Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

How old?

How old can you use wikipedia WikiTime45 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiTime45 Does Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors help? Or are you asking if there is an upper age limit? David notMD (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Technically, you can be at any age. However, you need to be mature on Wikipedia, if you are immature or act rudely towards others you may get banned or blocked on certain pages. Hope this helps! :) Toad62 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

And if by "use" you mean "read" — which, after all is why most people come here, then the answer is clearly "as soon as you can". Adding to existing articles and, especially, creating new ones is much harder and should be approached, slowly, as soon as you feel confident to do so. By-and-large new editors are welcomed if they come with the intention of improving Wikipedia — and especially so if they are female. There is a huge imbalance at present towards contributors being male. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the above on two counts: nobody has any idea of what the gender balance is like – and we definitely shouldn't be encouraging people to read Wikipedia until they are old enough to understand source criticism. --bonadea contributions talk 14:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair points but I'm pretty sure I read about the gender imbalance in a Signpost article, although I appreciate these aren't WP:RS, just opinions. Given that WikiTime45 has managed to set up a account and worked out how to post here, I don't think we need to make "understand source criticism" a further barrier. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Not so much a barrier as a minimum requirement. Obviously impossible to enforce, but it would be irresponsible not to work towards it. --bonadea contributions talk 06:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea I found my source for my assertion, which doesn't make it true but does mean it is shared by others: Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_are_underrepresented Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have read that before. That changes nothing – we still don't know. But that kind of patronising crap (the article text, not your post) really makes me sad. --bonadea contributions talk 15:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You can pretty much read it once you can. For editing, as long as you research your edits and remain mature, there shouldn't be any problems. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 17:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it illegal to add informative links on wikipedia?

I don't know why the admins always remove my external link which I add on any specific page which is totally relevant to the topic of that page. Is it called spamming to add informative and relevant links to Wikipedia? If yes, then the whole Wikipedia is a spam. They always say that I am advertising with the links...Did I run ads on your page without your permission? Okay, I got you...you don't want that a couple of users are derived from wikipedia to any other site...GREAT! You guys should remove the option of external links then. Keep up the good work of removing relevant and informative links from wiki pages. Yogesh1497 (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There's always a reason for something being removed. What is the link that was removed? We could tell you what the reason is instead of jumping to conclusions. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 12:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Courtesy link: GEMS Education. Yogesh1497, the external link you provided is not relevant to the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but GEMS Education is a system of schools; 9 GEMS is a educational philosophy used by GIIS. GIIS does not seem to be part of GEMS education as it's not listed on its website. Even if relevant, we want to keep external link sections to a minimum, and often an official website is enough. You may want to review our external links guideline and see if your link still qualifies. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The user would probably find that Global Indian International School is the article they are looking for adding information to. But given the article starts with a warning about it being an "Advertisement" this may mean that there is a concerted effort to add more relatively unimportant self promoting content. Koncorde (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There have been comments that the article Global Indian International School is promotional at least as far back as 2012. -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what about the editing done by me on this page List of schools in Japan? Is GIIS not an international school that you don't want to be in the list of International schools (not certified by Japanese Government) & what about the external link added by me on Elementary schools in Japan. Most of the pages have a couple of external links which looks like advertisement why don't you remove them all? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/International_school#External_links External links Don't you guys think the external link included here [| International School Information] is advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh1497 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC) --Yogesh1497 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What about your editing, you ask, Yogesh1497. Well, since you ask, it suggests to me that your objective here is advertising. Why don't we/I remove everything that looks like advertising? Because there are only so many hours in the day (and of course there are more enjoyable ways of spending them than removing advertisements). -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sad to hear that there are Wikipedia moderators like Hoary who give more importance to enjoying their time rather than removing all spam links from pages. I can smell corruption on this digital platform already...LOL! Keep up the good work and enjoy your hours.--Yogesh1497 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia works because volunteers apply rules which protect the quality of the encyclopedia. Volunteers in their own unpaid time. So if you see a link that is spam, then please remove it. Spam is when links promote specific businesess or products - which has been the general problem with your additions. Links to business sites that are not the central topic of articles. The external links at International_school#External_links are not spam because they do not promote a specific business. Instead they are external sites not pushing a particular business where people can get further information on the topic.OsFish (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a phone, and I enjoy popping in an out. Just like how people spend so much time on social media, for now, this is my social media. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

False Rape/Harassment cases

I have noticed that false rape/harassment cases filed by malicious women are not SO mentioned. In such cases, Wikipedia says "allegedly". When the case is false, why don't you just say it is false??? As much as there is violence against women, there are tens of thousands of false cases, even lakhs filed by women. 106.51.240.130 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make judgments, but reports what reliable sources say. If the sources say an allegation was false, Wikipedia will say so; if they describe an claim as "alleged", Wikipedia should say that. If there is a particular article you are concerned about, and you have a reliable source saying something different from the article, then discuss it on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've seen confirmed rape cases cited as "alleged."--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood what ColinFine said. This encyclopedia is required to say what the sources state. If the source cited says "allegedly" then we are required to write "allegedly", unless other sources are cited that state something else. If you have found a source, you can summarize what the source says, and then cite your source. Also sources cited must be WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:V. If you read those links, they contain extremely helpful information about the requirements for sourcing in this encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Crimes are generally alleged before they're confirmed, so if a confirmed cases says 'alleged' that simply means it's out-of-date and should be changed (with a reliable source cited, of course). --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How to add categories to an article?

Hey all, I wanted to ask how can I add categories to an article properly? I read this section https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#How_do_I_add_an_article_to_a_category? which says that I just have to edit the article and add Category:Surname When I do so, e.g Category:1952 births and then click on publish changes the system doesn't show the link to births 1952 it literally shows Category:Surname. Anyone could help me out with this one, please? Enciclopedista100 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Enciclopedista100, welcome to the Teahouse. I removed the nowiki tags at Reiner Braun (Activist), they were disabling the category links. Hopefully that fixes everything for you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Enciclopedista100: On a talk page, when you want to write about a category and provide a link (as you did above), you need to put a ":" (colon) between the opening brackets and "Category" to keep from placing the talk page on which you are writing into the category. I.e., instead of [[Category:1952 births]], write [[:Category:1952 births]]. I've fixed the three instances above. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How to write a good reception section for video games

I'm unclear on how to write a good reception, whether just being writing a paragraph or the entire section. From what I know right now, its a summary of what the critics are saying, and if multiple sources come to a consensus, its notable to include if cited correctly. I'm writing on Super Mario Bros. 35, and this is what I want to add:

Major complaints from critics come from the repetition of early levels. Players only start of with level 1-1 unlocked, and unlock more throughout gameplay, causing many players being forced to play through the beginning levels. Zachary Cuevas from iMore states how unlocking new levels is unclear, with Chris Carter from Destructoid writing how not enough players are choosing different levels before a match, which leads to unbalanced repetition.[2] Chris button from GameSpot claims how the repetition creates a lack of pacing and little intensity, but Special Battle is a good competitive alternative.[3]

Could someone review this or give me some pointers on a good reception? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini, I'd recommend asking this question at WT:VG. (Others here are definitely welcome to chime in as well, but I think your odds of getting a helpful reply there are higher.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini, I made some copy edits to the paragraph you added here. Using past tense was one issue; see MOS:PAST.

I don't know enough about the game to be sure of this, but I also worry a bit about excessive detail—saying critics felt the early levels were repetitive, as is done in the paragraph above it, might be sufficient, without explaining exactly how and including the same sentiment from multiple critics (we don't want to be repetitive ourselves haha). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agh, past-tense. didn't even THINK about that. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 11:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

about a website

Just wanted to ask if anybody could answer, if the site hypebeast.com is a reliable site since i've seen a few articles in wiki that use it. EraKook (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC) EraKook (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello EraKook! Never heard of it, but it seems to be popular for citing. Per their aboutpage [1] I'd say this site is for selling clothes, and not a very good source. I suggest you ask this question at WP:RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes I've actually seen 2 or 3 articles that have been using this site as a source but whenever I check it seems promotional. I read that Wikipedia does not approve of promotional sites. I wanted to confirm because when I'll be adding sources myself I want to make sure they are reliable, therefore I asked this. Thank you for the suggestion. -EraKook (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EraKook FWIW - I used it once as a source and linked to its article, but noticed that its article was recently deleted and salted when my link turned red. See Hypebeast for the full troubled history. It is a somewhat promotional site, so it depends on what you're sourcing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thats great to know thank you very much! Ill go look into that -EraKook (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Picvdo

I am trying to publish my first draft but after publishing its showing that i am violating rule. But i am creating it for someone else who is actually need an recognition in convid time

Because of it customer service Picvdo (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Picvdo, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Recognition" is not one of the functions of Wikipedia. Please read What Wikipedia is not carefully. According to WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#21:10:26, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Picvdo your draft was deleted as "blatant promotion". Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish about them in reliably published places. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

is there a courtesy link? I want to see so I can give my opinion. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 02:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To what, Le Panini? The draft has been deleted, so only admins can see it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoever talked before me deleted their messages. Nevermind. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 19:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand

Do we know how much traffic is going through Wikiwand rather than Wikipedia directly? Charles Juvon (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: Wikiwand is developed by a private company not associated with Wikipedia. You will need to contact them to see if that data is public. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand would use the Wikimedia API so presumably Wikimedia would be able to see how many requests are coming through, not that they'd share it either. But presumably contents is cached more often than not so it'd (hopefully) be a much lower figure than the amount of pageviews wikiwand gets. As for unique visitors, I would speculate that it pales in comparison with people accessing wikipedia directly through the web or even through the official wikipedia phone apps. In short, not much. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing existence

How would i cite the existence of something? I added a new song to a list of songs made by a band, and was told i needed to cite it. Would i link the song? Hey tim, for launch party (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What was probably meant was that you need to cite an authoritative source, partly in order to show that the list isn't just somebody's fantasy. (If this comment doesn't help, please link to the article in question.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If notability has already been established through third party sources (for a band that's likely to be reviews, interviews etc) then a primary source such as the band's official website would be adequate for something like a track listing. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

creating an article on pregnancy and epilepsy

An article has been published in a medical journal on EPILEPSY AND PREGNANCY by an elite international group under CCBYSA3.0 licence and is important enough to be on wikipedia as a separate article because it has many issues related to the topic for doctors ,nurses, paramedical staff and persons with eilepsy and their familes. How best can we create the article without copyviolation? Does it have to be completely paraphrased and cited to this main article or parts of itfrom the article written as paraphrased short sections and cited to original citations in this article?--NandanYardi (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) NandanYardi (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medical journal. It's very likely we could use some of the content (as Wikipedia also uses CC-By-SA 3.0) but the tone would likely not be acceptable. Another thing to bear in mind is our policy on sourcing for medical claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello NandanYardi. As Jéské Couriano pointed out, Wikipedia has quite stringent standards for reliable sources for medical topics. Here is a quote that summarizes that guideline: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

Personally, I believe that a Wikipedia article about epilepsy and pregnancy can be written. However, there is no way under the sun that such an article should be based on a single medical journal article, but should instead be based on the full range of the published reliable sources on the topic that comply with WP:MEDRS. The fact that this particular article was published under CC BY SA 3.0 is of little relevance. It is the reliability of the journal and the specific article that is all-important, not its licensing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Consider instead adding a section on pregnancy to the Epilepsy article. That article is rated Good Article and gets more than 2,000 visits a day. Existing satellite articles about epilepsy and operating motor vehicles, and epilepsy in children get less than 100/day. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an authoritative consensus document with excellent citations from previously published literature from reputed journals and has been published by a reputed journal,from a globlly represented experts task force in the field and has taken years of review of current and past literature on the subject.It is likely to have far reaching impact in patient management globally.How can a few parts with public helath messages to doctors, paramedical staff and general redership, be included for benefit at people at large who access Wikipedia?Thanks for your helpNandanYardi (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Would help if you stop lauding it and provide a PMID number, journal name, volume and issue, etc. And again, Wikipedia is not a place to replicate a lot of content from any article. A section or sub-section with a concise summary of the article placed in the Epilepsy and Pregnancy articles - with a reference to the journal article - will be sufficient. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way Harden CL, et al, published several articles in 2009 providing practice guidelines on epilepsy and pregnancy. One or more of these could also be incorporated into the Epilepsy and the Pregnancy articles. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, NandanYardi, please notice that "public health messages" are not among the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say: it doesn't warn, advocate, or advise. When a reliable source contains something that might reasonably be called a "public health message", Wikipedia can report that the source said so, but the accurate reporting is Wikipedia's purpose, not the public impact of the message. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,i will surely proceed to do so--NandanYardi (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank,you are correct,Harden CL, etal, have published it a few years agoand understanding has changed since then but these are new findings which we will write up as per your guidance and add a subsection to the existig Epielpsy article and to include a consensus review --NandanYardi (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidanceColinFinE, will do so--NandanYardi (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand

I have not gone beyond viewing the website, but it would appear that Wikiwand violates the "free" content of WP by monetizing it. I have contributed to WP for over 14 years on the assumption that this would never be allowed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: The Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia (that you agreed to) allows reuse for any purpose, as long as attribution is given. See Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. RudolfRed (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I assumed it was a Creative Commons NonCommercial license. It should be.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand stated that it would kick back 30% to WP. Are they?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, WriterArtistDC, but your assumption about the licensing was incorrect. Every time you prepare to hit the blue "Publish changes" button, the following notice is visible directly above:

"By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows commercial re-use, and Wikipedia rejects all written content that restricts commecial re-use. We allow stringently limited use of non-free images in a few cases but not non-free text. Our goal is to provide educational content for free to the whole world, which can be re-used by anyone anywhere for any purpose whatsoever, including attempts to make some money off of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again I am a victim of my own avoidance of reading the fine print. I will be taking a break while I consider whether I will continue to volunteer my efforts to an enterprise that includes usage by a for-profit business.

I have an additional question regarding the use on WP of non-free images based upon a fair use rationale. Since there is a separate rationale for each article on WP, I would also assume that such fair use does not "travel" to be part of another publication, particularly one with ads. I made such an argument (with opposition) when I placed "File:Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.jpg" in the article Nude (art)#Contemporary.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: You are correct that Wikipedia fair use rationales apply only to use on Wikipedia. This hampers the reuse of articles with non-free content, which is one reason why Wikipedia does not allow non-free use if a free substitute exists or could be created. —teb728 t c 07:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing now, but it seems possible that (similar) fair use rationales used by WP could on occasion be used in other places, like wikis etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of contemporary topics would be severely limited if it could not make fair-use rationales for non-free images. In the case of the painting Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, its image appears on the WP article on the painting itself, the artist Lucien Freud, and the article mentioned above on the genre. I am not a lawyer, but very familiar with the principle of fair use as an academic and an artist. A key part of the rationale is that the use is for educational, non-commercial purposes only, in this case by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. All three articles with this image are now also on Wikiwand. If the process of mirroring all of WP on Wikiwand copies all of the non-free images also, this is a significant issue. The Lucien Freud article alone has three additional copyrighted images of his paintings. The message at the bottom of the Wikiwand page states "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." When an art book is published, there is a list of illustration credits specifying the copyright owner. I do not think that attributing the image to a prior fair use on WP would be sufficient.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you are right, WriterArtistDC: those uses may well infringe the copyright in the paintings; on the other hand, if Wikipedia uses certain images under "fair use", there doesn't seem to be any reason why another site should not do so. In any case, the holders of the copyright are the only people who could take action against them: Wikipedia cannot. (In fact, if you thought that they were infringing your copyright in some text you had submitted to Wikipedia - for example, by failing to attribute it - you could take action against them, but Wikipedia could not.) --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of copyrights; the owner of an image or text may grant "fair use" to non-profits for educational purposes. For any commercial use, there must be both specific agreement that the use is approved, and payment for each use; e.g. not placed in a context that misrepresents it. The internet understands this, it pays for pageviews. Attribution is not payment, and the copyright owner could legally expect pageview payments from Wikiwand; to share in the monetization of their creations. As a creative artist, I would.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are we using material that is not entirely in the public domain? (This is a question, not a comment involving opinion - of which I have none.)Charles Juvon (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, we would lose a lot of completeness and descriptive ability if we only used fully free material. For example, all four of the images on the Spider-Man article that depict Spider-Man are non-free and to the best of my knowledge, all images of Spider-Man are copyrighted. If we could not include a picture of the topic of the article, it would be a much less complete encyclopedia entry and would arguably harm our goal of presenting a complete description of the article subject to our readers. Our articles about people and places might not change much, but you can imagine all the articles about fiction would be affected a lot. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a great answer. I looked at Spiderman and saw that it was uploaded by a user using a pseudonym. How do we know they had the right to upload the image? Also, I see Wikiwand now has a Spiderman article with the same image. Have they violated the Spiderman image copyright? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, so that question goes to a legal doctrine that WriterArtistDC referenced above called "fair use". This means that although the users who uploaded the photos probably did not have the copyright, as you correctly point out, there is a legal justification to use copyrighted material for certain limited purposes. In the case of the first Spider-Man photo, you can see the justification provided right under the photo on the file page. Because there is no free alternative photo of Spider-Man, we can use a lower-resolution photo here "for identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." Although the fair use doctrine frowns upon using non-free content for commercial use, it's also not barred, so I cannot speak to Wikiwand's use of that photo (apart from noting that they have the same ability to claim fair use as anyone else). Alyo (chat·edits) 00:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This is an interesting discussion, but perhaps it's now moved beyond the scope of the Teahouse and should be continued on some other talk page (perhaps WT:COPY, WT:IUP or WT:NFCC?). This can be done by using the templates {{Moved discussion to}} and {{Moved discussion from}}. Wikipedia editors, however, can't really give specific legal advice and can really even say for 100% certainty whether something is a copyright violation per WP:LD. Maybe the best thing to do is to contact the WMF per Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and see what they have to say since that's where the WMF lawyers are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I agree this should be moved to where the lawyers live. You seem to be very well informed, so can you make the move? Charles Juvon (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the move to wherever it will get appropriate attention. For myself, I have made a decision regarding Wikiwand which I have posted on my talk page, and would welcome comments.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

OMG. I implore other Users to go to User:WriterArtistDC and read what he/she has just written. To Hell with Wikiwand and the Google plugin.Charles Juvon (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia keep certain article properties up to date?

For example the Alexa rank in an infobox: is it manually updated, kept daily up to date by a bot, updated every X days etc? I'm wondering which things are specifically updated by editors, and for which things there are bots that do it? QuantumWasp (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

IMO thats manually updated from time to time, but you coul also write a bot for it. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

QuantumWasp, the Alexa example is actually a fairly complicated one; see the discussion we're currently having at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes, which will likely result in the Alexa rankings being removed.

To address your question more broadly, it's a mix, and many things that could be potentially be done by bots are not yet done by bots, but more and more is becoming automated over time. Wikipedia:Bots#Examples lists some things that bots do. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cappuccino

What are ingredients for making cappuccino 😊😊 Ngutyana Sisipho (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You're asking in the wrong place. This place is for asking about using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2 tablespoons of coffee, a pinch of salt, and fill the rest of the cup with birthday cake flavored coffee creamer. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

ccpo

Do you know what end headache — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngutyana Sisipho (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You're asking in the wrong place. This place is for asking about using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

ibuprofen will help. The amount of tablets you take depends on your body weight (being 1-4), so look up a chart online. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC) _{If you believed this, don't listen to it. It's a mere joke.}

Oh - I thought this was an editing question! To stop headaches, one simply turns off one's computer so one can't keep on editing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I know you're trying to be helpful, but we really try to stick to the purpose of the Teahouse, which is to help people with editing and using Wikipedia. Also, very specifically, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References saying something else and articles saying something else

Hello, I have been trying to edit three semi protected pages for some days but I am not able to do this because I am not an AutoConfirmand user and participate on articles talk page but didn't get any response,that's why I need some help

Recently I saw some wrong information on the page about my clan(Banaphar) and the heroes belongs to the clan (Alha and Udal of mahoba).The article said that Banaphar is of mixed background through giving a reference of Alf Hiltebeitel book but let me tell everyone that Alf Hiltebeitel clearly said that Banaphar (banafar)is a Rajput tribe and please check the link of his book:-https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA304&dq=banaphar+ralput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibtaTUurjsAhV4zTgGHe0kCvwQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=banaphar%20ralput&f=false and https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA238&dq=banafar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDt87mu7jsAhVoyTgGHUZfDHUQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=banafar%20rajput&f=false Is And I'm saying all this because I'm myself a Banaphar Rajput.And this same take is in Alha saying that he is from mixed descent and And if I get them in the mixed background, then why is it written below that 'Describes Ahir Braveray in Medieval Period'?and without any citation, Isn't it was biased or not fair. So I kindly request please correct this on all pages. Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You say that you didn't get any response. The only mention I see of Hiltebeitel on the talk page dates from 2011. Later questions (which don't mention Hiltebeitel) have got responses. You also say "I'm saying all this because I'm myself a Banaphar Rajput." This or a similar assertion is likely to reduce people's interest in whatever else you have to say. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to say but still I think you say why people didn't see it before. What does that matter,I just say that the reference kept saying something else and the article kept saying something else.So please fix it or either allow me to edit it.Sumit banaphar (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You say you have "participate[d] on articles talk page but didn't get any response". I don't see "Sumit banaphar" there. Are you perhaps confusing "Sumit banaphar" with "Liger1203"? I ask because "Liger1203" did ask a similar question. Aha! I see that both names appear at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimate survi. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: You might want to take a look at page 163 of your book. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sumit banaphar. Is this about your request at Talk:Udal of Mahoba? It was declined because the other user did not understand what change you wanted. You should request something specific like change "xxxxx" to "yyyyy" or insert "yyyyy" after "zzzzz". —teb728 t c 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ganbaruby!,Yes, I see and they are talking about their mother who was Ahir but her father was a Rajput, ,but the article has made the entire clan of mixed background, isn't it stupid. And he clearly said that Banaphar is a rajput tribe see here[2]and yes teb728 i did it but after that I didn't get any response so that's why I came here. And yeah sir I am part of that sock puppetry investigation but I didn't found not guilty So please don't taunt me.

@Sumit banaphar: The book literally says "Udal (and the rest of the Banaphars)". The page before also mentions "mixed-caste Ksatriya-Ahir identity of the Banaphars". Do not continue to argue here; file an edit request at the respective talk page, or alternatively, see if anyone at at Wikipedia:WikiProject India can help. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

photo upload and copyright confusion

Hey there! I'm working for a semi-public figure and have been asked to upload a new photo of them to their page. However, the photo we have was taken by a professional photographer. This photographer did not give direct copyright transfer over to the person or to our team, hence we cannot upload the photo (as I understand). However, this photographer did confirm through emails that the public figure I work for can use these images for his own promotional and publicity purposes. Does this make him the owner of the photos now? Copyright is confusing and I want to make sure I'm following the rules. It'd be easy enough to send the photographer a release form or ask for him to send us one, but I don't want to make my team have to do that if not necessary.

Any advice or will we have to email the photographer? Thanks! Wrenhawke (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wrenhawke Since Aaron Devor is a living person, Wikipedia will not use a photo of him unless the copyright owner (i.e. the photographer) licenses it for reuse by anyone for anything (including commercial use and derivative works). If this photographer does not want to grant that, how about if you take a photo of him; then you could license it. —teb728 t c 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW Wrenhawke, since you are working for him, you need to read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. —teb728 t c 09:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright is indeed confusing. The simplest solution I know is that either you take a picture yourself, or the subject takes a selfie, and then you/they upload it here: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ed Gold hopes to write an article soon for Signpost illustrating the frustrations, and eventual success, in getting a decent photo into the article about him. Meanwhile, chill out with his other stunning photos, including these [4] on Commons. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

When templates not work...

Hello!

I just noticed that the interactive map Template:Administrative Divisions of Eswatini Image Map, just doesn't work. The interactive map is probably supposed to be clickable. Is there a help page where I can report this error?

Or are there any template-experts in the teahouse?

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koreanovsky: The image was changed but the user didn't bother updating the coordinates of the links. It should work now; let me know if it doesn't. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you! But it seems like it only works when you click on the names of the country, better than nothing, hehe! Thanks again! :-) --Koreanovsky (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

why my edited pages won't get approved

 Sivasaamy (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Because many of the files you uploaded at Commons are not public domain. And today you did the same, under the sock name User:Messi leo00010. Coldcreation (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Both user accounts have been blocked on Commons - the second for sockpuppetry. I have indeffed the sockpuppet account here, and given a 1 month block to Sivasaamy. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

When does a page become live?

Hi I've started a new page, Gerad KIte, today but when will it be available to view as when I search Gerad Kite it shows no results? I have clicked 'publish'

Thanks Gerad Kite (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerad Kite Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space and not searchable by search engines. It is meant as a place for you to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place for you to tell anything and everything about yourself.

In general, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That's what social media is for. Please review the autobiography policy. If you truly feel that you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person and receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, an independent editor will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Publish changes" should be understood to mean simply "save changes ", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I did write a list, but there was an edit conflict. The above summed it up, but I would like to add that you should look at Wikipedia:Your First Article to learn how to properly site and reference. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And might I add, was the article just deleted? Is there a courtesy link? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: 331dot has deleted User:Gerad Kite after typing his response. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

...and I have just deleted Category:Published articles also as 'unambiguous promotion/advertising'. This editor would benefit from learning how and why Wikipedia works before trying to promote themselves here, as this is not what we volunteer our time for. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove

Hi, I'm Sumit i want some help,the second line of this article[5] said that this clan is of mixed origin but in the seventh line,it is supporting a community without any citation. So please remove the word or the line which is baisly support a community.This same mistake is in the third line of this article [6] Sumit banaphar (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sumit banaphar. You posted this here nearly three hours after Ganbaruby told you "Do not continue to argue here; file an edit request at the respective talk page, or alternatively, see if anyone at at Wikipedia:WikiProject India can help" (in #References saying something else and articles saying something else five sections above this.) Please do what Ganbaruby says, or your questions may be seen as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lucy Newlyn -- template message

Hello, I'm new here. I apologise in advance for all the mistakes I will doubtless make. I have read the 5 principles and worked through the tutorial which I hope is a good start but which I suspect is not enough to stop me tripping over rules.

My question is about the template message on the wiki page for the poet Lucy Newlyn [Newlyn]. I tried a few weeks ago to remove the template message because it seemed a little unfair to me. I read a few other poets' pages and Newlyn's does not seem out of line with theirs, except for the ISBN links. Are these the problem? I assume they were put in to make it easy for people to find the books in libraries should they wish to. If I take them out, will that fix the perceived problem? CSpe4ke CSpe4ke (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lucy Newlyn. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@CSpe4ke: It's not the worst I've seen, but the wording in the article does look slightly promotional. Take this sentence for example: "She is an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, and has published extensively in the field of English Romantic literature, including four books with Oxford University Press and the Cambridge Companion to Coleridge." The words "expert" and "extensively" here are non-neutral and the books phrase is a little boastful. I would change it to "Newlyn's writing mainly concerns English Romantic literature with an emphasis on the works of William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge." The article ultimately reads like a resume or a book dust jacket rather than a biography, so I would trim down a lot of that and turn it into a list format under the heading "Awards". Neutrality is held to a very high standard on Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I will request the edit. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

One more question (sorry) but Lucy (who I do know, full disclosure, which is why I'll be requesting the edits) does appear to be a world expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge. I don't know her scholarship at all but I looked her up and three of her books have, together, been cited over 650 times -- I haven't added up all the citations on her many articles bc who has the time? Surely her high standing as an academic is important to her biography? I'm confused. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CSpe4ke. If you can find a reliably published source wholly unconnected with Newlyn that refers to her as an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, then that phrase can be quoted directly in the article, and cited to its source. But if nobody has used that description in a suitable published source - or if only her colleagues and publishers have said it - then the description is original research, and doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

In my opinion, promotional tone now gone, so removed tag. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty good article now. Out of the articles about living academics I've seen, it's one of the better ones. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sadas - Company description with new references

New Company page Sadas dB

Hello, after several feedback related to references, I am trying to find different sources to respect to Wikipedia Guidelines ( I am currently searching for others). Btw I would like to have some first feedback about my changed sandbox (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox#cite_note-5) with new references totally independent of the company. I hope to be on the right track. Thank you Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Giuseppe Ardolino: I can't read Italian, but don't translate the titles of your sources to English. Foreign language sources are completely okay! I would also recommend you to use Wikipedia's citation templates. VisualEditor will automatically do this for you, or you can manually key in fields yourself. If you're in source editing mode, look for the top toolbar and go to Cite -> Cite web (or news) and enter in that form. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Giuseppe Ardolino: When using the templates for citations, it actually can be helpful if you provide both the original title (in the |title= parameter) and the translated English title in |trans-title=. The translated title is rendered in square brackets after the native title. E.g., the cite you mentioned above would look like:

<ref>{{cite web |title=L'Innovazione che c’è. Best Practices: un concorso dedicato ai progetti innovativi delle PMI italiane |trans-title=The innovation that exists. Best Practices: a competition dedicated to innovative projects of Italian SMEs |url=https://wcap.tim.it/en/node/3386 |website=TIM WCAP |publisher=[[Telecom Italia]] |accessdate=16 October 2020 |language=it |date=10 December 2009}}</ref>

which renders as:

"L'Innovazione che c'è. Best Practices: un concorso dedicato ai progetti innovativi delle PMI italiane" [The innovation that exists. Best Practices: a competition dedicated to innovative projects of Italian SMEs]. TIM WCAP (in Italian). Telecom Italia. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 16 October 2020.

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing hidden category?

Hello -- I'm trying to edit a page which has had a template applied for 'advertorial' and part of it is in 6 hidden categories. Can I edit that bit? I have changed my user prefs, but nothing's happened. I still can't edit it. CSpe4ke (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC) CSpe4ke (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, CSpe4ke. Are you talking about removing the advert tag at the Lucy Newlyn article? Zindor (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to update the article by taking out the broken links, links which seem promotional and correcting the tone where necessary. The first reference is broken as Lucy Newlyn has retired from Oxford University. I would like to put in a link to her emeritus page at St Edmund Hall which is factual. https://www.seh.ox.ac.uk/people/lucy-newlyn

I have made a couple of changes but I can't edit the references as they are hidden. I have changed my user prefs to show hidden categories. But I see there was previously some mischief/vandalism on her page so maybe that explains the extra security.

I won't take the tag down until a more experienced editor judges that page conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. CSpe4ke (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

CSpe4ke, the advert template itself places that page into at least two hidden categories, one being Category:Articles with a promotional tone. The only way to remove the page from those categories is to discard the template. The other templates on the page might also be populating categories. In short, the categories aren't directly written into the page's source code, that's why you're unable to edit them.

That's a good decision not to remove the tag, and I'm sure an experienced editor will remove it when it is no longer necessary.

I'll take a look at the page and see how I can help you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zindor, thanks so much <3 I can and have edited the page. I hope my changes are an improvement. I've tried to explain my thinking at each change. The only bit I can't edit is the references. There are some broken and outdated links there. Ah -- I think a penny has just dropped. If I delete the reference number, the reference will be automatically deleted? Is that right? I will give it a go! CSpe4ke (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, CSpe4ke, you are using the visual editor? The references appear at the bottom of the page through technical wizardry, they don't exist there. You are correct that the references exist where the numbers are, but usually in order to edit the references you must access the pages source code. I don't use the visual editor, but I'll look into it and find an answer for you. Hopefully another host here is more familiar with it. Zindor (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zindor, no I'm using the source code. I just forgot that I would have to delete the reference by deleting the surtext number where it appears in the text. I have done that now and it is all good, or at least better (I hope).

I would very much value your opinion on the changes I have made.

One of my problems is that Lucy Newlyn is a world renowned authority on Romanticism (esp Wordsworth and Coleridge). Her books have been cited over 1200 times (Google Scholar) and she edited the Cambridge Companion to Coleridge. It seems to me that any biography of her should reflect that status. But perhaps I am wrong here? CSpe4ke (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue i see with your recent edits is that you removed a reference with linkrot (the debretts one) which has left prose unsupported, and you've deleted a couple of archive links which are usually quite handy. If the debretts source can't be found on any archive sites, and you can't find a reliable source to replace it with, then i would either restore the reference or remove the prose it was supporting. As you may know, editing a page with which you have a COI is strongly discouraged and it throws up problems, such as where a neutral version of the article might not meet the expectations of someone who knows the subject.

You've done an alright job so far, and have removed some promo tone, but I would strongly encourage from now on you instead make edit suggestions on the talk page, and practise your editing on articles with which you don't have a conflict of interest. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

New to Wiki

Can anyone give me a walk-through of a page creation? 148.77.75.154 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Your first article, WP:The Wikipedia Adventure and WP:AFC (do that one last) are all highly recommended for newcomers. Giraffer ^munch 18:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You also asked at the Help Desk. Please only ask in one place. RudolfRed (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

how do I know my article is ready?

wow, this place is awesome! just got invited and reading up on threads :) I have a question, I am currently working on my first page, and I wanted to get some advice. How do I know when it's ready? how much (or how little) content does it need to be ready to submit? Donnakekka (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Donnakekka: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. WP:YFA will give you some guidance on this. RudolfRed (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the suggestions! have read through it, and wanted to also ask: if I dont find all the info I need from reputable sources, what if I am interview the person/the subject of the page directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Donnakekka, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that an interview with the subject is not of much use: it counts as a primary source, and only very limited information from it can be used. Wikipedia is basically not very interested in what any subject says or wants to say about themselves: almost the whole of every article should be based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable sources). Apart from uncontroversial factual information like dates and places, if you have information only from the subject, it should not go in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you Colin, that makes sense. yes, I did look at the 'primary sources' page, however I cannot find anywhere online the subject date and place of birth, as well as the Theatre school she studied at, so I wanted to ask her directly if possible. but I didnt want to bother unless I can publish that information :) not sure I am making sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only is interviewing the subject directly not acceptable as a reference, but published interviews are not accepted as support for information the interviewee says about themself. Just because a person describes themself as a 'stable genius' does not make it so. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Donnakekka, I disagree somewhat with what David notMD said above. Our core content policy Verifiability has a section that can be reached at the shortcut WP:ABOUTSELF. Here is a quote:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."

As an example, if a physician says in an interview that they were born in city A in a certain year and graduated from medical school B in a certain year 25 years later, then that is plausible, not self-serving, and can be included in the Wikipedia biography unless the person is known to fabricate information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Cullen328 

Ok first thing: I am not sure I am doing the tagging to your names correctly, so apologies if I am not :) Next: Cullen, you are spot on! yes, I am currently looking at magazines/newspapers interviews as I am trying to cross check with multiple sources. for example: the subject's business is often describe as 'the leading burlesque agency in the UK', but I will not include that as I feel it might be a tad speculative. although there arent many burlesque agencies in the UK to begin with. however, if I find the name of the school at which she studied or the year she started her business, on at least two articles, then I feel like it can be included. Am I doing this right then?

Is it possible to change the file name (or create a second copy with a new file name) of an existing photo used in an Infobox?

I have been trying to chance the text (not the picture) of the Mount Damavand mountain in the Infobox on the English Mount Damavand page. The photo description for an Infobox picture seems to be embedded in the name of the picture's file. In this case, there is both a Persian and an English test describing the picture. The Persian text (presumably original) says "Mount Damavand covered with snow from Kamradasht" the English text says "Almighty Damavand." It seems better these two texts are saying the same thing. Since I don't intend to change the picture itself, one would think this is an easy change to do, but I just cannot figure out how to rename the existing, already uploaded, photo. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Herr Foo (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Mount Damavand. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Almighty Damavand دماوند پوشیده ازبرف ازدوراهی معدن کمردشت - panoramio.jpg is the file in question that needs to be renamed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Herr Foo: I'm not seeing what needs to be changed if you are only concerned about what people see when they read the article. People viewing the page cannot see the actual filename unless they edit the page or open the picture to look at it. The file, File:Almighty Damavand دماوند پوشیده ازبرف ازدوراهی معدن کمردشت - panoramio.jpg, is on the Wikimedia Commons. It has been there for years. People outside of Wikimedia/Wikipedia projects may be using the image and relying on the filename to not change. You might be able to claim that it should be renamed under criteria 3, To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms., from commons:Commons:File renaming. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Responding on My Talk Page & Disclosing Employer

Hello. I had a comment on my talk page that on one article I wrote, I need to disclose it is my employer. I tried to use the code they gave me, but it is not working well. The draft page is J. J. Keller & Associates. It is important to know that all articles I have edited have nothing to do with an employer. Just that one draft article, and I was not aware of the rule. So ... trying to add the line as required. Help would be appreciated. I am also trying to reply to the individual on my talk page. I did so by editing his comment to add my reply below, but I am sure that is not the best way. Thank you! Sbaranc (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sbaranc, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for trying your best to be open about potential conflicts of interest or paid editing. I think I've fixed it for you now. Firstly, I've added what I think you wanted to put on your userpage. Then I deleted the wrong template in your draft article (Draft:J. J. Keller & Associates), and put the correct one in the Talk page of that draft. It can be a bit of a maze following our instructions. Should you feel you might, in future, have a Conflict of Interest about a subject or person (but aren't actually in receipt of any payment or other remuneration as an employee or company owner), you can always add {{UserboxCOI}} to your userpage, too. Thus, you might be best buddies with both Elton John and J. K. Rowling, but not be in receipt of any money to add content about either of them. But you would be conflicted, so transparecny is always best. Thus, you would want to add the following code to your userpage: {{UserboxCOI|1=Elton John|2=J K Rowling}} which renders as below:

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles:

• Elton John
• J K Rowling

I hope this makes sense! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You did well. (I think that your draft reads like something put out by the company, and it certainly needs more referencing -- but this is by the way.) As for your last point, I am hereby replying to your comment by writing this below it; but note that I am prefacing my reply with a colon (which you'll see if you edit "source"), thereby indenting it a little. This business of indenting replies is a convention on Wikipedia talk pages. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Creating a redirect

All I want to do is create a redirect to my article Archives of Venice, but I don't know how to do that without having to have the article reviewed, which seems like a big waste. Truth is King^TALK 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wait till you're able to create articles directly, whereupon you'll be able to create redirects directly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, Truth Is King 24, perhaps you could work more on Archives of Venice, which now appears to be a worthwhile stub -- but only a stub. As examples: (i) Which "former Franciscan convent"? (ii) The physical description that you supply is one that you attribute to somebody who died in 1883; has the layout really remained unchanged for 137 or more years? (iii) What's the name in Italian for whatever's in this former Franciscan convent, and which institution is (institutions are) responsible for its/their upkeep? (iv) Are there concerns about the physical security (defences against flooding, etc) of the archive(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Good ideas, thank you. One other question though (which I may post separately, but thought I'd ask you) how do I get to the point where I can create my own articles. I wrote on on the book Absolute Monarchs and it was reviewed and accepted, but I guess that was not enough. How will I know? Will there then be a "create article" tab for me to click on?Truth is King^TALK 17:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

email address

How do you change your email address? I've logged in and have not found my account information. The address for my user is very out of date. My account name is Dave44000. My email address is (redacted). it needs to be updated. Dave44000 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dave44000. Please do not post your email address here. Go to your preferences and you will be able to change your email address there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting a Page Published

So I am working on building a Knowledge Graph for my site to increase the semantic relevance for search and users. Being part of linked open data is important and I want to create a Wikipedia page for my agency's entity. I tried to create a unbias, neutral article but I was declined because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I honestly was to create a good article for the purpose of building my brands entity in the knowledge graph. I want to do it correctly and even sited neutral sources. How can improve my article so that it meets Wikipedia standards? Thanks! RyanCShelley (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, RyanCShelley, but "building [your] brands entity in the knowledge graph" is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. In fact, that is what Wikipedia strives not to be doing. See WP:NOT.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello RyanCShelley. You wrote "Shelley Media Arts, LLC (aka SMA Marketing)is a data-driven search marketing agency and startup founded in 2009 and based in Melbourne, Florida. The company is experts in technical SEO and has worked to advocate for and advance the use of Schema.org Structured Data in the SEO community."

What if I wrote "Cullen Media Arts is a search marketing agency that ignores data, and a startup founded in 1887 and based in American Canyon, California. The company lacks expertise in online search and rejects the premise of technical SEO and has worked to oppose the use of Schema.org Structured Data and repudiates the SEO community" ? Do you think that is acceptable language for an encyclopedia? If not, why is your overtly promotional language acceptable? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

IRL Investigative Journo seeks help on complicated page, full disclosure herein. Thanks to everyone on wiki for the thankless work ya do everyday!

Hey y'all!

I am a wholly inexperienced wiki editor who had been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out the how to best use this incredibly important platform. I remember my high school teacher saying "Wikipedia is not a source." How horribly backwards thinking of her!

I'm looking for some much needed help on the only sandbox page on my profile.

• • • • • FULL DISCLOSURE*****

I am the investigative journalist [EDIT: Independent, i.e., not affiliated/paid by any publication] who wrote the original 2017 story on Promontory Landfill that was published as a Sunday front page feature story in the Salt Lake Tribute. I am completely unable to be objective on any editing of this article whatsoever. The reason I am asking for help is because I would like for this encyclopedia to contain objective information on Promontory Landfill, and I do not have the requisite impartiality or technical skills to finish this project. It's one that's important to the public interest. To be completely frank here: I would like for this article to be up and running by the time the Utah Legislature starts back in session in January so Utahns have an accurate, objective source for information on this subject. I don't know how best to do this, and I don't want to make the time-sensitive nature of my motivation influence any of the editing I do here at all. Not getting paid for this at all, and unfortunately, didn't get paid much to begin with as the original journo. But I'm passionate about providing ppl in my state with an accurate, objective wiki article on this subject, and I would like to help make that happen in any way I can.

Plz lemme know if there's anything else you'd like to know!

Any help would be everlastingly appreciated. There's no way I can get down the editing standards for where they need to be, and as always, I need an objective editor -- because clearly, I am not a very happy camper about this 385 million ton landfill being located near my hometown.

Problems you'll encounter here are many, including but not limited to:

- first-sourced documents (such as files from local entities that are not published by authoritative sources, i.e. original research)
- extraneous information that isn't particularly relevant to the article
- failure to adhere to any semblance of wiki guidelines
- messy attributions throughout
- etc., etc., etc.

I would like an experienced editor who enjoys a real challenge to please help me at your leisure to take a look to see what can be done. I'm much too close to this article to be objective whatsoever, and I would like this to be done at some point, if ever. The people of Utah deserve an authoritative online source to understand the objective points of what is, I believe, a matter of great public importance.

Please also note that I have only the best intentions in trying to be as open as possible about my motivations here, and the type of help I'm requesting. There are many reputable sources linked throughout, but I am not used to this platform and so I'm terrible at efficiently using it and making sure I'm as clear about my conflicts of interest at every step. But I've definitely failed at that so far after doing more research about what standards/practices are necessary to push an article to final publication. I would never want to put anything out there on wiki that isn't qualitatively proper.

Into the depths we go.

Best, B. I. Empey GarbageCollector12 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC

GarbageCollector12, your situation presents Wikipedia with a very sticky wicket:

1. According to the WP policy WP:DEADLINE, Wikipedia does not add articles as part of an author's strategy, no matter how noble.
2. You have a tremendous conflict of interest with respect to your article topic, as the author of some of your sources. An article such as you want in Wikipedia would serve your own purposes as well as, most likely, the plaintiffs', with whom you may have a connection.
3. As you have noted, many of your sources are unpublished, making them unqualified as reliable sources. You must source your Wikipedia article from published, unconnected reliable sources only.

As a non-Administrator, I can only give you these points of advice. Other Teahouse hosts will be commenting here as well, particularly if you have further questions regarding the three points above or any other aspects of your situation.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill, and it's not an encyclopedia article, it's more of an exposé or a short story in length. On the basis of WP:Righting great wrongs, I seriously doubt that Wikipedia can stay within its stated mission while hosting the article you want to publish. Social media or some other crowdsourced online encyclopedia might be the better path for you.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You could write an article about the matter before the Utah Legislature, if it becomes law, but it would have to be short and encyclopedic.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Guide me please

Hi,A few days ago I participated on the talk page of Udal of Mahoba but I did not find any reply, so please tell me if i had done any mistake and if yes then how to correct it. Please guide me Sumit banaphar (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sumit banaphar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you make an edit request, you need to specify the exact change to the article you think needs to happen, in a "change X to Y" format. In your recent request, you asked that something be corrected but what it is you wanted done was not clear to the user who responded to your request. It helps if you specify the passage of the article you want changed and the specific change you feel needs to be made to it. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir i did what you say please check once[7]and thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit banaphar (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a {{edit semi-protected}} tag to your request. —teb728 t c 10:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

teb728 I hope that works, thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit banaphar (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?

Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?

Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[8]], I had a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[9]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.

Another user objected this, arguing that its NPOV as it is, as such, I made a NPOV Noticeboard request here: [[10]]. Needless to say, the request was a complete failure. There was a lot of discussion with the other user I disagreed with, most people understandably could not be bothered to read such a long text and had a hard time understanding what the request is about. The ressult was inconclusive, the request died without any non-involved user express any pro or against thoughts about it. As one user eloquently puts it at the end, "I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts".

Which is why I would like to remake the NPOV Noticeboard request, be as brief as possible, and don't engage in a long discussion with the other user this time. Is that allowed?

In case it is allowed, I would like to remake the NPOV request like this:

Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[11]], I have a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[12]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.

This is the current version of the article:

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

These is the change I would like to make:

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

I am partially responsable for the mess the other NPOV Noticeboard request became. I did not wish to avoid the concerns raised by the other user to not make it appear as if I'm evading them. I realise now that this was silly, it only served to agglomerate the page and make it more confusing for other people to understand the issue. It did not contribute to the discussion or Wikipedia as a whole, I should have been brief in my response to the other user to make my opposite stance known, but not engage in a long discussion. Let other users share their thoughts. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the two of you are pretty close to agreeing on the wording. That's good! The only difference is that the current version has "According to the Romanian interpretations ... while in Hungarian interpretations", and you prefer "According to the Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". NPoV suggests treating both nationalities equally: "According to Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". (And I'm curious – what were Vrančić's words? I'd like to judge for myself what he wrote.) Maproom (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

His original works is in Latin, I only have this part: "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant". In the contested part, the word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. Romanian translation: "who even though they easily equal the others in number". Hungarian translation: "who even though they easily equal any of the others in number". As the Hungarian translation argues that "quamlibet" also means "any" in this context. LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The other user I had the dispute with made a reply here [[13]] and I replied to him here [[14]]. Since you undertand what the issue is about, I would appreciate if you would share your opinion on the NPOV Noticeboard request [[15]]. I would remove the whole wall of text we had previously and just replace it with what I wrote here, but I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to do that. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy ANI discussion archived without a resolution

Good day.

Is it possible to bring back an archived discussion in WP:ANI? It is not yet closed since there was no resolution yet on the proposed topic ban. It is such a waste for a lengthy discussion to go like this.

It is located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_behavior_and_removal_of_references_in_Imelda_Marcos.

Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 09:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that the discussion was archived automatically which happens after 72 hours of inactivity. Am I to understand that the issue is still ongoing? It looks like it started a whole month ago, if it's still happening then I'd say that's not really an "incident" anymore - it's more a long term issue. I would consider that the main noticeboard is the correct forum. But take a look at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE to see what all of the options are. Best of luck solving your dispute. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually at the end-stage already. Editors are already weighing in on the two proposals (topic ban) when the thread was archived. HiwilmsTalk 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just unarchive it, I'm sure that couldn't do much harm. --Paul ❬talk❭ 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'll unarchive. EEng 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks a lot. Pinging Chieharumachi:. HiwilmsTalk 14:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The African Cinema Contest

Please, I have enrolled in the African cinema contest, and I don't know what to do. I want to create a new article, so that I will be able to submit my work. Please, help me and give me a wiki wiki answer on how to create an article. Thanks, my helpful, fellow editors. Prince (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikola Tesla edit. I'm afraid you can't create articles for the first few days after joining. But you can create a Draft. Just go to Articles for creation and click where it says "click here to start a new article" that will take you through the whole process including, when you're ready, turning your Draft into an Article. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I am really grateful,Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikola Tesla edit (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A User do not have rights to create article in mainspace?

Is a user do not have right to publish article in mainspace if not then why Wikipedia giving option to publish article in mainspace for new user? I just created an article Coforge and Umakant Bhalerao moved this article in to draft. Please also suggest, Am i not eligible to publish an article?  CBDDG (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Umakant Bhalerao. -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the draftification and moved the article back to mainspace. Its a publicly traded company with $2B (USD) market cap and a reasonably written article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry @Calliopejen1:, the point here is not whether the organization is notable or not. This user was previously asked to disclose his/her COI which user has not till now. I also noticed the user blanked the talk page two days before the creation of this page to hide the COI warning.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao, I understand but I don't believe the appropriate remedy for COI editing is draftification, so long as the content being posted is reasonably good (as this was). Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Sir Calliopejen1. CBDDG (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Main or Draft

My question is: Would it be better to create a new article in main space or in draft space? Wpedia User (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wpedia User, what is the article you plan to create, and what are the three best sources you plan to use? Calliopejen1, (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I am asking this question because all the time i am creating articles They are getting deleted.

Wpedia User (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wpedia User. If every article you're creating in the mainspace is being deleted, then that's not a real good sign. For that reason alone, it might be a good idea to start with WP:DRAFTS and submit them to WP:AFC for review when you think they're ready. This will give an experience AFC reviewer the chance to look over your work and offer suggestions about things that need to be improved. Once you've had a few articles created via AFC and have a better understanding how and why some drafts are approved and some aren't, you can try creating things in the mainspace again.

You've been a Wikipedia for less than a month, and creating a proper article can be a pretty hard thing to do even for editors who've been Wikipedians for years. Many one things for you to try would be to try and find ways to improve already existing articles. There are over six million articles and many have issues that need addressing. Improving existing articles can be a good way to learn how Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are applied, which in turn will help you when you try to create articles yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is probably about Sree Leela, which just got tagged for CSD and is not deleted yet. Also pinging Umakant Bhalerao. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The CSD criteria listed was WP:G4, but the former version was draftified at Draft:Sree Leela (actress) was created by a different user and is not similar at all. I've removed the CSD tag but put up a PROD instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm big dumb dumb, notability is still an issue. CSD. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, it happens to the best of us.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How Do you block people that are misbehaving?

How do you block someone for a period of time from wiki if it’s a vandal etc?  User:WikiFlame50

@WikiFlame50: You may file a report at WP:AIV. Be sure to provide the links to the article that was vandalized and a short rationale. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Justin Picard

I don't mean to be a pain and I realise that there's a heavy backlog at CAT:PEND, but would there by any reviewers willing to take a look at Draft:Justin Picard? It's been over 2 months since it was submitted. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Davykamanzi As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,706 pending submissions waiting for review." There are unfortunately a limited number of reviewers, and as volunteers who do what they can when they can, things take time. Asking to in essence "jump the line" is not usually effective; you will need to continue to be patient. You are welcome to work on other drafts ot existing articles if you wish. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Who is the Tallest person in the whole world Habeeb Bello (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. As of 17 October 2020, the tallest person on earth is Sultan Kösen! (Side note: Next time please refrain from posting questions that can easily be answered. The teahouse is there to help beginner editors and you asking easy-to-google questions may impede that. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 15:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-wikipedia questions can be asked at the Reference Desk WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

hi

hello guys] Habeeb Bello (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Habeeb Bello: Do you need help? Thus far, your contributions have consisted of saying 'hello' on ridiculous pages. This is disruptive. Try to edit constructively in future, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Question from User:Dennymaleane

Hie I'm Denny Maleane from Mumbai, India. I am currently working as a Social Media Handler/Assistant to George Joseph who has a wiki page. I want to make it official as in lock it from anyone editing. So please help me through it. Thanks! Dennymaleane (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Dennymaleane, Dear friend this is not a valid reason to protect any article from editing by all editors. Articles are protected only in certain circumstances like continuous edit warring, vandalism etc. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennymaleane: A central concept to Wikipedia is that anyone can edit its articles, meaning that Wikipedia does not reserve editing rights to certain people. Usually we only protect pages from editing ("locking") if there's evidence of disruptive editing on that article (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). Since I don't see much disruption on that page, I don't think protection is necessary here. On a separate note, as someone employed by George Joseph, you have a conflict of interest with the subject, meaning that it's hard for you to stay neutral. Please read WP:COI carefully and make a paid-contribution disclosure to make your relationship clear. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dennymaleane: I'm afraid that your statement make it official as in lock it from anyone editing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, not a social media platform or personal website. George Joseph is Wikipedia's article about the subject. It does not belong to George Joseph and is not here for his benefit. It is to summarize what independent reliable sources have published about him. It is specifically to be independent of what he says or wants to say about himself. I hope this helps to clarify the misunderstanding. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

One Article named 'Kolathur, Chennai' for creation was accepted as article Kolathur, Chennai from Draft:Kolathur Chennai with a note mentioned with "multiple issues of overly detailed and Citation style". After that I added tags of Template and edit the draft, unaware of the issues to be created without clearing the mentioned issues. So, the article is retained in the draft space. Please suggest me some technical issues or the edits to be made for the article to be in the main space. Thanks. --Helppublic (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helppublic: I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Kolathur, Chennai is currently in the mainspace, while Draft:Kolathur, Chennai redirects to it since the draft was accepted. Could you rephrase your question? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helppublic:, Dear friend, there are citation issues. I made a little edit and fixed a page number parameter, the URLs to books are incomplete there. You should add complete link of the book available on Google Books. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalization

Re Wikipedia page Terry Keith Ashwin Please can some one help me with a disgruntled ex employer making incorrect changes and deletions on my Wikipedia page, It can be clearly seen by his IP address, I fixed some of the changes but he again today repeated same and made more. The page was fine for over 2 years now until his misconduct. Thanking you in advanceTerryashwin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Terryashwin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Terryashwin: Hi there, you can request page protection here. Bear in mind that the page will only be protected if the vandalism is clear and obvious. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You should not make edits on an article about yourself. Please read about conflict of interest, & make change proposals on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi

When I can edit (improve) semi protected pages? Govindsinghlayn (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SEMI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Govindsinghlayn: Until then, you are welcome to make an {{edit request}} on the article's talk page, which may also have previous discussion about the changes you want to make. Which article did you want to edit? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there...

Is there any project/helpdesk to check reference quality? I checked WP:Reference desk and it looked like a social media chat forum with no clue of why the forum exists. Something that's a bit better would be highly helpful. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aditya Kabir, try the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, Zindor (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, you're welcome. Just on a further note, if the reference is of concern only to one article, first try the talk page of the article in question if you haven't already, or the noticeboard of a relevant WikiProject; links to which you'll find on the article's talk page. Zindor (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You also might find your source listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Zindor (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Errr... I have been editing WP for 14+ years. Do I really need guidance to find links to Wikiprojects on article talk pages? Perhaps I do. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, there's often an assumption that editors who ask questions at the Teahouse are new, so I'd take the suggestion in that light. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Is there a place for experienced editors to ask questions? The Village Pump and the Reference Desk are quite useless. Or is it assumed that experienced editors should know everything anyways? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, although the primary purpose of the Teahouse is helping newer editors, more experienced editors are welcome to ask questions as well. There is also the Help desk. The Reference Desk is not for the purpose of asking questions about editing Wikipedia, but rather for general information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help???

I don't know where do begin ???? BynumAliu28 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@BynumAliu28: Welcome. Try the WP:TUTORIAL or the interactive learning game WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Making edits under an IP address only

Is it proper for a user to make edits to articles under his or her IP address only and not under a username? If no username is used, then there is no opportunity to leave messages on a talk page of the editor regarding the revisions. This seems an attempt to short-circuit dialogue about the changes; in that case the only place to converse is on the talk page of the article itself. I'd appreciate knowing if there is a rule or policy addressing this. Thanks. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

IP users have talk pages, though generally discussion about an article should take place on the article talk page. It is not required to have an account to edit or participate here. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have seen that over time (weeks?) an IP editor's IP address change and then change again, even though from the partial number match it is evidence that it is the same editor. Best perhaps to leave a comment at the article's talk page, only resorting to the IP's talk page it there is a very recent edit. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Kin Lane

I would appreciate another review from the community on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Kin_Lane (previous archived review: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1079#Please_review_my_draft). Thank you. GoodNickBB (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

GoodNickBB, I don't think the article subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving Categories

Hello. I created two categories, Category:Rabbis that died in the Holocaust and Category:Rabbis that survived the Holocaust. I wanted to change the word "that" in the title to "who", however the the More/Move option did not appear next to the "View History" as it usually does. Can someone else please move those categories? Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Charlie Smith FDTB: You can request the move by following the steps at WP:CFDS. There's a template you can add to the category page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the way a page is displayed since recent edit

The following section of the page on The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, is not displayed correctly since the latest edit.

Thanks for your attention.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle#Characters 2001:16B8:A57D:4E00:45A1:1326:B9AA:8BD8 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done fixed. The page was missing a {{col end}} template. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we add any new wording?

How to add a new wording or phenomenon in wikipedia? Preethanuj Preethalayam (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Preethanuj Preethalayam, Hello! It depends on many things, like what WP:Reliable sources covering these new wording or phenomenon can you cite, guidance like WP:PROPORTION etc. If this is about chemistry, you can try to ask for advice at WT:CHEMISTRY. Be specific, as in "I'd like to add this text in this article, based on these WP:RS." WP:TUTORIAL may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

can I write my autobiography

 107.72.178.17 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Almost certainly no, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Although you writing your autobiography is forbidden on the mainspace, you can probably write some information about you on your userpage. (here) You also might want to log in before you do so. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To expand what Benjamin Borg has said: in order to have a user page, you need to create an account. You can share some information about yourself on your user page, but it is primarily for sharing about you as a Wikipedia editor. It should not be made to look like an encyclopaedia article, and it will not get indexed by search engines. See Userpages. --ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Politics in Isfahan

Pahlevun believes list of police stations should not be here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Politics_in_Isfahan&diff=983848138&oldid=983671927 Baratiiman (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Baratiiman (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please consider creating a separate article with the list. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun is right. Indeed, Politics in Isfahan is a hodge-podge of random information about the city, and should probably be deleted, or merged into Isfahan. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

My content was denied and the email I received was a one way email

Hi there, my daughter is a musician and had a song with a band that was released as a single in March 2017, the band is quite well known and the song is their biggest to date with over 13 million streams. I edited the page and the details were taken down and i was unable to reply to the email and prove the content is correct by pointing to articles etc on line.

I not great at this stuff but it took me a long time and I'm not willing to do it all again if gets taken down.

Please help and advise.

The band is Slumberjack the song is "Afraid Unafraid" featuring Sydnee Carte, released as a single in March 2017 by One Love records Carter10047 (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carter10047,

Wikipedia sends you emails to let you know that a message has been left on your talk page. If you want to reply to the message then you can do so there, or on the talk page of the person who sent you the message. It looks like JalenFolf reverted your edit back in March because you did not provide a source to go with the information that you added but that said, if you do have a conflict of interest then you should seriously think twice about directly editing that article in the first place.

--Paul ❬talk❭ 08:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Slumberjack.   Maproom (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Slumberjack did in fact release a single "Afraid Unafraid" in 2017 with Sydnee Carter. As noted above, the reference you provided that this song charted in Australia made no mention of it. If there are articles confirming the single and its charting, you can edit the article again with those references, or make a case on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Page

I have provided all available information to this page, I request you to consider because all the 04 books published by Reputed Publishers like Routledge and Palgrave Macmillan includes my details as an Editor. creation of this page will help me a lot for the academic growth 2409:4071:200D:EA4D:45E5:8731:B78F:F070 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this about Draft:Rajendra Baikady? If it is, please read Wikipedia's policy on notability.   Maproom (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Baikadyrajendra Being an editor of one book does not meet Wikipedia's notion of academic notability. Wikipedia also discourages attempts at autobiography WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

i need help please Habeeb Bello (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've been creating File Talk pages with no associated File pages, and they've been deleted. If we understood what you're trying to do, we might be able to help. Maproom (talk)

08:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, you may ask questions here or at the official Wikipedia help desk.. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But please do not ask the same question at both places. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks are linked to wrong Wiki article

Hi, I noticed that on this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marko_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 when you look at "What links here" you get a list of pages, not all of them about the subject of this article. The first five pages listed under "What links here" are supposed to be going to an article about someone else named Marko Dimitrijević, who is a businessman, and who had an article on Wikipedia which was deleted in 2007. The Marko Dimitrijević this page is about is a basketball coach. The question is how best to fix the incorrect links. The four deletion pages (also the deletion page for Everest Capital should not be linked to the basketball coach) all say "Please do not modify it". The fifth page "Usertalk:Hedgie1" I suppose would be easy to just remove the Wikilink. But maybe a better solution would be to more simply change the name of the article to "Marko Dimitrijević (basketball coach)". Please advise, and I will follow your instructions. Thanks. Passiflorida (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see that there was previously some content about Dimitrijević the businessman, but that has since been deleted. I can't see any live articles linking to Dimitrijević that aren't basketball related, can you point one out? I don't think it would be a good idea to change the name of the article if the basketball coach is the only one on wikipedia - consider the reader who just wants to get straight to the article in question. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Passiflorida. I'm not sure it's necessary to "fix" the links on those other pages. Normally when multiple articles have the same title, Wikipedia uses something called disambiguation to differentiate between them. In this case, however, there is only one article titled Marko Dimitrijević, which is about the basketball player/coach; the other one about the business man no longer exists so it's unlikely going to create any problems with any internal linking between pages. There might be a way for an administrator to "fix" this, but I wouldn't suggest go removing links from other pages or adding disambiguation by moving pages just yet since this doesn't seem like a "problem" requiring immediate action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am a little confused. If you are on any one of those five pages, the four deletion pages and the one user/talk page, and you click on the link to Marko Dimitrijević, it takes you to the wrong person's article. Isn't that a problem? I understand you might not want to change the name of the article, and a disambiguation page is not needed since there is only one article now on Wikipedia with that exact name, but the links are misleading, literally. I think it would be a good idea, to preserve the accuracy of Wikipedia, to have this problem fixed. Unless what I am not understanding is that the deletion pages are not considered "live articles" as User talk:Paul Carpenter said above, and I am worried about nothing.Passiflorida (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to point out one more thing: the Talk page says that the page has been deleted. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Marko_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passiflorida (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AfD pages are kept purely as a historical record, for internal reference. They're kind of inherently out of date as soon as the deletion has been done, so it wouldn't make sense to "fix" them. Famously, nothing in this AfD makes sense any more. Good point about the talk page though, I've edited that to clear it up. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Subpages

Hello My question is how to create subpages i want to create templates in my subpages. Wpedia User (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to create a Sub-page, you probably want to visit the Official Wikipedia Article for Sub-pages. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitia

Is there anything that can be done about Wikitia copying a draft article and publishing it wholesale and incomplete - ie is there a way to get them to remove it? Silly soul (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Silly soul. The licence under which almost all material in Wikipedia is released specifically allows it to be reused for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as the use complies with the conditions of the licence. See WP:Forks and mirrors. Surprisingly, Wikitia is not listed at WP:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ. --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Silly soul, I'd consider adding {{draft article}} and/or {{workpage}} to the top of your article so that if it gets mirrored, it will at least be highlighted to any reader as incomplete. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay ColinFine thanks for your advice. I will add {{draft article}} and/or {{workpage}} although as its already been copied from an older draft then perhaps its too late. Should Wikitia be added to WP:Forks and mirrors?

Help with finding a draft with a conflict of interest.

I have a conflict of interest on one of the page I was about to create. Draft: Green Canvas. Now I cannot access the draft or the page at all. Please help. Green Canvas (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Green Canvas: Im afraid you dont appear to have ever saved a Draft with that name. Please note that "Publish" Should be understood as "Publish this to others can look at it", not "Publish this to the encyclopedia". Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirm user

Hello i have made more than 500 edits and my account is 30 Days old but still i didn't became Extended confirm user. 😭 Wpedia User (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wpedia User: It looks like your account was created almost 30 days ago – if I interpret the time stamps correctly, there's still a few hours left. Very few articles require extended confirmed permissions, though, so having the permission will make almost no difference in what you can edit. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Creating a page for my new newspaper

I am creating a page for my new newspaper, Liberty Life, which is kinda like a local version of Stars and Stripes (newspaper).

I can write the content but I am not sure where to start? Do I create a page separate from my own personal page? Signals 1 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Signals 1, just saying that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. If you want to make a page because having a WP page of your newspaper will make it seem great, Wikipedia is also not a greatness validator. GeraldWL 13:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Pornographic image

Hello! As I was innocently googling “pearl necklace” for shopping purposes, a Wikipedia image of a woman’s neck covered with drops of semen popped up right at the top of my Search page. I have children who probably Google things all the time, and this is absolutely inappropriate. I went to the page to report it (obviously not a Wikipedia contributor myself) it looked like it was protected and also linked to multiple other sexual definitions. Why is this open to any public search for a pearl necklace? I’ve been a supporter of Wikipedia and now I am more than disappointed. Any ideas? Thanks. 71.121.162.79 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome. This policy page will answer the concerns you have. Your question has been asked by many people throughout Wikipedia's history. But to simply put it out: Wikipedia is explicit in information because it is an encyclopedia meant to share information no matter the information's distress, unless the image is illegal, like child porn or copyright infringers. Wikipedia is not made for children because, again, it is an encyclopedia. I've heard that you can set so that distressing images won't be displayed on your device unless you click on it, correct me editors. Have a nice day! GeraldWL 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

About your children concerns-- I'm not a parent, but if I were you, I would say to them that that is not what they're looking for, and if they ever seen similar pictures, just skip it; I don't think they'll think much about it. I'm not the best fan of watching their every search either. Feel free to express any concerns here if you have one. GeraldWL 13:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• You can suppress the display of images, but that requires having an account. See WP:NOIMAGE. There are also things you can do to your web browser on your end to suppress images. As noted, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. Parents should supervise and monitor their children's internet use. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your issue also seems to be with Google's algorithms; you could contact them, but it would be hard to weed that image out. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't Google's SafeSearch filter out explicit images such as this, and isn't it opt-out rather than opt-in? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)