting. I would suggest joining the WikiProject of areas in which you wish to make contributions, and they will assist you in finding areas that could use improvement. It is a very rewarding experience, and I sincerely hope you reap this benefit and help enhance Wikipedia. Hope this helps, if you have any further questions do not hesitate to ask - Stormy clouds (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC).
Fools.philosopher, my blunt fellow Wikipedian is mostly correct. It's one of the best things about Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. Everything here is paraphrased from reliable sources. It takes no qualifications. Where your qualifications can help is finding sources. And we write to an audience that we assume has some college education, not 12 year olds. But what we don't do is theorize, deduce, infer, etc. We simply report on what others have written. Also, we are all equal. Content is decided by consensus. In consensus building discussions, you can use the smarts that earned you those impressive credentials to format good arguments based in sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What you can't do is claim your expertise as an argument. Everyone comes here with some level of misconception. Those who succeed here listen and internalize Wikipedia's culture. Those who don't hang on to their misconceptions and either grow so frustrated they quit, or end up getting their editing privileges revoked. I hope you are in the first group. John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
John from Idegon - the comment you reference has been removed by the IP editor who posted it. However, Fools.philosopher, the thrust of their argument, and my comment, and John's, all remain valid, and are worth considering as you embark on your editing adventure. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I recommend Wikipedia:Expert editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

How do I add citation to undocumented events on Wikipedia?[edit]

Hi, I'm pretty new to editing on wikipedia, less than a month of experience in fact! Hopefully you can help me.

As the title says, how do I remove (citation needed) tags if the event in question is almost completely undocumented? I am currently editing Al Ahly SC and there is a (citation needed) tag, it is about the Sultan Hussein Cup and when they first participated in it. The competition itself stopped almost 100 years ago now, and some of the teams which participated in it where British military teams (when they occupied Egypt) and there is nothing about them anywhere. Al Ahly allegedly participated in 1918, and in that year even the runners up aren't known.

I really want this article to be one of the best, but I can't if there is no information about it in the whole world. Ammar Elbehery (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)

  • @Ammar Elbehery: - In short, you don't. The only appropriate time to remove a citation needed tag is when you have added an appropriate reference for the material. This poses a problem for your predicament with Al Ahly SC, where you have content that you feel is unverifiable. However, veracity verifiability is a core pillar of Wikipedia, and material must be sourced. Though CN tags appear ugly on an article, a sentence with no citation or CN tag is inferior to one which has a CN tag. If you cannot find a citation, you have two options - move on, leaving the CN tag, and hope someone else finds a reference (someone added this material, presumably with cause, so there must be some evidence to support the claim), or remove the unsourced material entirely. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ammar Elbehery: Stormy clouds incorrectly wrote "veracity" was a pillar of Wikipedia; when the actual pillar is verifiability (as the link says). See Wikipedia:But it's true!. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tigraan: - that is correct, and I have changed the wording to reflect this. Apologies, Stormy clouds (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Stormy clouds: Thanks for the info! The same "fact" also appears in the cup's article itself, so I think it's legitimate. But you can't cite other wikipedia articles and there is no citation on the cup's article. So I think I'm just going to remove that "fact" itself (sorry for my bad English; I'm not a native speaker) Ammar Elbehery (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about first article[edit]

Hello, I submitted my first article about three weeks ago. While I know that articles can potentially be under review for much longer, I was wondering if there are any extra steps I can take in order to heighten the chances that it be reviewed and approved?

Draft:Emmett Till: How She Sent Him and How She Got Him Back

Thank you. --Bgoodrich52 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoodrich52 (talkcontribs) 23:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

*I took the liberty of tidying up the link to your draft article. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Bgoodrich52: One thing I noticed is that most of the references are discussing another piece of art that already has a Wikipedia article Open Casket and only briefly mentioning this one. With art, critical response from multiple, independent sources is a good way to demonstrate notability WP:GNG. As you wait for a review of your draft, I'd recommend collecting and including more critical commentary that discusses this artwork specifically. This team can also provide you with art-specific advice and guidance: WP:WPVA. Orville1974 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

First attempt rejected, unsure what changes are required...[edit]

Hi all,

I put together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Merivale_Group and it's been rejected for not being formal enough and sounding "promotional". I've cited all the info included - a mix of news articles and info gleaned from the company website. If anything, I was worried that what I'd written was overly critical so I'm really confused about what changes are needed.

Is the listing of the company's holdings an issue? I thought it looked awkward but wasn't sure how else to include this info...?

TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.174.74 (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I just edited your draft. I added all of your reference details (publisher, article title, etc.), removed the promotional tone, and cleaned up the brochure-like list of amenities at two of the holdings. Do their other holdings have their own Wikipedia articles? I found one for the Newport Arms and added the "Wikilink" to it. Please look it over and add any comments on the article's talk page (you can get there by clicking on the talk tab at the top of the article). Orville1974 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Kindly approve this wiki article[edit]

I just published a wikipedia article of well known indian indore poet and writer Wikipedia:wajid Shaikh after several verification process under Wikipedia terms kindly approve this article and protect from any deletion,

Declaration All researchs are real about wajid Shaikh kindly approve this article

Thank you Naimatsid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naimatsid (talkcontribs) 04:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Naimatsid: Your draft was declined, yet inexplicably moved to the main space with the declined notice removed. I've restored the declined notice. I do not see where anything can be done to help your article meet Wikipedia standards, but you can request more guidance from the ask us a question link on the declined submission notice. It appears articles about this same subject have been through this same process multiple times in the last 6 months (declined, then moved to the main space anyway). Please don't move declined articles to the main space, and please don't remove declined submission templates. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Orville1974: I suspect the WP:SPI on Iwajidshaikh along with its Archive should be considered during resolving issues with this article. --CiaPan (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"Salt" this topic? David notMD (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! David notMD and CiaPan. It was speedied with a SALT request shortly after my reply above; I wan't aware of the SPI, but I'll add input there. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Selling women for sex is classed as 'entertainment'?[edit]

Hi everyone,

I wonder if you could help me. I have found something I think should be changed on the Wikipedia page about Osaka, Japan. Here is the page url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka Under 'entertainment' it mentions 'Tobita - A red light district'.

As someone who volunteers to help trafficked women out of the sex trade, I'm horrified that in this day and age when we realise that selling people isn't acceptable, a red light district would be put under the heading of entertainment.

Is there any way of changing the classification to put it in a category which is slightly less offensive? Or just deleting it altogether. I get that women's bodies (and possibly men's too) have been sold in that particular region for a long time, making it of historical interest, but it's still classing the objectification of human beings as 'entertainment', no matter how long it's been going on.

I'm not a programmer, a wiki editor or anything else, but I'm hoping someone with a similar realisation of how crass this classification is will be able to do something about it and stand up for the rights of those forced to work in the sex industry, by at least not putting it alongside going for a meal or to a nightclub.

Thank you! Jo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.101.245 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jo, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thank you for bringing this up. I agree with you that a red-light district does not belong in a listing of "entertainment", and in fact I don't think it should be listed in the "Tourist attractions" section at all. I've removed it from there. Maybe it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, I'll have a look at it to see where it might belong. In general, the best place to discuss article content is on the article's talk page (Talk:Osaka, in this case), just so you know for the future - it's certainly not prohibited to bring up such questions here, it's just that editors who are interested in a particular article probably won't see questions about it in the Teahouse. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bonadea: OTOH, editors interested in fixing this kind of problems may not notice the request at a specific town article's talk page, whilst the issue may affect more than that one article. So I think the good approach would be both starting a talk there and putting a short message to interested editors here. :) CiaPan (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

How can I upload article on any company/organisation?[edit]

Hello there, I want to add an article regarding an IT company I visited. The purpose why I'm writing the article is I liked the work there and after searching online I didnt find any article related to the company so I decided to write it on my own for others who are seeking information about that company. kindly guide me the way out. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Out2Sol (talkcontribs) 10:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Out2Sol: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to write about Out2Sol, you seem to have a conflict of interest in doing so; if you do, you will need to disclose that. Leaving that aside, successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the most difficult task here. You would increase the odds of success if you spend a lot of time getting some experience under your belt editing existing articles in areas that interest you first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for. You should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about using Wikipedia. If you still want to attempt to write an article, you will need to use Articles for Creation.
Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; for companies, that is written at WP:ORG. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. It depends on how much independent coverage there is- and that does not include press releases, staff interviews, the company website, or any other primary source. A good rule of thumb is that you should try to find three appropriate sources. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Out2Sol: Regarding a description you gave to the initial version of Draft:Out2Sol (Detailed Profile of the company thank), please remember Wikipedia is NOT social media, it does not contain 'profiles'. Also, Wikipedia is NOT means of promotion, hence it is not interested what people, organizations, companies etc. want to say about themselves, but only what other – independent and reliable – sources say about them. --CiaPan (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
There is also a problem with your user name because it suggests that you represent the organisation. See WP:Usernames. Dbfirs 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

adding etymology to a page that doesn't currently have any[edit]

does this info go in the header block, the way foreign city names are listed

in (for example) pinyin, cantonese, and english?

or should there be a section near the end of the page titled etymology?

Longpinkytoes (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Longpinkytoes: The Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS provides topic specific guidance on including etymology which differs depending on how relevant it is to the topic. Since I don't know the subject of the article you're asking about, I recommend looking there for more guidance. Orville1974 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

New user[edit]

Hello! I am a new editor here and had an interest in contributing to this encyclopedia. Although I created this account a few weeks back, I have not understood much about how can I contribute and similar details. Can you people help me with this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan12345Asim (talkcontribs) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hassan12345Asim and welcome to the Teahouse. You have made one good contribution so far. You might like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure to get some practice. Ask again here if you need further guidance. We usually suggest that editors make some simple corrections to articles (as you have started doing), before trying to create a new article, but see WP:My first article when you are ready. Dbfirs 11:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Help:Introduction may also be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Delaware's "Southern Status" Bigshawn75 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Hello. As a Delaware Native who proudly considers himself a Yankee, as well as the vast majority of Delawareans, I find it frustrating that my home states regional status changes what seems like every 6 months. Within the past few months, Delaware's regional classification has once again been altered to classify it as a south region state. However, neighboring Maryland, which doesn't go as far north as Delaware, goes further south, and actually borders a former Confederate State (Virginia) is classified as a Mid Atlantic State. In fact, Delaware's official webpage describes it as a State in the Northeast region of the United states. Also, the tags at the bottom of the Delaware Wikipedia page are listed as "Northeast"/"Mid Atlantic"-no mention of the South region. With all due respect, this makes Wikipedia look disjointed and sloppy.


Could I please get assistance with updating this page?


Thanks in advance,

Bigshawn75 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Bigshawn75, it seems we have the U. S. Census Bureau to blame for that designation. (It's footnoted in the article.) As you can see on this Census Bureau map, they include Delaware in the South Atlantic division of the South region. So our article on Delaware reflects its official designation. Schazjmd Talk 15:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Btw, you might also be interested in reading the discussion around Maryland's designation here. I haven't read through it yet, but it appears that the question generated a lot of passion. Schazjmd Talk 15:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

How to request to rename an article?[edit]

How, my mate???


(PayBack 2, the letter B is not an official capitalisation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaReen (talkcontribs) 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @JoshuaReen: - per this you are correct, so I have moved the page to the correctly spelling of the title as requested. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Awkward making changes[edit]

I'm a little scared to correct content, out of fear of being wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.145.222 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Can't break Wikipedia. If an editor disagrees with your changes, may get reversed. Step after that is to take it to the article's Talk page to start a discussion. Changes are tracked in View history, so nothing is lost - not what you changed, not your change, not the change back. (Okay, copying in copyright material is deleted from the article and from View history). Hope that helps you to be bold. David notMD (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For example, I reverted both of your edits to Vertical farming because the content was covered in the references. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Evgeny Prokopenko[edit]

The subject is a well-known rock/pop drummer in Russia and moved to the US in 2016, so most of the sources are in Russian. I had to use Google translate to better understand them, then only used sources that I thought are good enough. However, the submission was declined for not using reliable sources. Most of the sources were old, passing the "time test," I guess, and many had his picture, and not just "casually" mentioning him. As you may know, bands are referred to in their band name, or the lead-singer gets quoted. Rarely, do we see drummers quoted or asked deep questions about their contribution. But that doesn't mean that they were an important contributor to the band's sound. In this case, with the demand and popularity of the drummer, there is something to be said about that. Should I list all the sources I a have been given, then someone can help me with which ones are reliable and which ones are not? I believe this is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kazmology/sandbox. Thank you for your help. I cannot wait to continue to contribute to the growth of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazmology (talkcontribs)

Hello, Kazmology and welcome. I'm afraid music biographies are not my strong point, but as no one else has answered you, I'll try and give it a go for you! I do take your point about individual musicians not getting the same 'fame' as an entire band. Whilst you could use all the sources that you have been given (but see below), I fear he simply isn't going to make it under our WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. By way of example, it was only last year (after he had released a single on his own) that BTS band member Jungkook was eligible for an article here, and he's a darned sight better known than most foreign band members!
I am concerned you use the phrase "have been given" sources. This tends to suggest you have been given material to work from and are receiving payment for creating this article. Is this the case, or do you personally know this individual? If so, you inevitably have a Conflict of Interest which you should declare on your userpage, and you would also be obligated to declare under our policy (called Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure)) if someone is offering to pay you to create this article. (See the hyperlinks for these important policies). Other things that make me think you might have a direct connection with the subject are the plethora of wholly un-encyclopaedic and quite unacceptable peacock phrases like this one: "Evgeny became a well-known and very in demand session drummer. But his keen intellect and ability to make any song better with his creative musical interpretation landed him a place as drummer of Russian alternative rock band, Magnetic Anomaly in 2007[3]. Magnetic Anomaly were huge in Russia, and became the sound of an entire generation. So much so, that they were placed in the Russian rock history website". I would observe that Mr Prokopenko doesn't yet have an article about him on Russian Wikipedia, nor does the band he played in have a page here on English Wikipedia. Perhaps that would be the place to start? I'm sorry I can't be more positive about the likelihood of this draft article ever being accepted. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  

Requesting Feedback for Revised Article [help regarding notability and "advertisement" language[edit]

Hi! I recently drafted an article on a healthcare company named W Medical Strategy Group.

Upon review, there were two suggested issues: 1. that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations 2. that the article contains content that is written like an advertisement

I've made some revisions in both the content and citations that would address the things mentioned above.

I am asking for feedback and recommendations on how I could better prove notability and stray from a promotional writing style. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User6045 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) User6045 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Icon"[edit]

Hi, dear people, the term icon is unfortunately only mentioned in the article on it as a religious term. But i need the modern "icon" (to be named in an article) - for instance "icons of architecture", of media etc. - do you have a suggestion how i could get this managed? Would i first have to write an article on the modern use of the word "icon" and then have a disambiguation page? Would be much work for such a small detail? --Gyanda (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

ha, i answer my question self :-), i found the disambiguation page and will take cultural icon :-)--Gyanda (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with formatting[edit]

Hi, dear people, okay, i'm translating a german wiki-article for the english wikipedia and i need help with formatting a quote. It's a quite complicated article with strange formatting - at least for me it is. Could someone be so kind to be my help for this article? That would be really great! Thanks in advance, --Gyanda (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Gyanda, someone may be more willing to volunteer to help if you provide a link to the article in question, or more details about what the issue is. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer. The article i want to translate is in german Architekturikone [de] - i already started with the work here: [in my space here on the english wikipedia] - it's just a bit complicated with the quotes and the list - i never had a list before in an article. So it would be kind to have someone as a backup, whom i could ask, if it doesn't work out. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Gyanda, I went ahead and added the table that I assume you were having trouble with, and also left some instructions for how to edit it. Let me know if you need any more help. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you very much! I asumed, i had to do all on my own. Will work on it tomorrow. Oh, i always work with source-editing-mode, it helps me to understand. Okay, will work on it tomorrow and if i get stuck - thanks that i may ask you! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

How to change an article's class?[edit]

Hello. I know that every article on the mainspace is assigned a rating (Featured article, B-class, stub, etc.). I have created an article some time ago, and I was wondering when/how the ratings will change as I add more content (of good quality, of course). Do I need to request to have my article (re-)evaluated? Do users or bots constantly go around updating an article's class as the article changes? Thank you! William2001(talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

William2001 It's done by editors, and can be carried out more easily with this script. Classes stub-through-B can be assigned freely by any editor, although B-class has specific criteria that need to be evaluated against before it should be assigned. Getting articles to Good or Featured status requires a submission to the WP:GA or WP:FA process. For more information, see WP:QUALITY. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thank you! William2001(talk) 22:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IP user[edit]

Hi, this IP user User:118.136.114.253 seems on a solo mission to make all the food articles in South East Asia region to looks like it originated from Indonesia and remove anything that says otherwise. I am not sure where to go to report it or if an admin should intervene or not. There are a lot of articles in the contribution list and I cant look at them all to see if all of them are malicious editing. Help, please. Froswo (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Froswo, WP:AIV is the place to report vandalism. I see that you also left a warning on their talk page, which is the correct procedure, although it probably won't accomplish much in this case. In the meantime, I would suggest reverting the changes that are clearly inappropriate. If they continue to make these edits without responding to your attempts to engage them, it'll be a more clear-cut case for the admins. If the problem persists, you may want to consider requesting page protections for the affected pages, although given the wide breadth of topics affected, this may not be the best solution. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is vandalism as I'm not sure if the facts are (deliberately) false. I have posted to the incidents noticeboard. William2001(talk) 22:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill William2001 I've seen the IP had been blocked. Thank you both for the advice and help. Froswo (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

New England Historic Genealogical Society is largely plagiarized from its website. It is very low on citations and reads as a bit verbose/flowery/promotional.
1. I was thinking revise/cite/revise (removing what I couldn't cite), but I would like to know how experienced Wikipedians would approach it.
2. Is it preferable to put a "citation needed" tag if I can't find something, or is it OK to remove the claim if I have made a good effort to find it?
3. Should claims about the site's popularity be taken from an independent source? Because I'm thinking it may just come from its website.
Thanks.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @DiamondRemley39: I'm sorry to say that the history and Great Migration sections had to be wiped since they were a copyright violation in their present form, and no amount of tweaking would have helped. The rest of the article needs the exact tweaks you mentioned, though. I usually go through an article, trying to find sources for what I can, and leaving {{cn}} tags for the rest (unless it's a biography of a living person, in which case I'm much more stringent on what remains behind). If there are a lot of citations needed when I'm done, I usually add the inline citations needed template to the top of the article, too. Orville1974 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, @Orville1974: I will get to work shortly. It'll take me some time to go through and rephrase everything that should be to make it a decent article. One more question... if other sentences are lifted from other sources verbatim, or nearly so, should those be removed immediately, as you have done with those two sections, or should it be tagged that a rewrite is needed, or simply wait for rewrite? If tagged, is there a "rewrite this copyrighted content" tag I can use? Thanks for giving this your attention--the Teahouse is great for relative newbies like me!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, as for the site's popularity question, the statistics should not come from a primary source (them). If the website really is the most widely used genealogical resource in the country (which would surprise me--Ancestry .com?), I'm sure there are independent sources talking about it. Orville1974 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. Yes, Ancestry.com, Familysearch.com, findagrave.com, etc. are all almost certainly much more visited.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi again @DiamondRemley39: I'm glad we've been able to help! Preferably, those sentences should be rewritten by you as you discover them in an appropriate form (paraphrase/summarize in your own words), if at all possible. Otherwise, they should be removed as well. Orville1974 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Editing a Page on Behalf of an Individual or Finding Someone to Edit/Add Information[edit]

Hi -- I am inquiring about how to edit/update information on behalf of an individual I am working with.

Please also let me know if there are people who I can submit information to for updates.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knastro (talkcontribs) 00:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Knastro: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are editing on someone's behalf, you should review the conflict of interest policy; if you are being compensated in any way(not just money) you need to review the paid editing policy.
You will need to suggest any changes you feel are needed using edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Weirdly formatted article[edit]

Helped

I stumbled across the article for Will Hudson today. It is formatted rather oddly. The page has a notice about this. I started editing it today but a lot more work is needed. There are many lists, quite a bit of trivia info, and even a section for abbreviations within the article. Should certain things just go? What would you suggest? Thank you, Teahouse hosts!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39. Welcome to the Teahouse, and sorry for the long wait for a reply. Yes, it is rather weirdly constructed and needs to have a lot of trivia and uncited content cleared out to make it a more readable, encyclopaedic article. The lead could be shortened and references moved into the body, and all the tangential information deleted. By way of example:
Singers with the Will Hudson Orchestra
Hudson led his own band from 1939 to about 1941. Singers included:
  • Kay Kenny
  • Elisse Cooper (née Mabel Elisse Cooper; 1914–19620), who, in 1944 married saxophonist Joseph Gabriel "Gabe" Gelinas (1910–1949)
  • Jayne Dover (née Jane Rappaport), while signing with Van Alexander Orchestra, the she married Martin Melcher, who had been doing publicity for the band[1]
  • Ruth Gaylor
could be reduced to
Singers with the Will Hudson Orchestra
Hudson led his own band from 1939 to about 1941. Singers included: Kay Kenny, Elisse Cooper, Jayne Dover,[1] and Ruth Gaylor.
But I do wonder whether even this level of detail of non-notable names is actually that relevant at all?. I would also turn the bloated discography section into a single line per song etc. I note a discrepancy in his stated birth year - is it 1908 or 1909? Some of his early life content is scattered elsewhere in the article, so I'd collate that together. I wasn't aware that World War 2 started in 1941, so I'd think of either removing those three sub-section headings entirely, or choosing better names for them. To me, the referencing system and layout is a mess, but I am aware there are other ways of constructing articles with different referencing systems from the inline citation systems that I and most other editors use. I'll be honest and say that I've still not summoned up the mental courage to come to properly understand them, so I'm a little wary of saying 'change the referencing system' as we always give priority to what was first used in the article. Others here might wish to comment on that. Personally, I'm not hugely interested in most biographies here, but others certainly are. So you could try seeking input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b From Harlem to Hollywood: My Life in Music, by Van Alexander, BearManor Media (2009); OCLC 501820074

The page on how to promote an article to current events makes no sense[edit]

Given a lack of media attention to the recent unrest in Sudan, I think the article's section on the year 2019 should be promoted to the front page current events. A military dictatorship is passing power to an undemocratic successor.and soldiers are firing on crowds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan I don't understand how to suggest this. From this page I gather Im supposed to insert some code but Im not sure where.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates

Slme help understanding the above page would be welcome. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.218.94 (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, 64.66.218.94.
If this is your first time, I can see where it might be unclear on what to do. As with many things on Wikipedia, one of the best ways to figure out how to do something is to look at what others have done before. If click on the "edit" button next to a date with existing entries, you can see what an earlier editor has added to the section in order to nominate a page for inclusion.
<!-- All news items below this line -->
;Armed conflicts and attacks
*[[Boko Haram]]
**Three [[Boko Haram]] suicide bombers [[2019 Borno bombings|detonate their devices]] among a group of football fans, killing 30 people and wounding 40 others, in [[Konduga]], [[Nigeria]]. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48660150 (BBC)]
So you find the place where you want to insert your suggestion, and place the wiki link (double square brackets) to the page after a single asterisk.
After that, you insert suggested text for the news blurb and reasons for including it, starting with a double asterisk.
Other editors may comment on whether or not your suggestion should be included and you can respond with further explanations if you think that will help. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the Teahouse, 64.66.218.94. Everything jmcgnh has said above is correctly. As a regular editor at WP:ITN/C, I can hopefully provide insight into your specific idea for a nomination. The first thing to note is that this rationale (Given a lack of media attention to the recent unrest in Sudan) is not a valid reason to post an item at ITN. In The News serves to provide rapid access to high quality articles which readers will be searching for as they are, well, in the news. It does not seek to right great wrongs, and has to be diplomatic regarding point of view. Now, as far as a nomination, you would need a well sourced standalone article for the unrest, rather than nominating Sudan as a whole - this article, perhaps.
  • However, the odds of success for such a nomination are low, for the reason you alluded to - a lack of media coverage. This means you will struggle to find appropriate citations from reliable sources, and it also means that there is an argument that the story itself is not in the news, disqualifying it entirely. I personally have seen minimal coverage of the event, and the article linked above has no major update regarding your claim, meaning there is no blurb. An Ongoing nomination is also a possibility, but it is unclear if the article is receiving sufficiently substantive updates to merit such a listing. Thus, unfortunately, I see it as unlikely that the item can be posted through ITN/C. However, don't allow me to deter you - anyone can nominate at ITN/C, using the template given below:
==== Nomination header ====
{{ITN candidate
| article       = <!-- Do not wikilink -->
| article2      = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| image         = <!-- Name of image only; do not link. Please crop the image before adding, if necessary. -->
| blurb         = <!-- Add your suggestion of the blurb; should be written in simple present tense. -->
| recent deaths = no <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| ongoing       = no <!-- (add/rem/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Ongoing" line -->
| altblurb      = <!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb2     = <!-- A second alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb3     = <!-- A third alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb4     = <!-- A fourth alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| sources       = <!-- Include one or more references from verifiable, reliable sources. -->
| updated       = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2      = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator     = {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| creator       = <!-- Username of the editor who created the article -->
| updater       = <!-- Username of an editor who significantly updated the article -->
| updater2      = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3      = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR          = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt       = <!-- Add the reason for nominating the item and/or any problems. -->
| sign          = ~~~~ <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
  • You can create a nomination by going to the correct date, and filling in the template above. Hope this helps, do not hesitate to ask any further questions, Stormy clouds (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use photo of missing persons[edit]

I am struggling with uploading images of a missing person for an article. Photos are on FBI and National Center for Missing and exploited children , so I feel they would fall under fair use rules. Cannot seem to get them to go through in upload wizard, can someone point me in the right direction? --Jewelsmc (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jewelsmc. All image files are subject to Wikipedia:Image use policy, but there are additional restriction placed upon non-free files. The concept of fair use and Wikipedia's concept of non-free content are slightly different things as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Background. Copyrighted content is allowed to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, but each use is required to satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and there are ten individual criteria which need to be satisfied for a use to be considered to policy compliant.
Generally, a non-free picture of an individual is only allowed when the subject is deceased and there is no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image (either public domain or freely licensed) can be either created or found. It doesn't have to be a free version of the exact image, just a free image which is capable of serving the pretty much the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one. Fo reference, non-free pictures of still-living persons are almost never allowed except in certain circumstances like those given in item 1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images_2. A non-free image of a "missing person" might be allowed even if they are still considered to be living, if it can be reasonably demonstrated that a free equivalent can neither be found nor created; however, this would only be likely when the image is being used for primary indentification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone Wikiepdia article about the individual in question, and other types of non-free uses or uses in other types of articles is going to be much harder to justify.
I apologize for being a bit general in my response, but it's hard to provide you with any more specific information without knowing what the actual file is, how it's going to be used and which article(s) it's intended to be used. You can also most likely get a more specific response either at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or perhaps even at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria. Uploading a non-free file is not a very technically complicated thing to do, but it's probaby best to figure out whether the intended use(s) are going to be policy compliant first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

On the Talk:Pallava dynasty page a user called "LovSLif" has been making racist comments on me. This isn't the first time he's doing it. I'd sufficiently intimated him to not do so. But he's done it now plenty of times violating good faith. Who can take action against him? Where can I complain? Please help me. I am a new user, and I am sick and tired of such remarks. Please do something about it, I beseech you. Also I'd proposed the inclusion of some data with apt citations which had existed on the Wikipedia page previously. The same user has removed it a few months ago. Nobody reverted. But I did. So now the page has been protected since the past 4 days. When I responded to arguments, deliberately to delay the changes to be made on the page, he's threatened to take it to the Dispute Noticeboard. Also, assuming me to be of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me. That's quite racist. Please take a look. Thank you!

Regards,

Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Destroyer27 Greetings. I have a quick read at the talk page provided and see no WP:PERSONALATTACK from User:LovSLif but content dispute , reliable source, what should be added and size of the info added. Pls bring this issue to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard] and state your case. Thank you CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Dear User:CASSIOPEIA,
Please read it carefully. The final comments made by User:LovSLif were racist. Assuming that I'm of a particular ethnic stripe, he's been attacking me, this violating good faith. Also other than that he's made several more awful comments, rather than addressing the issue.
Hi Destroyer27 Pls provide section and what was exact comment were made.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pallava_dynasty?markasread=164974632&markasreadwiki=enwiki#Origins_section
Here, right at the bottom. For instance, he says 'why not include' when the points he feels contented with tamil zeal, simply shooting in air with lucid statement which themselves either contradict with his own perceptions/other comments with no head and tail, the same newspaper article states '42% of Tamilnadu is telugu people' will you still feel news articles better. just bcz it doesnt satisfy your zeal, and so on.
Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Destroyer27 Thank you for the info above. Personal attack would include legal threat, physical harm, "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality" and etc. To state a person " 'Tamil zeal" is not a personal attack (not a racist attack) nor statements you included above. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. I was afraid I can't respond to that. To say the least, it would be a violation of good faith. He was suggesting that I am making those edits on the page motivated by my ethnic fervour, which is certainly not true. I fail to understand why he sees this issue as a conflict of languages though. Would you recommend someone who can mediate our conversation even-handedly?


Destroyer27 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Destroyer27: - having perused the talk page you linked to, I agree with CASSIOPEIA that there are been no racist personal attacks made against you. Remember to assume good faith while editing. I would also note that is worth considering WP:BOOMERANG when making such claims which are likely to be inflammatory (courtesy ping for @LovSLif:. Irrespective of my reading of the talk page, the Teahouse is not the appropriate avenue to make such allegations of personal attacks, or to air such grievances. What is notable from the talk page, and edit history, however, is that you are engaged in an edit war, which led Abecedare to protect the page. Please read WP:WAR, and take appropriate steps to remove yourself from the edit war. As CASSIOPEIA mentioned, trying to resolve the dispute at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is a good idea, and will hopefully prevent escalation. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC). (Also, a minor point regarding signatures. Please sign posts with four tildes (~~~~), rather than pasting a previous signature, as it makes the timestamp incorrect (or else you are stuck in a frozen time vortex a few hours in the future). Thanks)
Thanks CASSIOPEIA and Stormy clouds for clarifying on the same to Destroyer27.

As you said my concern is only with 'reliable content'/'size of the content'/'WP:NPOV' and 'to safegaurd righteous data' with righteous order of emphasis. I took considerable time explaining point by point over all the speculations considering Destroyer27 being new user. I even ignored the derogatory comments made by the user. His comments may rather fall under 'personal attacks'. Below are a few such comments made by the user. Please have a look.

-'On a serious note, you must change your username from "LovSLif" to "HateSLif'

-'That said this guy is absolutely bigoted, and obviously he has never been to school, and I urge you to somehow placate his ethnic fervour'

-'After all, when one rummages through a dung heap even a plastic bead glimmers like pearl'

-'If you have some sense of shame, do not engage with me'.


By LovSLif (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Chef Dante Boccuzzi[edit]

Hi...

Where should I go to format my article correctly? For example, when I go to Chef Michael Symon's wiki- everything has a title and is separated out by categories. Where is that template?

My content for the body is ready to go, I am hoping it gets approved this time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClevelandDante (talkcontribs) 11:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ClevelandDante: Courtesy Link: User:ClevelandDante/sandbox. - The formatting of the article is not the issue. The reviewer has commented on the article's lack of third-party, independent sources that lend the subject notability. You'll need to provide sources that cover the subject in detail per our notability guidelines: WP:GNG. Otherwise, your article will not meet Wikipedia standards for publication. This other draft on the same subject has been declined for the same reason: Draft:Dante Boccuzzi. Once you are able to find and add the appropriate sources, to add the headings you're asking about, you can select the appropriate heading level in the visual editor, or add "=" signs around the headings you want to create. This page will give you more guidance on how that works: MOS:HEAD. Orville1974 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

When will my article be published[edit]

Dear Teahouse team, I am pleased to e-meet with you and be able to ask direct questions. I wrote an article about Zadig Abraha, former spokesperson and Minister of Media and Communication Delivery Unit to PM Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and PM Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia. I was under the impression that it'd be published online after 96 hours (needed for Wikipedia to do the necessary fact and notability checks etc before it's published). I see that it is not published. So I thought I'd ask you why you think that might be the case. I read about having to make ten edits. Does it mean I have to make ten edits to this same article or do you mean editing as in writing ten other articles of this kind before being acknowledged as a Wikipedia writer? I am sure I will write hundreds in the future, but at this time I am writing a dissertation, so I might not be able to write ten such researched articles right now.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best, ZeBiographer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeBiographer (talkcontribs) 12:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ZeBiographer: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have edited your user page, which is not article space and is not meant for developing a draft article. User pages are not indexed by search engines. I assume that is what you mean by "published"; the page is "published" in the sense that it is present on your user page, but it is not formally part of the encyclopedia. You will need to submit your draft for review using Articles for Creation, but you should not do so yet, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content(no sources at all, actually). Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources state about article subjects, so you will need to add these to your draft. You can find information on how to do this at WP:CITE. You may also find it helpful to read Your First Article
I notice that your username has "biographer" in it; do you work for Zadig Abraha? If so, you will also need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZeBiographer: I do see that a copy was moved to Draft:Zadig Abraha; I can add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review, but again, you should not do so yet as it will be rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello @ZeBiographer: and welcome to the Teahouse. As a first step I have moved your draft article to Draft:Zadig Abraha from your user page. Your user page is intended for brief information about yourself, as relevant to your editing activities - it is absolutely not required that you disclose any personal details at all, but if you want to do that, your user page is the place for it. See WP:USERPAGE for more information. As for the article you started, it has not been reviewed since it wasn't submitted for review. When you would like to submit it, please place the template code {{subst:submit}} on the article; this will flag it for review by one of the volunteer reviewers. It will probably take a lot more than 96 hours, though. Before you submit the article for review, please have a look at this information; currently, the article has no list of references, which is required. There are some external links in the article text, which is not appropriate - if those are in fact the sources for the article, you'll need to convert them into references (again, plenty of information about that on the page I linked just above). Also make sure that the article is written in a neutral tone. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Another thing: you asked I read about having to make ten edits. Does it mean I have to make ten edits to this same article or do you mean editing as in writing ten other articles of this kind before being acknowledged as a Wikipedia writer?. It refers to making ten edits to any article - it doesn't mean creating new articles, just editing a few times to learn how the encyclopedia works, basically. Wikipedia editing is much more about improving, developing, and maintaining existing articles, than creating new ones, and as a new editor it's a good idea not to start creating brand new articles straight off, since that's one of the most difficult things to do here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

What happens if you attempt to vandalise a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.17.57 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your vandalism is quickly reverted, and you get a warning. Repeated vandalism results in a block. Dbfirs 13:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
And if you then are still vandalising, the blocks will get longer and probably affect others in your network. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Helped

Does 3RR rule affect Rollbackers? -- CptViraj (📧) 13:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, CptViraj it would indeed if applied to anything other than reverting clear vandalism. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Ooh, Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted[edit]

Hello, yesterday I created a page that was deleted, but I really do not understand why, because I think it followed all the rules given above: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

And also I have seen pages like what I have created.

Is it possible that someone explains to me why was it deleted? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusudan Panozishvili (talkcontribs) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Rusudan Panozishvili: There's a notice on your talk page here: User talk:Rusudan Panozishvili with the rationale for deletion (it appeared to be a very promotional article containing unambiguous advertising). You can follow the link on the notice to get more details or request restoration of the article to your sandbox, from the deleting administrator. Orville1974 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rusudan Panozishvili: As an administrator I can view deleted pages, and I can confirm the draft was promotional in nature. It did little more than tell about the organization and was sourced to nothing other than associated websites. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. Primary sources like the organization's own website do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization, written at WP:ORG(Please review).
Beware in citing other articles you see; as this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate pages to exist here, sometimes for years. If you are aware of other inappropriate articles, feel free to point them out so they can be addressed. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation, here's something that I want to understand: the name of this page was "green alternative" and if you look for this name with wiki you will see at least 20 same type of pages on wikipedia of organizations, working in various fields, that are arranged exactly the same way I did: they introduce one specific organization (political, social, etc - mine was environmental) and include very brief info about it. So was mine - I actually took other pages as an example and if you search I believe there are hundreds, if not thousands, of wiki pages about organizations (particularly the organization I created the page for was about the 1 of only 2 environmental organizations, non-profit, working in the country of Georgia and people would really really be searching them through wiki). So with all the explanation I do not understand why this is defined as a promotion solely and others are not. And the 2nd issue: In that page references I had included 2 sources - 1 website and 1 from other international organization (Bankwatch), so I don't believe what you wrote about citing only own website is accurate... However, I could add lot more sources of course if you noted it to me. I thought they were enough. So can you please explain if what shows it to you promotional is only concerning to the sources and if not, what else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusudan Panozishvili (talkcontribs) 14:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The others might very well be promotional too, I have not examined them all and do not have time to do so at present. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. Two sources, when one is the organization's own website, do not establish notability as I state above. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources state. I regret that I do not have more time at present to go into detail about this, but there are many other good users here who can and will. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

NATO Defense College Foundation Review[edit]

I'm Federica Lollo, and I wrote an article about the NATO Defense College Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Federica_Lollo/sandbox). After a first review by the user "KVNG," my piece was rejected. As requested, I added in the secondary sources required for page verification. I would like to request a second review to see if the page can be published. Thanks in advance.

Kind Regards,

Federica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federica Lollo (talkcontribs) 14:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Federica Lollo If you are referring to Draft:NATO Defense College Foundation, you can simply resubmit it by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button in the notice at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?[edit]

Hello, I have created an academic profile and it was declined with the main issue being that my sources are unreliable. Can anyone please elaborate more? I am trying to create a profile like these ones: Prof. Daskalakis and Prof. Papadrakakis. I cannot see these carrying more reliable sources than mine. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.232.20 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is difficult to provide specific help without you linking to the draft involved as I don't see it in the edit history of your IP address(if you have an account, remember to log in before editing). However, you use of the term "profile" suggests to me that you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about someone or something. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(for people, that is written at WP:BIO, please review). Those sources must be independent of the subject and have a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. Social media or personal websites are not acceptable for establishing notability.
The articles that you cite seem equally unacceptable, as they also lack sources. Beware in citing other articles to support the existence of your own; other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about an Articles for Deletion page[edit]

I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language), and I'm a bit confused. There doesn't seem to be any consensus reached in the page, but it was closed as "keep", citing WP:SNOW, which doesn't seem to apply. Why was this? Merlin04 (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the edit to the AfD page was the user's first edit. Merlin04 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
A different user just deleted the AfD box on the article page, is that OK since the discussion was closed? Merlin04 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, it turned out that it shouldn't have been closed and User:Praxidicae re-opened it. Merlin04 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Clueless Newbie's First Page[edit]

I have accessed your helpful page with instructions for creating and editing a page, but my question is asking for advice. My boss has asked me to create a page for our new business, and I would like to do it correctly from the start. I searched our business' name, and it doesn't exist on Wikipedia, so I believe I'm good to go. Are there any pitfalls I should be aware of before beginning? Advice is most appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Thies (talkcontribs) 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Before creating any article you ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and about a company the notability criteria at WP:NCORP, but for your business you need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@James Thies: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing I can suggest to you is that you not attempt to write an article(not just "page") about your business. You seem to have a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum to merely tell about a business. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in the case of a business, that is written at WP:ORG. (please review). Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself.
Furthermore, successfully creating a new article is difficult for most editors, but more so for those with a conflict of interest. You are also a paid editor since you are here at the direction of your boss. You are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with that policy. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit about your business. There are indirect ways to do so- but only if your business meets the criteria(again, WP:ORG). The fact that you state that the business is new is also problematic, as Wikipedia is not for spreading the word about new businesses. Businesses must already be notable to merit articles here. Not every business merits an article here, even within the same field. It all depends on the coverage in independent sources. Sources like the company website, staff interviews, press releases, routine announcements, and other primary sources do not establish notability.
I know this is a lot of information, and I apologize- but again, in short, you should not attempt to write about your business. Feel free to show this message to your boss if it helps you. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, James Thies. Here is a slightly different view. Your boss has given you an assignment that, while not impossible, is exceptionally difficult and fraught with peril. The very first thing that you must do is comply completely and fully with the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Then, read the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow it closely. Your next step is to read and study Your first article. I suggest that you read it in full several times. Also study the Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, marketing or promotion. As a paid editor, you are not permitted to place the article directly into the encylopedia. Instead, you need to write a draft article and use the Articles for Creation process, where uninvolved editors review your draft, and either approve it or decline it.
Begin by assembling a list of significant coverage of your company in reliable, independent sources. Being independent is very important. That rules out your company website and anything that results from press releases or your company's promotional and marketing activities. Write a draft that neutrally summarizes what these reliable independent sources say about your company and submit it for review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
James Thies, I just noticed that you described the company as "new". Unless your new company has received exceptionally significant coverage in major business media outlets, it is simply not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Can any of you help me on my article?[edit]

I’m making an article, but I’m using mobile so I can’t make an infobox or table. Mind if you can help out a little but? Maybe add an infobox? Thanks 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:B3 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Over the last year I've had to do much of my editing from a mobile phone, but I always ensure I'm editing in 'desktop' view, and never in 'mobile view'. You can find a tiny link at the bottom of the page to make the switch. It might be a little bit fiddlier with a small screen, but adding infoboxes in source editor, and simple tables via [[W{:VE|Visual Editor]] is still pretty easy to do from a phone. Sorry I can't offer to help out with the article, itself. I don't know how many US natural disasters there were in 2018, but don't forget you might wish to edit List of natural disasters in the United States instead, or add content to this section of Geography of the United States. It's important that you don't try to duplicate existing articles. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to add to what Nick said - there don't seem to be any annual disaster lists in the US. I did see 2017–18 North American cold wave but nothing that suggests the average reader is going to be looking for a subset of 2018 disasters. The material could be put into individual articles more effectively. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)