Wikipedia:Teahouse

About Wikipedia Administration FAQ Contributing Tips Tasks Tutorial Help menu Directories Cheatsheet Asking questions Help desk Reference desk Teahouse

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Hello,

I'm interesting writing an article on Joseph Matthew Sullivan (1871-1918). He wrote three editions of a dictionary entitled "Criminal Slang" in 1908 and a related journal article in 1918 by the same name. His limited published output plays an important role in documenting American slang. He merits 69 citations in Green’s Dictionary of Slang, extended discussion in [A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries], and numerous references in both volumes of the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and mentions in other standard reference works. Other publications also reference Sullivan, including Feminism in Women's Detective Fiction, by Glenwood Irons, 1995 and Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths: Essays.... by Michael G. Cornelius, ‎Melanie E. Gregg, 2008, for example. To me, these references constitute more than three quality sources.

In terms of conflict of interest, I'm working to publish an annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms and definitions, which will for the first time present everything in a single authoritative source. It's possible I will publish commercially on Amazon, but I may also make the publication available for free on my website. There is currently no comprehensive biographical source for Sullivan (that I can find).

Given all the above, can I (should I?) publish a Wikipedia article on the man?

Thanks.

Bixly777 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Bill, I'm also a user. The subject seems notable if the sources you have are reliable, you might want to check Wikipedia:Notability.

The following information has been taken from Wikipedia:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Also, I don't think that you have any conflict of interest since your work on an "annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms" has not been published yet. You could check Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia just to be sure.

So you technically could write an article about this individual if your sources are reliable.

I hope I've answered your questions. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure. His work being referenced is not the same as there being published content ABOUT him. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say "My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure." David notMD? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Joseph Matthew Sullivan as the possible topic of a biography article is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. A quick search at Google on his name yielded no content about him, i.e., no one who has written about him. People referencing his slang dictionary and his 1918 article does not contribute to him being notable. P.S. Put stuff in quotes, not in bold, when you are quoting something. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​All mentions of him are very short, it is likely that his book is more notable than him. If that is the case, an article on the book could have a short section on the author. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually people have written about Sullivan (search Google for "Joseph M. Sullivan" "slang") and you'll find that people have written about him. See the 2013 Boston Globe ("How to talk like Whitey Bulger Mobster lingo gets its day in court"), The U of Arkansas "Female Detectives, Authority, and Fiction from 1864 to the 1930s." Most significantly check A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume III from OUP--there are 3+ pages about the man and his work--not just citations.

Having said that, what about the idea of an article on Sullivan's book, as noted above? Thanks.Bixly777 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said before, you can write about it if you have reliable sources and if it's a notable subject. Writing about the individual is a better option in my opinion. If he isn't that notable and there aren't many sources about him, then there is little to no chance that your draft will get accepted. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​I would still say that the sourcing is too weak for an article about him. The sources for the book are also fairly weak but it might possibly scrape by, it is difficult to write more than a stub article when you're only working from short mentions. Your only conflict of interest would be if you are going to cite your own work (which you can if it is published by a publishing house, but not if it is self-published on Amazon), going through Articles for creation is recommended then. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries states that Sullivan copied more than half of his definitions from other sources, which does not bode well for him or the book being notable. David notMD (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to follow David notMD's reasoning here; plagiarism has no impact on notability; if later sources refer to the Sullivan book rather than the other sources, it is notable. For a historical example: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are (for the most part) lifted from The Dialogue in Hell..., but the former is much more notable than the latter. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​You wouldn't have any conflict of interest if you haven't published work yet . You could write about him if you really wanted to but I wouldn't recommend it, he doesn't seem very notable and there's little chance that your draft would get accepted. Your sources also don't provide that much information, I'd be surprised if you could write a stub about him. It's your choice, I just don't reccomend it. (Writing about his book also isn't a great idea.)

Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​ Might he meet the notability requirements set out in WP:ACADEMIC? Sounds to me that he might. Chuntuk (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​ Interesting subject, but self publishing a well researched book first from primary source information would retain your copyright. Back story seems interesting. A Boston bail commissioner, from Irish parents, living in Boston at the time of the Irish struggle for independence who wrote several articles on issues relating to law and law-keeping, often with gently humour.Sidpickle (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I on my sandbox I have made a Positions by round table for the 2019–20 Premier League. but Man City have just been banned from all European competitions until 2022 by UEFA how do I add that into it? I can't move the Champions League qualification section from 2-4 to 3-5 because Man city have been as low as 4th this season any help? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: User:Sandbox:PoR 2018–19 and User:Sandbox:PoR 2019-20 were misnamed and deleted. Your user subpages should start with "User:REDMAN 2019/". Would you like the latter or both pages restored in your userspace? The pages used Module:sports rbr table which does not have a feature for what you want. You could request it at Module talk:Sports rbr table but I don't know whether it would be done for such rare cases. You may just have to add a footnote about it, similar to Template:2019–20 Premier League table. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes please I would like them to be restored. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: I have restored them and moved them to User:REDMAN 2019/PoR 2018–19 and User:REDMAN 2019/PoR 2019-20 without leaving redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: I made an ugly hack with nowiki [1] which currently works to avoid coloring. I don't promise it will always work. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for all your help. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are already some articles about anxiety. Do you think a separate article about helping people deal with anxiety would be helpful? I created a draft called "help with Anxiety" but it was declined. Buttersongs2 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buttersongs2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was just a list of tips in dealing with anxiety, and not prose about the subject; it also did not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a how to guide and cannot give medical advice(which includes mental/psychological help). Article coverage must be in the context of what reliable sources are saying.

I would suggest that you first propose changes on the article talk page of the anxiety article, perhaps for the Treatment section- if there is a consensus for your proposed changes, it can then be decided if they warrant a separate article. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Category:Books about mental health, I added Feel Good 101 to it. Generally these topics have a very high level on enwiki, you'd need medical sources, no personal reports and no snake-oil, because false advice can be harmful for readers. Take care. –84.46.52.151 (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Gary,_Indiana there is an incorrect link and I don't know how to change it: The 5th Mayor, William J. Fulton in the list, targets a man by that name who has a page, but it is not the correct William J. Fulton, who does not have a page. The real Mayor Fulton died in 1930 and the Fulton targeted in the list page, well, all you have to do is read his page to know that he was never the Mayor of Gary. How do I get rid of the incorrect link? How would I add a link to a correct page if I created one? MillerBeachSteve (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MillerBeachSteve. Thanks for noticing this. The easiest thing to do is to edit the article, and remove the double square brackets from round the name. That will simply remove the link, and the name will appear in black. However, I see that all the names in the list are linked, though many of them are red links (links to articles which have not yet been written), so it would be a good idea to keep the link. If an article were written about this Fulton, it would have to be named something like William J. Fulton (politician). You can link to this specific article by using the pipe character:
[[William J. Fulton (politician)|William J. Fulton]] will display as "William J. Fulton" but link to the correct (currently non-existent) article.

(In fact, if such an article were written, I suspect that the existing article would get renamed "William J. Fulton (judge)" or the like, since neither man is an obvious "primary" subject for the name. But this need not concern you, since the link you will be setting up will be right in any case). --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine but there are no double square brackets around the name, nor are there any around others that have a link:

|align=center|5 | |align=center|William J. Fulton |align=center|March 1925 |align=center|1926 |bgcolor=Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color| |Republican |- MillerBeachSteve (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MillerBeachSteve: The instructions by ColinFine only apply to manually written links. List of mayors of Gary, Indiana says {{sortname|William J.|Fulton}}. Here {{sortname|...}} means it uses Template:sortname. The template page has documentation showing that an optional link target can be added as a third parameter. I have done this in [2] with {{sortname|William J.|Fulton|William J. Fulton (politician)}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, MillerBeachSteve. I didn't look at the source, and it didn't occur to me that it might be generated by a template. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter Thank you. I've had my own website since 1995 but never really gotten into Wikipedia formatting, etc. I need to learn more since I run across misinformation and have contemplating adding some things. Need to study though. I did think it had something to do with templates, but, like I said, I was in the dark. MillerBeachSteve (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a heavy user and would need some help. I added that Parov_Stelar is also a visual artist using printing, painting and silkscreen techniques, as well as a designer.

As prove for this addition to the page I added two great articles of renowned websites: 1. https://www.ooom.com/digital/parov-stelar-from-pop-music-to-art-shooting-star/2/ 2. https://competition.adesignaward.com/press-release.php?ID=63360

However, User:Edwardx classified these as 'poorly cited'.

Since I do not edit Wikipedia pages very often I would like to know why these citations are rated poor.

Thank you!

--MarkusInCharge (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody reverts your edits, MarkusInCharge, the person to ask for clarification from is the editor who reverted, in this case, Edwardx (whom I have just pinged). --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine. Edwardx, did you see the websites I used as a citation. They are quite renowned. 1. https://www.ooom.com/digital/parov-stelar-from-pop-music-to-art-shooting-star/2/ 2. https://competition.adesignaward.com/press-release.php?ID=63360 Please help/clarify.

--MarkusInCharge (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MarkusInCharge and ColinFine. The Ooom article is an interview. The other article is a press release. Neither are independent of the subject. How are either "quite renowned"? Press releases are obviously unsuitable for establishing if someone is notable in a particular field. Is there any independent coverage in reliable sources? Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does infinite dimensional polytopes exist? and does it comply with the wikipedia:Notability? I found this: "infinite dimensional polytope", "polytopes in infinite dimensional spaces", Infinite Dimensional Compact Convex Polytopes (paper), Infinite Dimensional Polytopes (paper), math.stackexchange.com. -- Nanachi🐰Fruit Tea☕（宇帆·☎️·☘️） 16:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nanachi -- While the Teahouse is more for asking advice on how to edit Wikipedia than particular content questions, I can point you to the section Polytope#Infinite_polytopes, where we have a little content on infinite polytopes. Try your hand at expanding that section! If you have some reliable sources (like the book and papers you mentioned above), working on expanding an article is a great way to add to the encyclopedia without worrying about standalone notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nanachi asked about infinite dimensional polytopes. The section you refer to is about infinite polytopes (i.e. they extend infinitely far) but in two or more dimensions. Maproom (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes. The section talks about polytopes of infinite extent and polytopes with infinite numbers of sides/degrees of freedom. Polytopes in an infinite number of spatial dimensions would make a nice addition. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

infinite-dimensional polytopes doesn't behave like finite-dimensional ones, and therefore infinite-dimensional geometry has rather bizarre properties markedly different from finite-dimensional geometry.(see [3]) I think it is a new topic, if it comply with the wikipedia:Notability, we should write a new article about infinite dimensional polytopes. (_{^{but I can not find the name for it. according to [4], the maximum dimensions of given name is 1 tridecillion-dimensional polytopes.)}} -- Nanachi🐰Fruit Tea☕（宇帆·☎️·☘️） 05:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the most featured picture in all Wikipedias is ? I see some pictures that are featured in over 7 different Wikipedias, but I imagine that there has to be some that are featured many more times. Thanks Aspenkiddo (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspenkiddo, there is a list at [5] ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

is a singer of a music band, that exists for more the 10 years, notable? The band is currently winning a number of independet music awards in the Europe. The singer is a known video and visual artist besinde being a musician. thank you for your help. Person: Ksenija Sundejeva as metioned in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_the_City

Is a company, that has inspired a revival within its field noteable? the company has been portrait in news articles around the world. the foundes have been interviewed in national and internationl broadcasts from BBC to ARD. the company is not on social media and has no advatising budget / person / agenda. Meanwhile the social media footprint is hugh-soly by people using the companies classic service. would that comapy be "notable" on wikipedia? thank you for your advice. Portrait of the Company https://www.aperturetours.com/blog/2017/berlin-photoautomat BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rrspl http://photoautomat.de/tvsendungen.html https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/photoautomat/?hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by EinarBaltasar (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EinarBaltasar. Notability (in Wikipedia's sense) does not depend on what a person has done, or how many fans they have; it also does not depend on whether a band they play in is notable. The full guide for your musician is here, but in general the question to ask is, "have some people who have no connection whatever with the subject, and unprompted by the subject, chosen to write enough material about the subject, and had it published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article about them?" If the answer is yes, then an article is possible. If the answer is no, then an article about them is not possible, because there is nothing that could go in it: Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by the subject or their associates, including in interviews and press releases.

The answer for the company is similar: the relevant guide is here. Being covered in news articles round the world is good - provided that these articles are independent of the company (not based on interviews or press releases) and are more than just passing mentions. Coverage of the founders may make the founders notable, but does not necessarily make the company notable: notability is not inherited. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form the article is a deletion candidate, better fix that before you start more ambitious projects on that base. –84.46.52.151 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently creating the article Kang Myung-A, it's about a south korean sports shooter. The article is currently in my sandbox. I can't find the sports reference for olympics. I've looked and can't find anything that usefull. If anybody can help, thanks Neverbuffed (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neverbuffed: maybe try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea for sources in Korean?

Also, I assume you wrote in User:Neverbuffed/sandbox but could not find easily the version you are talking about in the page history. In case you did not know, you can create named drafts such as User:Neverbuffed/Kang Myung-A or Draft:Kang Myung-A (see Help:Userspace draft and Wikipedia:Drafts); it is easier to move them to mainspace while keeping the history of edits, though not mandatory of course. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teahouse, I firstly appreciate your help. As a new editor nearly one month ago, my article Draft:Karlyn Percil was moved from draftspace to namespace pending AFC approval. Another editor saw this and moved it back to draftspace. I moved it back and suggested that if the edits weren't sufficient that the admin nominate it for deletion instead. Instead of doing this -- the editor moved back to draftspace with a move protection on the article. This exchange has now led to other editors not willing to provide feedback on the article to move it along the AFC approval process. I was a new editor at the time and the whole thing was super discouraging and hostile. I have since made over 100 edits on the article and continue to make edits on an ongoing basis. My Questions are:

1. Is it possible that because of this "move war" the article won't advance to mainspace (as one admin noted)?
2. Is it appropriate to delete the article and start fresh?
3. What are the next appropriate steps I should take to increase the chances of the article being approved (other than following the suggested revisions)
4. How do I go about finding willing editors that will provide constructive feedback despite the unfortunate "move war"

Thanks a bunch for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to wikipedia. I do not see a "move war" per se, but rather the fact that you had submitted the article for AFC and then you moved it to article space yourself at least five times after it had been declined at AFC (example one, example two... and so on) resulting in it being moved back to draft space and move protected. I also see mention of a connected contributor, which raises COI concerns, so if you are one you need to declare that. The thing to do is fix the problems mentioned at AFC and resubmit it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AMPLIFYHER2020. Articles for Creation is an optional process but once you submit a draft, the process should be respected and followed. You have repeatedly tried to override that process, and that puts you in a bad light, in my view. One administrator has seen your efforts as problematic, and that's why the draft is move protected. It could have been deleted and salted, so you are in a better position than that. Your only option is to convince another AfC reviewer that this draft belongs in the encyclopedia. This appears to me on quick review to be a promotional biography of a motivational speaker/seminar leader of dubious notability. Biographies of such people flood Wikipedia but only a few of these people are truly notable. Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's career, and it looks to me on first glance that this is what you are trying to do. If so, please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Is there a PROMO/ISU username issue to be dealt with?[6] (already at UAA) Also, the draft talk page is being indexed by Google; is this supposed to happen? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlanM1, I believe the Google indexing is an artifact of the article being in the main space for a while. I expect that to go away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ThatMontrealIP Cullen³²⁸ for your feedback on this! In good faith, I've deleted the article and changed my username as to not be associated or conflict with the subject matter. I will work more on the article in draft and continue when the sources are more verifiable and continue to solicit feedback from the community. I do want to note that I think my actions were taken in bad faith from the get-go, which is pretty discouraging for new editors. In any event, thanks a bunch for all of the help as I am a more informed editor now. Tealbrain (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can any one review my page to see eveerything is correct Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstshow28 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about User:Firstshow28/sandbox, the referencing is really weird, and it will almost certainly be rejected if it is reviewed. A reference should follow the statement which it supports. Instead, the references in that sandbox are randomly strewn through the plot summary, one of them inside the name of a character. And there are no references for any of the statements about the film itself. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Maproom points out, the sandbox draft you created is about the same film as the existing draft Draft:Mathu Vadalara, which is waiting for review (unlike your sandbox, which you have not submitted for review). That draft is more neutrally written – your sandbox draft contains phrases like "massive success at the box office" which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article – but it could use a couple more references. Keeping Maproom's comments in mind, you might try to add some references to the draft. As for when the review of the draft will take place, there is no way of telling. (The plot synopsis there will also need to be replaced with an actual synopsis, or else removed completely – at the moment, the last sentence reads "They witness something sinister and the story takes a darker and unimaginable turn." which is no help at all to our readers! The same thing applies to the plot summary in your sandbox draft. The plot summary should tell the reader what happens in the film, without going into every detail but also without any tantalising questions or hints, and it should not avoid "spoilers".) --bonadea contributions talk 10:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the above: @Firstshow28: while I was writing that response, you went through your sandbox draft and removed all the independent sources. The three sources currently on the page are not appropriate as references: it's one IMdB link, one Amazon.com link, and one Bookmyshow link. They are more logically placed than the previous version's references, but they don't meet WP:RS, which some of the references you removed did. Please do not move your sandbox into the encyclopedia – I have moved it back for you. Note that there is no deadline and no hurry to get any article published. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you referring to when you say "we"? - X201 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

We want to get content for the brand page written & added to Wikipedia. Can you please suggest how to do the same.

Warm Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raattzz: can you confirm, who is 'we' and what is your association with the brand page you want to get added? In general, for adding pages, I suggest you read this advice page: your first article and then follow the instructions to submit an article through WP:AFC. If you are writing about a company, you must first ensure that it meets the notability requirements for companies or it will be declined. In addition, however, it sounds as if you are associated with this company and perhaps working for them or on their behalf, in which case you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID and you must provide the disclosure of your relationship on your userpage. Hug^syrup 10:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I work with the brand. By 'we' I mean me & my team. The team had previously attempted to get the brand page up, but it turned out to be a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raattzz: Again, which brand? I cannot find any previous articles from this account. The other advice Hugsyrup gave you is still valid. Regards SoWhy 11:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The brand is Cashify & I work in the marketing team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raattzz I found a deleted draft by that name. It was declined as a draft because it was not shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The sources offered were entirely press releases or routine announcements, which do not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources that have chosen on their own to take note of a subject and write about it. Wikipedia isn't interested in what a company wants to say about itself. In order for you to be successful in writing about your company, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what independent reliable sources state. Most people in your position cannot do that. It would really be best if you let independent people take note of your company and write about it. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @331dot for responding. You are absolutely right by saying that being part of the brand my opinion will be biased. Could you please suggest an independent source who I could get in touch with to get this bit solved. As for the getting coverage in reliable sources, we have been working on the same in the past have got decent coverage there. Would be really great if you could help us with a direction here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs)

Can someone help here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not here to provide publicity for your company. So in short, no. Try paying for your company's advertising like most legitimate outfits do. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for publicity for my brand. Just quering about who to get in touch with to get this issue sorted. Please see the question posted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 07:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raattzz: I’m unsure what you mean by ‘getting this issue sorted’? Do you mean you want to find someone to write the page on your behalf? Do you have at least three reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the company in depth? Hug^syrup 07:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raattzz: if the "issue" you refer to is Could you please suggest an independent source who I could get in touch with to get this bit solved, you will need to read this information which will explain why what you are asking for is self-contradictory. An actual issue, from Wikipedia's point of view, is that you still haven't complied with policy regarding paid editing; there is information about that in the first post above, as well as two posts on your user talk page. Again: please do not make any other edits until you have made the mandatory disclosure. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what should I do to clarify that I'm not paid for creating the article about Cleveroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moana122 (talk • contribs)

@Moana122: (courtesy link: Cleveroad). As far as I can see, no one has actually accused you of being paid to edit it. Can you point me to somewhere where this has been mentioned? Apologies, I see that I am wrong and you were warned on your user page. Well, if you are not being compensated in any way for your edits then that is fine - you can simply state that in response to the message, as you seem to have done. The article has been tagged as potentially being edited by someone with a 'close connection' to the topic. What is your connection to Cleveroad? Hug^syrup 11:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsyrup thank you for the reply. I'm not connected to Cleveroad. I just protect the interests of my country. They are one of the most famous Ukrainian development companies that work around the world. They write useful software development guides for programmers and publish open-source code, that highly appreciated in the developer's community on GitHub. --Moana122 (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moana122: ok then. Well, you can state that in reply to the message on your talk page, and then you've clarified the situation haven't you? As far as the tag on the article goes, it's probably not really a big deal right now because the article is nominated for deletion so let's see if it survives that and then worry about the cleanup tags. Hug^syrup 11:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsyrup I will be grateful. One more question, can I edit an article on Cleveroad in this situation until I prove that I have no conflict of interest? And who will judge me? --Moana122 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moana122: if you have no conflict of interest, you can edit the article. Other editors may revert your edits if they are overly promotional or not backed up by reliable sources. Hug^syrup 11:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugsyrup thank you. Should I delete this conversation? --Moana122 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moana122: No - no need to delete it. Hug^syrup 11:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone,

Is it possible to change a speedy deletion tag to a "Deletion Discussion". I mistakenly tagged an article for speedy deletion but that must be into the deletion discussion.DMySon 11:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon: you can't exactly 'change' the tag from one to another, but you can certainly remove the CSD and then nominate for AFD in the normal way. Hug^syrup 11:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Hugsyrup, Thank You for your tips. DMySon 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the editor, The search (and replace) tools, with "Regex" button depressed, don't seem to support Line Break, /n. Also line break is not mentioned in the special terms at Help:Searching/Regex. I needed this at en:wikisource but it applies here as well. I know I can workaround by copying into my favorite editor but I thought I'd ask.. Nissimnanach (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Nissimnanach[reply]

Hi Nissimnanach--the regex facilities at WP are fairly basic, but as noted in the section Help:Searching/Regex#Metacharacters, the dot '.' metacharacter does match a newline, so you could use this in a pinch. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nissimnanach: Line break is supported in the editor regex but as normal in regex it's \n with backslash and not /n with a normal slash. Help:Searching/Regex is not about the editor but about the standard search box on all pages which only searches for matching pages and cannot make replacements. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primehunter: Perfect, thanx! Nissimnanach (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Nissimnanach[reply]

In the wikipedia search function, is there a way to include a subtitle under an article title in the search results? Im editing an artist entry and want to put a subtitle like "brazilian artist" below his name in serch results. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Kiua (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pedro Kiua! If you mean Marcos Chaves, I don't think you can. We only add a "qualifier" to the title when there are several topics with the same name, see for example John Smith. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång The OP might also be referring to the "short description" extracted from WikiData. I have no idea how to include that in a search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thanks for your answer. But several how many precisely ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Kiua (talk • contribs)

Say that there were 2 different Marcos Chaves with WP-articles. Then it would be necessary to name at least one of them something like Marcos Chaves (astronaut) or whatever was relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedro Kiua: While you are typing a search at the mobile Wikipedia, the short description of matches is automatically shown. It's already "Brazilian artist" for Marcos Chaves due to Marcos Chaves (Q30938548) at Wikidata. The short description is not included in the search results page. The desktop version doesn't show it at all in searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

hope you're well!

My submission for Hannes Bieger was declined a week ago, I'm working on getting the page in a more acceptable state and would love some guidance on how I can do this.

I'm gathering more citation links, which I believe to be a weakness of the submission.

If there's anything else that is lacking, please let me know.

Thanks!

Much love, Marcus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoldenbarnes (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined for the reason stated in the grey panel in the decline notice. It's not the number of references that was the problem, it's the quality; so adding more references won't help, unless they're better than the ones you have already. I see that you have added a reference to an interview with the subject. That won't help at all with establishing that the subject is notable, as it's not independent of the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Marcus, that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, so adding a hundred interviews won't make any difference (except for annoying any reviewer). Wikipedia is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them, so that is the kind of source that is essential. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-I've deleted my question and the users names because I misunderstood him/her and it would most probably be offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rodrigo Valequez. If you think another editor's behaviour is unacceptable, your first step must be telling them so. If you can't reach agreement with them, the place to go is ANI. However, be aware that if you do, your conduct will be looked at as well. It seems to me that you had already cast aspersions on ********, on HughesDarren's talk page (I have deliberately not linked those two editors here), and ******** was replying to your comment in a fairly light-hearted way, and you replied in kind. You could ask him not to communicate with you again, if you are concerned. (Personally I find your remark about the Armenians offensive, but I'm not inclined to pursue the matter). --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about ******** giving ************ a 'Special Barnster' saying:

"Thanks for setting a new record in reverting my perfectly good edits. I hope you feel satisfied in erasing my years of hard work and research. Good f**king day."

and me telling him that it was probably meant to be offensive as an apersion? I was also joking when I was talking about the Armenians. He was calling me an 'Ottoman Sultan' and talking about 'President Erdoğan's watermelon selling'. I'm starting to think that I misunderstood him but I still haven't understood why he gave a 'Special Barnster' tagged like that. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted my comment about the Armenians, It was meant to be a joke but it would probably be misunderstood by other users. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikipedia, I've never asked a question here before, but I was just wondering what your opinions are on the Jeffrey Epstein "Suicide" case. Did he kill himself? Was it an assassination? If it was an assassination who hired the assassin? I just want your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby77777 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobby77777, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry, but this is a forum for seeking help on how to edit Wikipedia; that sort of question is not appropriate to ask here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby77777, also note our policies on living and recently dead people are rather strict on what we can say, and any accusations need to be backed up by good sources. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you question my motives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby77777 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with your motives. Teahouse is a place to ask/answer questions about how to be an editor. The people who reply are volunteer editors. There is no "Wikipedia" organization to ask questions, nor to get factual answers, nor to express opinions. The Jeffrey Epstein article states the death as a suicide, although acknowledges there are opinions it was murder. This question is debated at length in the archived parts of the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby77777, no-one has questioned your motives. I, at least, don't even have any idea what your motives are. (Fwiw, I personally believe Epstein was killed, probably to prevent him from revealing what he knew. But this is the wrong place for such discussions.) Maproom (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get some help in regards to my wiki page Seems its tagged to be deleted I thought it was for a self photo I took which I own so I deleted and added again with what I thought was indication this was self photo which I owned I thought I was good to go now but still wonder???? Any comments Wayne Keon Keonw (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keonw: the reason the page has been marked for deletion is not directly to do with the photo. Any issue with the photo is separate, but since you appear to have uploaded it under an appropriate license you are probably ok there. No, the issue with the page is that it appears not to meet our requirements for notability - you can see a complete explanation of the reasons, and a discussion of whether the page should be deleted, here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Keon. Hug^syrup 16:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a site evaluating various writers that comes from a notable source https://canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/indigenous-literary-history-1960s-1990/1970s-1980s-literary-developments/ Wayne keon Keonw (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keonw: if you are making a case against the deletion of your page, you should do so at the deletion discussion that I linked above, and not here. Hug^syrup 17:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pearl of Peace EV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

Hi, if a page was once speedily deleted for lack of notable references, can it be speedily deleted again if some other editor found the subject interesting, found enough reliable and independent sources to create a stub-page, and published it? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page wouldn't be deleted because of the lack of references, it probably wouldn't even be accepted as an article when it was first submitted as a draft. If information was later added without providing references it would be tagged.

I believe what you mean is:

"If the article didn't meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines and was deleted. Then if it got re-created with reliable and independent sources or the subject somehow met Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines, could it be deleted again?"

If the problems that caused the original article to be deleted were fixed and the draft was accepted, then it probably wouldn't be deleted unless other problems were found. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​The article having been previously speedy deleted does not influence whether it will be speedy deleted again, if you create a new article that makes a clear claim of significance and explains how the subject is notable it will most likely not be speedy deleted (although a deletion discussion may be started). If the article was previously deleted after a deletion discussion, it may be preferable to submit it for review. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rodrigo Valequez: and @Þjarkur:. Yes, that's what I actually meant. Sorry for not phrasing it better. This discussion is in reference to the article on Pearl of Peace. I read the actual deletion discussion from the first time it was deleted and made sure that the problem is resolved. However, it was deleted again through speedy deletion without any discussion this time. I had contested the deletion providing reasons for the page to stay, but didn't get a response to it. No other problems, if found, were highlighted. I created a stub based on the information and resources I found in my research. The only reason provided in the diff is that it has been deleted because it was deleted once before. I have 2 questions at the moment, if you can please provide an answer:

1. Can I retrieve the published draft? I forgot to save a copy of it on my computer and had created the draft only on Wikipedia.
2. If retrieved, should I publish it through the AfC process again?

Thanks for all your help. FelixtheNomad (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​You can ask the deleting admin to restore the article to your drafts or to email it to you, they often do so if asked. I would recommend submitting it to AfC. However, according to a Google search, the horse does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable enough for an article. The article was originally created by a paid editor. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ I found the horse listed as 'of possible interest' by the deleting admin here on the WikiProject Equine, so I looked it up and found its pedigree listed on multiple sites, a full feature article on The Times magazine website, and references to how it is unique in its genes and coat colour. Found an article on how the horse was also part of the 2016 James Bond movie's marketing campaign. I thought that's a notable horse. Sure, not enough for a full length Wikipedia page, but good enough to go on as a stub and become part of the Equine project here to be expanded later on when I could find and source more information. FelixtheNomad (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​The subject sounds notable, could you provide us with the sources you just mentioned? Also, do you know the username of the admin that deleted your article? I’ll try to get him/her to restore the article if you can provide the links. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi​. Sure thing, the deleting admin was Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) and here are the links:

1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/golden-horse-is-mane-attraction-zkwwv7ncqjn (unique genes and coat colour)
2. https://pegasus-magazine.co.uk/pearl-of-peace-the-gold-andalusian-stallion/
3. https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2013/11/22/gene-genie-britains-golden-boy/
4. https://www.allbreedpedigree.com/pearl+of+peace+ev (pedigree)
5. https://www.lgancce.com/lgpreancce/asp-publico/arbolGenealogicoPRE/ConsultarArbolGenealogicoPRE.aspx?ID=XbxrT25wQsk= (pedigree)
6. https://blog.petlondon.net/2016/02/06/pearl-of-peace-for-harpers-baazar/ (feature in James Bond movie)
7. https://www.horsedeals.com.au/listings/pearl-of-peace-ev-graded-andalusian-pre-stallion
8. https://www.horse-photographer.co.uk/pearl-of-peace/
9. https://simplebooklet.com/publish.php?wpKey=d9B7fIcscxmGkSQfVkIR8K (page 109 and 113 - image feature)

I think these were all the links. Thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted it, as WP:G4 – although not identical to the version deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl of Peace EV, it did not in my opinion address the problems present in the earlier version (lack of notability, poor sourcing – see the list of sources immediately above! – etc). I have already suggested to FelixtheNomad that he take this to WP:DRV if he wants it reviewed – I can only repeat that suggestion. He could also enquire at WT:Wikiproject Equine whether other editors think the topic notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I’ll get working on it. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for wikipedia editors or administrators to revert changes in articles and if it is pssible, is there a way to stop that from happening? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Rodrigo Valequez. In most cases, any editor can revert any edit, and there is no way to stop that from happening. Reverting edits is an integral part of how Wikipedia is developed as a communal endeavour. Please see WP:BRD for how this works in practice. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ColinFine:, what if the reverts were meaningless and done as vandalism. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Valequez, then, if you are absolutely 100% sure they are vandalism, you can revert back, possibly leaving a warning template on the user's talk if you know how.

If you aren't entirely sure, per wp:brd, go to the talk page and start a discussion. Don't revert if you aren't entirely sure, as this is wp:edit warring, and can lead to sanctions, especially, but not only, if you cross the 3 reverts per day line (wp:3rr). ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the edit war page gives a good list of things you can revert, without it being considered edit warning

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.: ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I would like to add info to an article regarding a bestselling book, however I was wondering regarding the source: on most bookshops, including Amazon, the book is said to be a New York Times best seller, would the commentary of this sites suffice as a source? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeFalafel (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a New York Times Bestseller, it should be possible to source it to the NYT itself without using a (potentially dubious) store front like Amazon. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, LeFalafel. the rank in the NYT bestseller list is usually considered very important, and also the number of weeks on the list. Further, the divided into several sections (the specific ones vary from time to time), & the importance of books in the various sections can be a factor also. When you find the actual list in the NYT, you should either gives the specifics in the article for example, "the book was #18 in the Feb.31, 2099 "self-help" NYT best seller list." or "the book was # 1 in the hardback fiction NYT bestseller list for 34 consectutive weeks, starting Feb 31, 2099. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added biographical details to the page for Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) as the article said it required clean-up, as it was tagged as having been created/edited for undisclosed payments. Now I have checked that everything is factually correct and added a few more links and citations, does this tag need to be removed? What else can I do to clean it up sufficiently? ThanksFashionista2020 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Fashionista2020[reply]

My opinion is No. Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) was created by an editor currently indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of an editor with at least 20 sockpuppet accounts. Suggests original creation was paid. David notMD (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to clean-up Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) article, but as it seems to have been created initially by a sock puppet editor, the changes I have made have made no difference to its status. Would it be possible to delete the article and start over?Fashionista2020 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Fashionista2020[reply]

​The article was most likely created for payment, but the article is neutral and does not appear to require further cleanup. There's really no reason to have {{undisclosed paid}} there any longer (apart from being a deterrant to paid editors), so I've removed the tag. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to create a page for Author Robert B. Stone (in full disclosure, my father) have failed. Dr. Stone wrote over 80 books, including best-sellers such as Martinis & Whipped Cream (the first diet book of the high-protein, low-carb diet movement) and gave lectures globally on The Silva Method. But as these were in the 60s-80s, I'm having a hard time finding on-line citations or other evidence of notability, cited by Wikipedia editors as the reason for denying creating of the article. The published number of books he authored can be independently verified. I have some old newsletter clippings in paper about him. Can they be uploaded somehow and referenced? It seems many less well known, less successful authors have pages, so this appears a bit unfair. Can anyone suggest some advice? You can see more about Stone at robertbstone.com. Thank you, Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone2 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dstone2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources emphatically do not have to be on line; but they do have to have been reliably published. Articles from a major newspaper would be fine (you wouldn't reference the clipping, but rather cite the bibliographic information - title, date, author, name of paper etc. Even for on-line references, the URL is in a sense the least important part of the citation, and is just a convenience for the reader: the important part is the information which will allow a reader to locate the source even if the URL vanishes). But a "newsletter" may be different: only if it was published by an organisation with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking would it be acceptable as a reference.

Some things that it might help you to understand: first, I advise you to think in terms of "an article about" not "a page for". Wikipedia articles do not belong to the subject (or anybody else) and they are neither for nor against a subject: they are a neutral summary of what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. (I am aware that people talk loosely about "a page for somebody" without implying either ownership or partisanship, but I still think it is helpful to avoid the phrase). Secondly, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said, written, published, or even done by the subject of an article unless it has been reported or commented on by an unconnected third party. If enough independent, reliably published sources are found, then there can be an article about your father, based on those sources; and it can certainly include a selected bibliography of his own works. But his own works cannot contribute to notability for Wikipedia's purposes.

As for the "less well know, less successful authors": notability as Wikipedia uses it does not mean any of popularity, importance, or success, (though these will often contribute to notability because people are more likely to write about a subject with those attributes). It is possible that a less successful writer has been independently written about enough to meet the criteria of notability. Another possibility is that the articles you are referring to do not in fact establish that the subjects are notable, and should be improved or deleted. Among our six million articles, there are unfortunatlely many that are substandard (mostly because they have been there a long time, before we set the bar as high as we do today). Please see other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dstone2. It appears that you're referring to Draft:Robert B. Stone. According to the log for that page, it has been deleted a few times over the years, with the last time being in June 2017. The first time it was deleted was in September 2014 by an administrator named RHaworth per speedy deletion criterion G12. The draft was subsequently recreated (not sure when), but then deleted again in June 2016 by an administrator named Sphilbrick per speedy deletion criterion G13. Sphilbrick did restore the draft later that same day (perhaps you or someone else requested a WP:REFUND), but it was deleted once again by RHaworth in June 2017 per criterion G13. The draft doesn't appear to have been recreated by anyone at all since then.

Drafts which haven't edited in six months or more are subject to speedy deletion per criterion G13. Drafts don't need to be completed within a certain amount of time as long as someone continues to work on them; however, if too much time passes without anyone trying to work on the draft, it's considered to be abandoned and subject to speedy deletion. So, drafts which aren't meaningfully edited in six months or more are often deleted as part of routine cleanup. This is not a big deal and the draft can often be restored upon request. Criterion G12, however, is a big deal because the content contained therein is considered to be a copyright violation. This often happens when someone either directly copies-and-pastes content found on an external website onto Wikipedia or closely paraphrases such content. Neither of those two things are allowed because the would be considered a violation of Wikipedia's licesnig policy and thus drafts deleted per G12 are never going to be restored. Basically, editors are expected to write article content in their own words that reflects information found in reliable sources. It's possible to quote reliable sources is some cases, but this should also be limited. Since the last draft of the article was deleted per G12, RHaworth won't be able to restore it; he might, however, be able to further clarify why he deemed the content to be a copyright violation and what you can do to avoid the same thing happening again.

Basically, if you can establish that your dad meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, then an article can probably be written about him. You would, however, be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter; so, you might not be the best person to try and write such an article. Perhaps, you should try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment. One of the members of that WikiProject might be able to assess the Wikipedia notability of your dad and determine whether an article about him can be written. You might even find someone willing to write the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an Article Creation about fashion accessories designer Jonathan Meizler of the brand 'title of work.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonathan_Meizler I submitted it the wrong way the first time (sorry), and got this message:

"As you are a new editor, please submit this article through the articles for creation process. Please note that including nearly 50 citations is not necessary, and in fact is likely to only slow down the article's approval; an article with just 5 good sources is better than an article with 5 good sources and 20 mediocre ones. Including an exhaustive laundry list of collaborations and clients is also unnecessary and smacks of promotional writing. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)"

So I removed citations that I thought were extraneous (and some that I realized included 'title of work' accessories, but were not actually identified in a caption or in text), and really stripped it down so it would be more focused.

When I resubmitted for consideration, I then got this message:

"The fashion brands are likely notable, but I do not see how this person is notable independent of the fashion companies mentioned." This was part of a larger "not accepted at this time" message from User:Sulfurboy

I'm a little confused. When I removed citations I think I lost the person's notability. On the other hand, would it make more sense to make the entry about the 'title of work' company, making the founder and designer (Meizler)subordinate to the brand? Thank you for any guidance.

@Rosguill: @Sulfurboy: --Dakotajone (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dakotajone, from looking at the difference between the version that I moved to Draft and the version that Sulfurboy declined, I don't think that you removed any sources that would have been able to help establish Meizler's independent notability, since only one of the sources removed mentioned Meizler directly, and even then it was directly in the context of the brand 'title of work' [7] (it's also not clear that we should consider this source to be reliable). Whether it's better to write an article about the brand or the designer depends on how the subjects are covered. If reliable sources are primarily covering the brand, and mention the designer only in the context of the coverage of the brand, then it's better to subordinate our coverage of the designer to the brand. On the other hand, if there was a bunch of coverage of the designer and their life and work across many contexts, but not very much direct coverage of the brand (e.g. if all of the coverage was of Famous McPerson creating a new line, but no reviews or other coverage of the line are available other than brief announcements or mentions in the context of coverage of McPerson's life), then it would make sense to have the brand be a subsection of a biographical article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my usual advice is to write the article on the person if it is possible that they may be significant now or in the future for more than just the single brand (or book, or whatever) When that happens, articles about the person are easily expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi --

I landed on Wikipedia's page for The Clovers because I was interested to learn more about their hit song "Love Potion No. 9".

When I reached the last two lines of the article, which read as follows ...

The alternative version is also included on the soundtrack release of the movie American Graffiti.

Another one of their Songs, "One Mint Julep", was featured in the movie Carol.

... I made a couple of minor corrections (for instance, the song in the last line was referred to as "Mint Julep" instead of "One Mint Julep" and it didn't link to the Wikipedia entry on the song) but soon discovered I didn't know how to properly embed a link in the word "Carol" that would send users directly to the Wikipedia page for the movie and *not* to the disambiguation page for "Carol".

Then I thought it would be helpful to embed a link to the soundtrack page for the movie "American Graffiti", but I wanted to embed the link in the words "soundtrack release" and not in the title of the movie. But I don't know how to do that, either.

Can you help?

Thank you!

Proof Pro (Richard Hartzell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proof Pro (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is probably best explained with an example. If you put [[Carol (film)|Carol]] in the code, you get Carol when the page is displayed. Is that what you mean? Neiltonks (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page about a business called Dynamic Sports Training (DST), and was prompted to go here to see if it is notable enough. DST trains youth, high school, college and professional athletes and has been in the local news several times over the last few years, as well as featured in USA Today, Fox News, Houston Chronicle, The Boston Globe, St. Petersburg Times, Sporting News, ESPN, and Los Angeles Times. A staff member is also a coach for the Los Angeles Angels and has been in the news. Will this page be notable enough to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therachelpoppe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NCORP to see if you think that business qualifies. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created a page (Bauer Entertainment Marketing) that got declined due to it reading too much like an advertisement. What are some ways that I could fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbya2020 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gabbya2020, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's actually quite a simple one to answer. If you look at Draft:Bauer Entertainment Marketing, ask yourself, "does this look like an encyclopaedia entry to me?" I'm sure' you'll agree it definitely does not. It's just a bulleted list of words. Please go off and find independent sources that talk about this company in sufficient depth and detail that you can be certain the subject meets This essential notability criteria. If you can't (and you should ignore all press releases, own websites, blogs and social media sites), then the company will never, ever have a Wikipedia page here. I'm afraid it's as simple as that. Do take a look at other encyclopaedic entries about notable companies to appreciate that a list of uncited names is not what we're after. Put simply: we aren't here to help promote businesses. We are here to reflect what society at large has talked about in those independent sources. I note that you have also tried to write about Draft:Robby Bennett (Magician) - an act promoted by Bauer Entertainment (according to your draft). This suggests you might well have a conflict of interest which you should immediately declare on your user page. And if you are paid or remunerated in any way (employeee/agent/CEO) then you should cease editing immediately and follow our obligatory requirements (see the guidance at WP:PAID) as to declaring who you are working for) before continuing any further editing. Hope this helps. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Nick's message above, in the feedback (on the draft page and on your user talk page) the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which give you further advice. When you have read and understood those pages you are welcome to ask more specific questions. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Gabbya2020: Annoyingly, you also asked this question - and had it answered - at the Help Desk. In future, kindly ASK ONE QUESTION IN JUST ONE PLACE, as it really annoys volunteers who then simply waste their time answering stuff that has already been answered elsewhere! The gist of that answer was simply to read the instructions that the declining editor gave you - but I was too polite at the time to point this out to you. Thank you to David who did state the obvious. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So a bulk of my edits are for plants and animals, two passions of mine, I was told by another user that I need to be cautious about my citation sources, because of verifiability purposes. They then mentioned that a lot of animal pages are cited with books and reports. Can somebody link me the documentation for citing a book, also are scholarly magazines okay to cite? I often frequent the library and learning how to cite a book would be helpful. Thanks for any input, cheers -- PrecociousPeach (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to cite a book is to use Template:Cite book. Many useful examples are given in the template documentation. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thanks! -- PrecociousPeach (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @PrecociousPeach: Most "scholarly" magazines and books are fine. The key is whether they are reliable in that they have real writers, fact-checkers, editors, and reputations to uphold. Have a look at WP:EASYREFBEGIN and let us know if you need further assistance. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info and resources! -- PrecociousPeach (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Alachua_County,_Florida article this evening to find a link to the Supervisor of Elections. Wikipedia is very trustworthy in this regard--no telling what random results a search engine might show for such a search. Instead of advertising, fake sites, news articles, opinion pieces, or real sites with similar names, I can count on Wikipedia to link with certainty to the real thing.

Or at least I could. Recently, User:Flibirigit removed the whole list of external links except for a link to the county's home page with the message "remove excessive list of external links, Wikipedia is not a directory". Is it really so burdensome for Wikipedia to carry a few relevant, general-level links organized into helpful categories? The external links that were removed were easy to find in the page and categorized by subject area. The list of links on the county's website is neither. The county has multiple link headings that have to be clicked on and searched separately. The mobile version is worse--the hamburger menu brings up 80 links to scroll through (I counted them four times).

I'll grant that a few of the links on that list could be counted as superfluous, but certainly not the whole list! Also, some of the links in the removed list are not to be found on the county's web site, especially ones for the school board and the water-management districts.

One could argue that governments, businesses, or organizations should put easy-to-find short lists of high-level links on their websites, but that's a lot to assume. Part of the way that Wikipedia speaks with authority is from its links--links as part of the citations of sources and links to external sites. I'd always thought the list of external links on the Alachua County page was a good practice for Wikipedia. I'd like to see it back.

(Of note: many of my Wikipedia edits have been to add links or repair links to resources that moved. None of my edits have been to the Alachua County page, though. Yes, this is where I live.)

NoOneAsked (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoOneAsked. General guidance about external links can be found in Wikipedia:External links, but specific questions about specific links can be asked at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard or even discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. In priniciple, Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be not online directories of links associated with a particular subject; so, while it might perhaps be a lot assume that local business, etc. post easy-to-find links on their websites, the fact that they don't doesn't really mean that Wikipedia should do so instead. In actual practice, however, figuring out whether an external link meets WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE or even WP:ELNO is not always so simple and is usually something that occasionally needs to be resolved through discussion. It's quite possible that there actually has been some discussion on these types of links in the past (or at least similar types of links), and a consensus was established not to add them. The best thing for you do here might be to initiate a discusison about this at Talk:Alachua County, Florida and seek further clarification as to why the links were removed. Perhaps, as you state, not all of the links needed to be removed, but that is probably going to have to be resolved through discussion. If you post something on the article's talk page, and don't get a response with a few days, then perhaps try adding a Template:Please see to WP:ELN since there are likely more editors familiar with EL stuff watching that page than there are watching the Alachia Country article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello am writing a n article of the vocational school in Africa (Uganda) inorder to help young people get skills for a leaving, since the school is new 2 years. I have faced a challenge of getting more sources for references. Please of any help guide Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ntinda_Vocational_Training_Institute.--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandrah.Akol: unfortunately, sometimes if you can't find sufficient sources, that is a clue that the topic isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia just yet. If the school is only two years old then it's unlikely that there are hidden sources in old books or offline sources, so most likely what you can find with some internet searching is all that is available. If that isn't enough, then I'd advise parking the draft for the time being and perhaps coming back to it when more has been written about the topic. Hug^syrup 10:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your url link was malformatted. You presumably meant Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute? A wikilink is usually better than a url. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm using a 6.9MB image as a portal banner on my User page and wonder if the full resolution version is being uploaded each time as there seems to be an upload lag.

If it is, can I force {{Portal image banner}} to use one of the lower resolution versions? Thanks.  RLO1729^💬  05:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​The 6.9MB image is being downloaded when your page is opened, and then fetched from the browser's cache when it is next opened. I've fixed this problem in Module:Portal image banner so now only a 700KB image is loaded. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Thanks Thjarkur.  RLO1729^💬  12:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love looking up plant information on Wikipedia - would appreciate being able to find the growing zones as part of the information available on each reference. Can a line be added to the basic format so zone info could be listed in an easy to see format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:2A (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about putting this information in an infobox? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The functionality to add that info is already in the genus and species infoboxes, if it's not visible then it means that it hasn't been added. We need people who are interested in that aspect of the subject to add that kind of info (HINT) - X201 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Infoboxes ({{speciesbox}} and {{taxobox}} are intended to give data on taxonomic aspects of the plant, not their habitats or hardiness, which are very dependent upon where in the world the species is growing. By 'growing zone' do you mean Hardiness zone? If so, I doubt more than 1 in 1,000 articles would ever end up having anyone including that kind of data. To expect it across all plant taxa (and thus to include it as a parameter in a taxobox) is asking too much. That said, I always encourage creators of new species articles to add range and habitat information whenever I'm reviewing a new page. I find it frustrating when a page creator can't actually be bothered to read their own sources and extract really useful basic data from them. That said - the references are always going to be there for someone else to do the tidying up. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I feel that I can significantly improve this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Rural_Management - and have added the template {{In use}} at the top of the page above the pointers. Since am doing this for the first time, I would like to ask whether I have added/positioned it correctly or need to make modifications before proceeding? Also do I need to add any other information before starting on the content? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you wish to refer to a Wikipedia page, it is better to use a wikilink like Indian Institute of Rural Management rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Rural_Management. You used the template Template:tlx which linked to Template:In use, rather than using the "In use" template itself. You should change {{tlx|In use}} to {{In use}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Tycheana: I have fixed the template for you. Please remove it after you've finished editing the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David Biddulph, will bear in mind while referring to pages in future, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick Moyes for fixing the template for me. Also confirming that I should put the 'Under Construction' template in case it requires further sessions. Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tycheana, generally, that template isn't used much. I'd just remove the template when you're done for your "session". ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time or talent to rebut this evil article. Someone emailed this wikipedia page to me, but it is full of one-sided dubious sources. It should be tagged, at least, with a warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meakfish (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What specific sources are dubious? Ruslik_Zero 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the Archive on the article's Talk page for past discussions of accuracy of article. David notMD (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get pointed to the right source for how to edit a citation in a table? I know I can't use the visual editor but have been unable to figure this out from other sources I've reviewed. Thanks BDD user (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​You can edit citations in tables by first double-clicking on a table-cell and then clicking on the citation. If that doesn't work, you can have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners, learning how to edit the citation templates in the source editor does take a little bit of effort. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD user: If that help page confuses you, I've written an alternative guide at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you help me figure out how to improve my article to get it approved? Thanks, John Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darryn_Melerine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecr8tve (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the feedback, both on the draft page and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. Which parts of that advice don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. I've gone through two revisions, and had them both declined. I feel like the subject is worthy of an article. This is honestly my first article and I am at a loss of where to go next. Do I hire someone to help me write it so that it will get approved? Can you or someone review the article to tell me what is wrong with it? Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Thecr8tve (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thecr8tve You've declared that you are paid, but not who is paying you and/or the client.(I assume it is Mr. Melerine). Hiring someone would make no difference. How does Mr. Melerine meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person? The sources provided don't seem to have the significant coverage required. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A draft at Draft:Jung Ye-rin was rejected with the following comment:

"This draft has been resubmitted with the statement that the artist had a single that was in position 37 on the Korean national chart. However, the link to the Korean national chart lists a different song in position 37, and no listing for the artist or any of her songs could be found in examining the chart. This submission has therefore failed verification. Please do not resubmit without providing clearer information, or discuss at Talk:GFriend. If this draft is resubmitted without proper discussion and without showing how she satisfies musical notability, this draft will be Rejected."

However, the reference for the Gaon Digital Chart (Reference #7) does show the correct song at position 37 (written under its Korean title, "왜 또 봄이야") and the artist is credited for that song (under her given name, written in Korean, "예린"). I believe the reviewer may have followed Reference #8 next to the Downloads number of 82,419+ which shows the same song at position 84 with 82,419 downloads for the month of March 2017, which serves to verify a lower bound on the number of downloads for the song. How can I make sure that the draft demonstrates musical notability? 76.68.127.195 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the draft might be a better place to discuss the review for archival purposes. I've started a new section there, at Draft talk:Jung Ye-rin#Source verification, and copied your post above to it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i want to correct lies about me (Bill Binney) on a Wikipedia page about me. How do I do that? I've tried but can't get it changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C000:D210:9E8:A81C:3B9C:A76 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are William Binney, please post your concerns on the talkpage. However, that page has Pending Changes enabled, which means a decently experienced editor reviews every edit before it goes live. I'd be inclined to say there is nothing wrong. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind. Wikipedia does not have a page on you..? Please provide a link. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2601:147:C000:D210:9E8:A81C:3B9C:A76. Since you're editing from an IP account and didn't provide a link to the article you're referring to, there's really nothing anyone can really do other than to recommend that you take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself , Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement.

Wikipedia doesn't have anyway of really knowing who you are unless you want to create an account and have your identity verified by Wikimedia OTRS; moreover, even if it did, it wouldn't simply delete the article simply because you request such a thing. If you have concerns about things written about you on Wikipedia, then there are Wikipedians who will be willing to try an help you; however, article content will be assessed on whether it meets relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and will only be revised/removed if it doesn't. So, please read the three policy/guideline pages I've linked to above, and follow the steps listed there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I searched "NVSS" on Google with the intention of finding NRAO VLA Sky Survey on the wiki, but National Vital Statistics System came up instead in the results. So I added about templates to both the articles, linking to the other article, for easier access due to the identical acronym. Then I found the NVSS disambig page, and read that there were some guidelines for adding the About template, so... was what I did fine, or should I have done something else? —Undead Shambles (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Undead Shambles: Looks good to me. I added two more entries to the dab page, but they are titles containing NVSS instead of something for which NVSS is the complete initialism, so they don't need to be additionally mentioned at the other two pages IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Alright, thank you! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Undead Shambles and AlanM1: I disagree. The article titles of NRAO VLA Sky Survey and National Vital Statistics System cannot be confused. We don't use hatnotes just because an alternative title could refer to something else, unless the alternative title is a redirect to the page. NVSS is not a redirect but a disambiguation page so nothing had to be done. We cannot predict how people use Google, and then organize the whole encyclopedia after whatever is currently the first result on a Google search for a given user (it can vary by country and maybe other factors). People who enter NVSS in our own search box get the disambiguation page as they should. And for me, it is also the fourth result in a Google search, with no other Wikipedia pages in the first 100 results. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! PH is, of course, correct. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Ocean Blue Project. We have had a few interns and other supporters asking why we don not have a Wikipedia page for our nonprofit.

How do we request a page for www.oceanblueproject.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B069:27C5:988A:7401:E946:A744 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm not a Teahouse host, but I saw this question, and decided to answer it nevertheless. I understand that you want a Wikipedia article for your nonprofit company Ocean Blue Project. However, you have to demonstrate that the company is notable - that is, it qualifies for an article. According to the notability guidelines on companies, the company must have received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. For instance, these do not count:

• The home website;
• A news entry that just mentions "Our Blue Ocean";
• Court hearings and cases, for they are primary;
• Social media profiles, for they are not reliable and are primary.

Currently, I don't seem to be able to find a lot of information (other than passing mentions) on Ocean Blue Project (a Google News search revealed mainly passing mentions and the main search revealed just the home page and social media profiles). Honestly, I don't think this company is notable yet, but if you can demonstrate notability please tell me.

One more thing: please don't go ahead to create the page. Even when you have an account that is sufficiently old, after which you are technically allowed to create pages, doing so would be considered a conflict of interest, and would result in it being likely deleted. If it is really notable, you may request for the page to be created at WP:Articles for Creation (see the instructions there), and provide the sources. It is best to leave willing editors to write it, since the article they write will be written from a more neutral point of view.

All in all, I'm sorry that the company is not currently notable enough. Please don't create the article for it, even when it becomes notable. Thanks for asking at the Teahouse! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 04:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at this: not one thing in the universe - not a person, not a company, not a band, not a brand, not a place has a Wikipedia page for themselves. Wikipedia has articles on many notable people, companies, non-profits etc. Those articles do not belong to their subjects, are not controlled by their subjects, may not be used for telling the world about their subjects (aka promotion), and should be almost entirely based on what people unconnected with their subjects have published about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote an article last year on Ashi Tashi Dorji and had problems (due to my inexperience) in moving it into the mainspace. An editor/admin PRehse kindly moved it for me, however I am still linked to the Ashi Tashi Dorji Talk page via my sandbox talk page, which links to The article's talk page. Please can you help me clear it. Doctor 17 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctor 17: Hi. I've just tagged that sandbox talk page for deletion. It should get deleted soon enough. If you want to create the sandbox talk page again, you may just click on the red link. Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 04:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks tLoM (The Lord of Math) Can I ask what the sandbox talk page is used for? Also, how do I create that vertical bar, | , the one used in the coding of a name. There must be a simpler way than copy and pasting...?Doctor 17 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: the vertical bar is called a "pipe" character. On North American QWERTY keyboards it is usually fond close to the return key on the right side, on the same key as the "\" character.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so it is! thanks ThatMontrealIP Doctor 17 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just made a new template called {{Interlanguage link with draft}} (or {{illd}}). It is based on {{ill}} and made to specifically link also to a draft article, addressing the problems as mentioned in this user essay. If it works well, it might be merged into {{ill}}, as my template is fully compatible with {{ill}}. Please give feedback and suggestions on it, and thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Lord of Math. I'm not sure about the technical aspects of your template (Primefac does a lot of work with templates so perhaps he can take a look at that), but it seems that you’re suggesting/hoping to use this to add links to drafts in some way. That's probably OK for user pages and other pages outside of the mainspace, but links in Wikipedia articles are not really supposed to link to drafts/userspace drafts as explained in MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the Article space we should not be linking to drafts, and while I could potentially see some use in the non-Article spaces, I'm not sure it's necessary. I think the best place to garner opinions would be at the talk page of {{ill}} itself, since editors interested in that template will be more likely to see and comment on the new template and any potential merger. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: Yes- I'm in agreement with these concerns. It seems highly likely to encourage editors to include links to all sorts of ill-formed drafts (against our guidelines) and be used as a shortcut to avoid having to create a properly formed article. Used within mainspace articles, it would open up a Pandora's Box of links to all sorts of drivel, with absolutely no editorial control or oversight over what that content might subsequently change to within those drafts. For use in a non, mainspace page, I see no reason for not simply including a hyperlink to any draft. Although I can see its theoretical usefulness, I believe any small benefit it might bring is far, far outweighed by the risks it opens up. As such (and unless you can advance a very strong argument for its deployment) I would argue for its deletion - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes, Marchjuly, and Primefac: I see an obvious place of using this template: in Request article pages, as in WP:RA/NS. Would it be a good idea to use it there? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to test it, say, in a section in a WikiProject RA and see its effects? Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addendum, I agree that mainspace isn't where this template would be used, and when creating an article users are notified of a draft version (so when I try to create Newman's conjecture I see a notice linking to Draft:Newman's conjecture, but I figure if the article appeared both as articles in different language(s) and as a draft, users may be notified of both. Anyway comparing the code, it is pretty much identical to the {{ill}} template. Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: Could you show me how your templated link might look both in a mainspace article, and in another draft, each linking with a draft of a notable UK topic (called: National Pollinator Strategy) that I have been slowly working on over the last two years, but never finished? It's at Draft:National Pollinator Strategy. Unless there is a sureproof and technical way of preventing your new template ever being deployed in mainspace, I'm not sure there is much use in testing it out, as I think it's too open to being misused. (I really am sorry to have poured cold water on your idea like this - I feel awful in so doing, and am hoping I might be missing something really obvious in its benefits.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I don't know much about the strategy, so I'll have to assume that this topic has a page in Spanish called es:Patrick Zachmann and a page in French called fr:Évolution du collège épiscopal français en 2013 (both are random pages in those wikis). Then it would look something like this: National Pollinator Strategy [draft; es; fr] . It looks the same everywhere, but I'm still trying to improve it, and there are certainly ways to disallow a link to drafts in mainspace (using template coding and magic words). Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Lord of Math: OK, thanks. Well, if there are foolproof ways of preventing deployment in mainspace articles, then I guess there might be some useful functionality in highlighting the existence of a draft. So, as was suggested - it'd be best to discuss on the 'ill' template talk page or at WP:VPP, perhaps. Good luck with it, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing a page on a book called 'A Place for Us'. My submission got declined for not having reliable and independent sources. I think that may sources were reliable for this topic. I was wondering how I can improve my sources to get my submission approved. Kind regards, Gawande9Gawande9 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gawande9: I added some more sources; the book does appear to be notable but the article was missing good sources in independent publications. I trimmed some material that was not sourced. Other editors will read your question above and likely respond in more detail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Wow, thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it!! Gawande9 (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gawande9: - I've just re-reviewed and accepted the draft. It's been slightly renamed, so you can now find it at A Place for Us - well done! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would one go about asking to change Wikidata statements (not the information in them but what they are)?★Trekker (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Are you referring to the label/structure of the fields? If so, you can click on the label and edit for example the property d:Property:P1448. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would wish to expand Wikidata labels for parterns, I'd like to add things like "Fiance"/"concubine"/"common-law spouse" etc as options.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, *Treker. These are at present all special cases of d:Property:P451. If you want to argue for more specific cases, I think d:Property talk:P451 is the place to do so; certainly not in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a new editor to Wikipedia, but not a novice editor. I put an article out onto my sandbox about a local New England musician, Nancy Day, 2 weeks ago. It was written by me with just several historical points by her that I incorporated into the text. It is currently on my sandbox. How do I get it into the encyclopedia section of Wikipedia? Thanks!

BillyK — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Klessens (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @William Klessens:, to request an experienced editor to review your work and possibly get it included in wikipedia you would have to press the ‘Publish Page’. Another button will appear allowing you to submit your draft for review. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under unintended consequences, an hour after you asked this question your Sandbox draft was speedy deleted as promotional/webpage-like rather than encyclopaedic. Suggest you review WP:YFA to get a better idea of how to craft an article. Also, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.William Klessens (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question regarding the copyright release of a picture. On the article of a celebrity, I found a display picture that on its description claims to be a screen capture of a Youtube video with a CC license, however when accessing the video I noticed it does not have any type of license. Would this be a reason for the picture to be taken down? and if so, what should be the process to request the removal? Thanks for all your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFulham (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DFulham: This is answered at WP:HD. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been observing the talk page of a politician. It seems to me that the article is written in a biased way— and some investigative journalism has shown that the article may have been created and definitely at some point of time the has been managed by said politician or someone in his camp. There is one user who aggressively opposes any proposition to modify the article seemingly past minor edits despite the article potentially requiring a WP:NPOV overhaul. This user has also been extremely active in the talk page of an election— I have also been looking at that once in a while— that Mr. Politician has recently participated in, and my view is that Mr. User is there also a force to oppose any unfavorable coverage and vice versus.

What must be done in such a situation? I am worried he has maintained a veneer of plausible deniability which makes matters further difficult to handle. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GGLLFFP, Honestly, I recommend passing this up to people that *do* know how to handle it, like an administrator. Send an email to an admin that you know has been recently active. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonythedwarf— do you think it is, for the lack of a better word, ok to take it to an admin? He has worked hard to maintain plausible deniability. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GGLLFFP you can also bring up your concern at WP:COIN. You will need the article name, the user(s) in question and examples of the parts you feel might be paid or COI editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a rather drastic measure at this stage but I’ll certainly use it if it comes to that. Thanks !GGLLFFP (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GGLLFFP It is actually a preferred method to address COI concerns, and is much less than drastic. When you post your concerns there, other editors can assess them and/or take action if necessary. It is a bit like making an announcement at a gathering, allowing people to take notice of the issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really better to post the name of the article here, surrounded by two brackets on each side, and then any interested person can take a look and see what the problems are. Of course, then there is always taking it first to the Talk pages of that article; that is the normal first step. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see from looking at the pages you've been editing that you're talking about Pete Buttigieg. This article now has 149 editors and 244 watchers, so your concerns will certainly get an examination if you take them to the Talk page. In fact, I'll go see for myself. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting read at WP:Boomerang. Anybody who follows a given editor can always check to see how many, if any, other articles the editor has been working on. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and just drafted a new page for "Scott A. Shay" and having issues with reliable sources to get it published. I'm asking for assistance with finding approved sources for him. He is a co-founder of a bank and author of 2 books.

Draft:Scott A. Shay

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SugiOrange (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find reliable sources, what makes you think that he is notable by Wikipedia's definition? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to find refs. Right now what you have is not good enough and the resubmittal will be declined. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the draft been resubmitted in this state? Books written by the subject do not demonstrate notability. What are needed are reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is founder of a notable bank and has more relevance than many authors allowed pages in Wikipedia, but needs work on sourcing and details beyond founding the bank unfortunately, in most reputable sources that's all the Relevance given to him, though did find two related to his book and one on taxi Medallions crisis:

• Comments as Signature Bank Director/Founder [[8]] [[9]][[10]] [[11]]

• Book Review-[[12]] [[13]]

• Taxi Medallions - [[14]]

Slywriter (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slywriter's heart is in the right place, but these references to Mr. Shay mention him only in passing. I suggest that Slywriter turn his attention to other people who might be more Notable. I did a search for "Scott Shay banker" on Newspapers.com and came up with nothing. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link from the Wikipedia page for Joana Vale Costa to her WTA profile doesn't work. I went to the WTA site and did a search for her name. I found the following works: https://www.wtatennis.com/players/318075/joana-vale-costa but when i tried to fix the Wikipedia page, i see that is not how the link is programmed. It looks like this: * Joana Vale Costa at the Women's Tennis Association but it doesn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Blair H (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Blair H:  Fixed The solution was two-fold: the call to {{WTA}} needed to be changed to just {{WTA}} (with no parms) to cause the template to look up the link info from Wikidata property 597 (WTA player ID). I then edited that property (clicking on the small pencil icon after Women's Tennis Association produced by the template in the article) to correctly mis-spell her linked name (valle→vale). Editors apparently chose this as the solution when the links changed, modifying the template to look up the necessary value in Wikidata, replacing most of the {{WTA|nnnnnn}} calls in articles with {{WTA}}, and setting the properties correctly. There were apparently some that were not done. See d:Property talk:P597#URL was not working. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I interviewed many people about the history of art in Las Vegas. I would like to place this information on Wikipedia. Is this possible? The information has never been published so it is valuable.

Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2C00:EEE:0:0:0:2DC9 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug. I'm afraid this is not possible. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means we only include information that has already been published somewhere before. Anything else is original research, which we don't include. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how do i reuse same reference with different page numbers. see Mach's principle, it contains multiple references with different page numbers. and please revert 9-57 and 530 edit summary edits. Leela52452 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leela52452:

Some article prose<ref name="Smith">{{Cite book|...}}</ref>{{Rp|12}} and some more{{R|Smith|27}}.
Here's some more.{{R|Smith|112}}

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the ref, you add something like this < ref name=GLG/ >{ {rp|46–47} }, where rp means "reference to page," I believe. Then you type in the page number. I've forgotten where where you find this info on WP. (I had to type spaces into the examples I've just given.)BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once and WP:REFB#Page references. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I use (I found it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can figure out the wikitext, there's one example in Marlowe portrait. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, I hear a lot about "Consensus" on Wikipedia. What exactly does that mean? I read the page for it, but it was kinda long and confusing... could someone help clarify it? Thanks, King of Scorpions 18:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are so-called "accepted" definitions, but the important thing is that it does NOT mean "a general agreement" (the dictionary definition). It means whatever the closing administrator thinks it means, which is usually "the majority agreement" or "the argument for which I can find some Wikipedia rule or guideline to base my decision on." Argumentative editors never want true consensus; they want their side to win out; thus the closing admin has to just simply make a decision. Sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but there it is. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on situation. If I make an edit to an article and nobody reverts it, it can be seen as a kind of consensus, but it can also mean that nobody noticed it. Much is worked out in informal discussions, sometimes with only 2 editors, which never are closed by admins, and these can be pointed at as consensus. Consensus can change later, but depending on situation it can be "demanded" that such a change is shown in a new discussion.

Regarding admin-closed discussions, sometimes policies are important, like "Should this article call this person a murderer?". Sometimes it's more of a headcount, like "Should this article have this or this free image in the lead?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! King of Scorpions 20:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scorpions, it is always wise to read the relevant policy, which in this case can be found at Wikipedia: Consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am writing a Wikipedia page and including some old newspaper articles that I found on ProQuest. These are from the 1950s and taken from The Wall Street Journal. I used my school account to get the articles but when I go to publish the page it says I am unable to publish it because the url includes my schools address(wiki refers to it as a proxy). Is there a way I could get the links without the school address in it (or proxy)? Please let me know because the way it is explained on this website I dont understand. Fmanheim1 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fmanheim1. You do not need to include those full articles. Just cite them. Give the full title, the author(s), the newspaper, and the date of publication. If the article is available on the newspaper's website, then link to that. Copies of newspaper articles on other websites may well be copyright violations, which are never allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it`

Yes, this change has been done all over Wikipedia by certain uncaring editors who don't realize how disruptive it has been. By eliminating "proxies," as these links are called, now nobody can follow the original links to, say, a public library site or, in your case, a school's account. "You can't get there from here" is a big problem which I have complained about elsewhere and about which I have been either scoffed at or ignored. Nevertheless, Cullen328 is correct, you don't need actually need the link any more, even though it would be nice to have it so that anybody with the proper credentials (like a library card) can follow it to the source. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

The above referenced page I contributed is in Draft still. I would just like to know about how long it usually takes to be approved and be published in this process. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMelina (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MissMelina: You haven't put it up for review. Before you try that, though, IMBD is not a reliable source, so it's going to be rejected. You need at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about McIntosh but not affiliated with, dependent upon, nor connected with him. You might want to try these instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson, I think you meant IMDB? King of Scorpions 00:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I screwed up in naming this--sorry. Could someone please advise? Thanks very much. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it and will do the DAB, thanks. Just let me know if that is not correct. I appreciate it. Caro7200 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I am young wikipedia editor and I am encouraged to see this page help editors improve their articles. My question to this forum is that when we are writing about a person youtube views which is around 50 millions, do need a secondary source for that also. Or would it work by just adding a link to his youtube channel where his views are written directly.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I am young wikipedia editor and I am encouraged to see this page help editors improve their articles. My question to this forum is that when we are writing about a person youtube views which is around 50 millions, do need a secondary source for that also. Or would it work by just adding a link to his youtube channel where his views are written directly.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]