Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 709: Line 709:


:Welcome! Also, you have to think about whether, overall, the article then truly reflects the school. Does inclusion of these create an undue impression that the school is particularly famous for having scandalously bad behaviour on the part of its staff? If it's just a normal school where a few teachers have been convicted of awful things, but this is not a general reflection on the school's history, present and accomplishments, I would not be keen to include much, if anything, on controversies. If the school made major headlines as a hotbed of scandal but is otherwise completely unknown, i.e. the school is notable only for being scandalous, then you must include a section on the controversies. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
:Welcome! Also, you have to think about whether, overall, the article then truly reflects the school. Does inclusion of these create an undue impression that the school is particularly famous for having scandalously bad behaviour on the part of its staff? If it's just a normal school where a few teachers have been convicted of awful things, but this is not a general reflection on the school's history, present and accomplishments, I would not be keen to include much, if anything, on controversies. If the school made major headlines as a hotbed of scandal but is otherwise completely unknown, i.e. the school is notable only for being scandalous, then you must include a section on the controversies. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
*{{re|Cadenrock1}} Criticism and controversy sections are generally discouraged. The main consideration is [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. Most schools have regular controversies of one sort or another, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, and our goal is to [[WP:SUMMARYSTYLE|summarize]] information of historical importance rather than to provide detailed coverage of every controversy. Think about whether or not someone [[WP:TYT|ten]] or even fifty years in the future would find the level of detail provided on an incident [[WP:DUE|appropriate]] in a several paragraph—length account of the school's history, and keep it only if so and only at a reasonable length, [[Template:Csection|merged into]] the overall history section. Hope that helps! Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


==Rules of this page==
==Rules of this page==

Revision as of 18:05, 10 November 2021

Skip to top
Skip to bottom



Draft: Ruwanthi Gajadeera

Can an expert kindly extend me some assistance to improve this draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruwanthi_Gajadeera Liyamu21 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • The text of an article should not contain direct external links.
  • References should follow punctuation, not precede it.
  • When a simple uncontroversial statement is followed by ten references, it can make the reader suspect that something fishy is going on.
  • Why does an article about a Sri Lankan need sources in Chinese?
  • The article would be better without the list of non-notable awards.   Maproom (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maproom! Thank you for your valuable feedback! I will fix those issues in the article, kindly note that I initially only had one reference for one sentence from reliable sites such as Vogue and Texdata, however, my reviewer declined the article saying there are not enough references in the article that's why I have added those references, moreover, this designer was featured in few competitions in Hong Kong and Taiwan, that is why you may find the article in the Chinese language. I have referenced the awards using the original press releases/announcements from the organisers who are based in London, Hong Kong and Taipei, along with an independent third-party source. These awards are truly independent of the recipient as these are highly competitive awards in the fashion industry. Thank you once again for taking the time to help me with my first article. :) Liyamu21 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer didn't say there weren't enough references. They said the references didn't establish that the subject was notable. They hoped for better references, not more references. Three references can be enough to establish notability. A source stating that the subject has won an award, without discussing the subject, doesn't help at all. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liyamu21: For the statement followed by 10 references, see WP:REFBOMB. GoingBatty (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HiUser:Maproom & User:GoingBatty! Thank you for your valuable input… :) yes, the first reviewer mentioned that there are not enough references to establish the notability of the subject. However, you review my article you may see that in the initial draft I wrote I only included reputable sources such as Vogue, Texdata and announcements from Governmental agencies and award issuers. However, as User:Maproom suggested these sources only mentioned that subject won a specific award, therefore, I included more references supplementary to the original sources from reputable and independent news outlets based in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Taiwan. However, as per your suggestion, I removed the excess references. Could you please suggest if I could make any other changes to it? Thank you very much for taking the time to help me out. I truly appreciate it. Liyamu21 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer declining your draft because, in their opinion, it didn't establish the subject's notability by citing enough reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of her. I've now checked the first four cited sources. The first is based on an interview with her, and so not independent, and the next three don't discuss her at all, they just state that she won an award. None of them helps establish notability. And the reference bombing mentioned above by GoingBatty is still there. Maybe some of the other references do establish notability, I haven't checked; if they do, you could make it easier for a reviewer to find them by removing most of the worthless and superfluous ones.
tl;dr: References are judged on quality, not quantity. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For administrators

Any administrator check my today's contribution I have nominated few articles for speedy deletion as per created by banned user, if interested please check my recent contributions २ तकर पेप्सी

@२ तकर पेप्सी: I am not an administrator, but here's my two öre anyway: an article created by a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user is not eligible for speedy deletion under that criterion if other editors, who are not sockpuppets, have made substantial edits to the article. "Substantial" is open for interpretation; Barsha Chatterjee is probably speedyable but Aritra Das is definitely not a G5 candidate. (But it will be the reviewing administrator who makes the final call, of course.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes senior as Aritra Das was created by sock but it was improved by quite good editors, waiting for the decision of administrator २ तकर पेप्सी — Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The version of Aritra Das created by the sock was merely a redirect, and the current content was generated by other editors. In any case, the sock had not been blocked at the time of the redirect creation, so in two ways WP:G5 is not applicable. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello, I'm a new user on Wikipedia. Can I make an article?. Regards 👻Casper𝙿𝚒𝚗𝚐! 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
  • Casper: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The answer to your question is that you are permitted to try and do so; but in my view your question is a bit like "I have just started learning about building. Can I build a house?" Experience shows that when editors who do not have much experience in Wikipedia try to create a new article, they tend to have a disappointing and frustrating time. My advice - always - is to spend at least a few months "learning the trade" first. We have over six million articles, tens of thousands of which are seriously substandard: in my view you can add far far far more value to Wikipedia in your early days by finding things you can improve in some of these than by trying to "build a new house" of your own (when you probably don't yet understand how to build the foundations or even to survey the site for suitability to build on). When you you feel ready to move into creation, please study your first article. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ColinFine: Thank you for helping. 👻Casper𝙿𝚒𝚗𝚐! 19:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casper is not yet Autoconfirmed (first edit 7 Nov), yet has created an article Horas Amang: Tiga Bulan untuk Selamanya. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casper is autoconfirmed. The age is counted from account creation 2 November [1] and not the first edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a wikipedia article on Nikkita Oliver?

I live in Seattle and vote. As such, I research people running for office in any way I can. I noticed that Nikkita Oliver- who recently lost another election here- has a wikipedia article but Sara Nelson- who is now the winner of the election for Seattle City Council- is not represented in Wikipedia. Since Sara's name is potentially more common, I did try to make sure that I just didn't see her, but indeed all the Sara Nelson's listed on Wikipedia are someone else.

I read the guidelines for a biography and I read Nikkita Oliver's biography. She is not notable. There is nothing in her accomplishments that is notable. For example, her claim to be a leader in BLM is at best questionable. Many people have made that claim only to have others in the movement dispute it. For example, she live-streamed a conversation with city officials and that is notable? It sounds vaguely illegal to me if done without their consent, and a form of trying to entrap or catch people saying something that could be interpreted out of context in a bad way. Many people in Seattle have run for office and failed and many people have contacted city officials to enact change. If all those people were listed that would be fair. I know people who waited in line for hours to address the city council but were not granted that request. The fact that Nikkita got the privilege of meeting with officials and gets the privilege of press coverage is truly unfair. The idea that she has done something notable is not borne out by the facts. My question is- why is Nikkita Oliver listed at all in Wikipedia? How do I nominate someone to be removed from Wikipedia. Ruth Berge 19:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rberge0108, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to "Why is there an article about X in Wikipedia" is always "because somebody wrote it and nobody has successfully nominated it for deletion". On the face of it, the article appears to be well sourced, but I haven't looked at the references to see if they are reliable and independent of Oliver. If you are conscientiously persuaded that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it is open to you, or anybody else, to nominate the article for deletion: see WP:AFD for how the process works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rberge0108 Welcome to Tea House! In addition to what @ColinFine said, if you believe an article should exist, as long as you can establish Wikipedia:Notability or subject specific guidelines like Wikipedia:NPOLITICIAN you can create the article. I first checked Sara Nelson which is a disambiguation page, and from there found Sara Nelson (politician) which you are more than encouraged to expand! Also please sign your posts, by using four (not five) tildes; see Wikipedia:4TILDES for extra advice. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I enter two doi for the cite book?

I would like to enter the doi of the book and the doi of the chapter.

Failure example 1;Grothendieck, Alexander; Raynaud, Michele (2002). "Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental§XII. Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique". Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1). arXiv:math/0206203. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. ISBN 978-2-85629-141-2.(. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help),. doi:10.1007/BFb0058667. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help))

Failure example 2;Grothendieck, Alexander; Raynaud, Michele (2002). "Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental§XII. Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique". Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1). arXiv:math/0206203. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. ISBN 978-2-85629-141-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |chapter-doi= ignored (help) SilverMatsu (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverMatsu: I don't think you can have multiple doi values in {{cite book}}. If you don't get an answer here, you might want to ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: thank you for teaching me. I will post.--SilverMatsu (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverMatsu: I think that the problem is that you should be using chapter-url not chapter-doi (see documentation at cite book linked by GoingBatty). So the following works correctly, I believe:[1] which uses the doi for the book and the url for the chapter (which becomes linked via the title) Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: Thank you for teaching me. I missed that doi is a url. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) A doi link of the format doi:123 can consistently converted into a url as https://doi.org/123. I am not sure if there are consistent conventions re Chapter DOI's, but if you had to do only one link, it will still lead to the larger book/publication and as a rule of thumb, the more precise, the better. The suggestion above of a chapter url is great. This was a really interesting question, thank you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grothendieck, Alexander; Raynaud, Michele (2002). "Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental§XII. Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique". Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1). arXiv:math/0206203. doi:10.1007/BFb0058656. ISBN 978-2-85629-141-2.

If you're citing the chapter, use the DOI for the chapter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NotWiktionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can I make this template? Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would the template do? Is it intended as a user warning? You should see WP:UW for that. WhoAteMyButter (📨talk📝contribs) 04:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Faster than Thunder: Are you intending the template to be used at the top of articles, or on user talk pages, or something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to use it on user talk pages. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Faster than Thunder: I'm not aware of a user warning template for that topic. I suggest posting on Wikipedia:Requested templates with the exact wording you would like to have the template produce. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with an editor who is dismissive when messaged about editing behaviour, and being rude (borderline personal attack) in edit summaries?

There's this user named EverestMachine 4001 who has been regularly editing articles involving the Talking Tom & Friends franchise, and is usually constructive. Over the past 2/3 days, I reverted edits at List of Talking Tom & Friends (TV series) episodes that claimed that an upcoming episode would air on 26 November because there was no proof anywhere. I also explained that the information wouldn't be accepted per WP:VERIFIABILITY twice, but the third attempt to reinsert the information included what seems to be a personal attack by Everest (icehole = asshole if you change the pronunciation slightly). The edit summaries are as follows:

I am aware that this could be considered to be an edit war in which I am involved, but I am also not sure about how I should deal with this editor (or whether I even have the time to deal with them) since edit warring is not the only issue. I don't believe this incident is serious enough to warrant a block, but I have noticed that Everest also seems to not actually understand many notices on their talk page (like this one by me from last month, judging by their response, or most of c:User talk:EverestMachine 4001). So what should be done here (hopefully it's not going to be a block)? In short, Everest seems to not correctly understand talk page notices, loses temper when repeatedly reverted, and clearly insisted on retaining unconfirmed information even after I pointed to WP:VERIFIABILITY. Tube·of·Light 05:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tube of Light: You could try discussing on the article's talk page, which hopefully would get other editors to help with the discussion. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review this file?

Every time I upload an image in free use, I'm afraid if it violates copyright laws, especially this file. Its original resolution was 1791*884 px, which I reduced to 450*222 px. But that doesn't look like I reduced the resolution, it's still big.
Some other queries I have:

  1. Is it necessary to always convert the extension of logo images to .svg?
  2. Is there a 'forum' where I can ask if a file is ok to upload before uploading?
  3. Is there a WP:LOGOS for other jurisdictions (countries other than the US)?

 Excellenc1 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1 Check the edithistory [2] of a logo I recently added. Bots tagged it for reduction, reduced it, and then deleted the old version a few days later. I didn't do anything except uploading. This will probably happen to your logo as well.
1. I think it's just one of the formats allowed, but I don't know much about svg. Perhaps you can find something helpful at WP:SVG.
2. Try WP:IMAGEHELP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Excellenc1: That particular logo you uploaded doesn't in my (non-lawyer) opinion reach the threshold for originality so you don't need to worry in any case. See WP:Logo Copyright/Trademark for a discussion. There is no need to convert to .svg — and arguably if you did so the resolution as a vector graphic could become too large — so most of the "fair use" logos on English WP are .jpg or .png. Also, I think that our fair use rules apply to logos from any jurisdiction, since the material will be hosted on WP servers located in the US. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of User Talk page

A new user is incorrectly using their talk page as seemingly a sandbox. Should I tag that for speedy deletion? Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 09:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the content is actually harmful, why don't you simply move the content to their sandbox, let them know you have done so and that they can ask you if they need any assistance? Polyamorph (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: If you feel this is just a misunderstanding regarding the purpose of a user talk page and that whatever they’re working on is not a clear-cut violation of WP:NOT, then maybe posting a friendly message explaining your concerns would be a better thing to do in a case like this. An new user might not be aware of WP:SANDBOX or WP:USERSANDBOX. Speedy deletion is probably only really needed if the content on the page has no real value to Wikipedia or is otherwise clearly inappropriate per relevant some Wikipedia policy or guideline like WP:UP or WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to put in reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Curtiss I need to know how to put in references to add that certain people who have bio entries on Wikipedia were protectionists, because the bland bios are not saying it. They are not making people see that there was a protection story. Can I please be instructed on how do I reference something so the truth can be known about Americans who were protectionists. CurtissSmith (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CurtissSmith Before you try and add any such content to a Wikipedia article, please take a look at WP:RGW, WP:VNT and WP:UNDUE. In addition, might want to look at WP:BLPSOURCES (if the persons in question are still living), WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:CAUTIOUS for reference as well. If the content you’re trying to add is considered contenious by other editors, you may have establish a WP:CONSENSUS to add it through article talk page discussion even if it can be reliably sourced. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Referencing for beginners on how to. You embed the ref in the text and the ref program automatically numbers it and places the ref in References. I have found that creating a reference in my sandbox until I get the format right, and only then paste it into the article, is a good habit. Also, if there are people who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles, their names within double brackets name creates a link to those articles without the need for a ref. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inferring from your comment at User talk:Rotideypoc41352#Question from EzraCyrusmerleCarey (11:53, 8 November 2021): a friendly reminder to please put the names of any other accounts on your userpage and stick to one account. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why other autobiographies are shown on wikipedia

I'll share you the link it's a biography too and it's been shown on the search result.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_(film_editor) Preethim93 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, other stuff exists, but that doesn't mean it should. (And you don't need to repeat yourself.) ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe Anthony (film editor) is an autobiography? It was started 13 years ago and has been edited by many people. Even if you found an existing article that was created by the subject of the article, that does not mean that everyone qualifies for an article about themself. The rule of notability applies. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about publishing a page

Dear community,

I am writing to inquire about the process of creating a page about a local artist. I have written the content and submitted it for publishing. Will the page go under review before it is approved for publishing?

Thank you in advance for any feedback.

Best, Flora Mejzinolli Fxm11 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fxm11, if you are asking about User:Fxm11/sandbox or User:Fxm11/sandbox/Ilir Blakçori, you haven't submitted either for publishing. If you submitted the former, it would be rejected for a lack of references (as well as promotionalism); if you submitted the latter, it would be rejected for not saying anything. I suggest that before you continue your attempt to create a draft about Ilir Blakçori, you become accustomed to Wikipedia by improving articles that aren't relevant to him and in ways that don't mention him. -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have the beginnings of an article in one place, and a reference in the other. You submitted the latter and it was declined. I suggest you study existing articles about artists to learn what is needed as content and references to support notability. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fxm11: I recommend you review Help:Introduction, The Wikipedia Adventure, WP:PSCOI, and Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a Page

So I proposed moving Sheriff Woody to Woody (Toy Story) and everyone has supported it with good reasons as you can see at talk:Sheriff Woody. So when will the page be moved to that name. I can’t do it cause their is already a redirect page called Woody (Toy Story). Kaleeb18 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: The page will be moved once the discussion is closed, which will be 7 days (1 week) after either the discussion was first opened or the last comment/vote was made. I can't find the page that details which one it is, however I think it's most likely after the last comment/vote is made. Either way, you have to wait until the discussion is closed. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: when you say it will close after the last vote was made do you mean like it will close after a week if another vote hasn't been cast. Kaleeb18 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: Yep! If after the most recent vote no one else votes for a week than it is able to be closed. There are other circumstances that allow discussions to be closed early (such as WP:SNOW) but generally it's 1 week after the most recent vote was made, and usually it's an admin that closes it as Wikipedia doesn't really do a majority vote. WP:VOTE provides a bit more detail on the "voting" process. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze The Wolf: Thank You! Kaleeb18 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations not populating in reference list.

I have been adding content and thus additional citations to the page on Catherine Parr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Parr). However, my citations are not automatically populating in the reference list as they should. I am wondering why this is happening and if someone could assist me. I have done every tutorial and read every article on wikipedia citations, I think something is wrong with the existing reference list as none of my trouble shooting is working. Thanks. DrMichelineWhite (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this edit, you're adding the citation as though it were an inline citation, but at the end of the ref list. If you want that reference to verify a specific passage of text, the same code you added in that edit is fine but it should be placed in the article body at the point where it supports the text; it will then automatically generate a footnote in the reference section which is pointed to by the inline citation. So add that text to the sentence to which it refers and you're good. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can or should I make an article about a band that is exceptionally popular but doesn't have strong secondary sources to draw from?

I want to write an article about the Argentinian band SIAMÉS. Numerous songs of theirs on YouTube have reached one million views, with two hitting over 15 million and one music video even achieving 130 million.[1]

I ran into a roadblock when I realized that there's a significant drought in secondary sources, let alone ones with editorial integrity. My only independent leads were an article written by a small blog[2] and a car interview by a microscopic YouTube channel.[3]

This band partially meets notability requirements by maintaining a fanbase and prolonged interest in its music, however given the lack of reliable independent sources, I'm conflicted on whether I should make an article about them. Thoughts?

New Editor Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""The Wolf"". YouTube. SIAMÉS. Retrieved November 8th, 2021. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ Accetta-Beman, Anabelle. "Music Video Spotlight: "The Wolf" by SIAMÉS". Alfalfa Studio. Retrieved 8 November 2021.
  3. ^ "Video Episode - SIAMÉS does first U.S. interview inside a car". Car Con Carne Podcast.
@Cadenrock1: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you read the notability criteria for bands, and note that the number of YouTube views are not one of the criteria. If you cannot demonstrate that the band meets one of these criteria, then it may be too soon for an article. I also suggest you review Help:Your first article if you haven't done so already. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like this where the band is Argentinian, I'd hope that there would already exist such an article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia that would have useful sources (even in Spanish, which is acceptable). However, it appears that SIAMÉS translates as Siamese (mainly in the cat sense) and there is no article on the band. That name is going to give you problems when seeking sources via search engines, so it's going to be tough.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cadenrock1 @Michael D. Turnbull Google search allows you to exclude certain terms with a minus sign, so for example siamese musica -cat -gato would 2,000 results for me which is much more manageable. Playing with other terms that are unique like siamese rock band -cat -gato could help as well. Happy editing/researching! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing print offline sources (newspapers, journals, etc)

I usually find enough print sources for subjects I am editing, but I wonder how can I specify that what I using the PRINT version—regardless of whether there is an online version/archive of the source or not; If there is no online archive of the source, can I just omit the url parameter—or is it mandatory? What is the best template to accomplish this? Should I use Template:cite newsSX3001 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a newspaper, {{cite news}} is suitable, journals can be cited with {{cite journal}} and the URL parameter left out. It's not mandatory to use an online version of a source and many well-research articles will have print-only sources. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this clarified the whole thing. SX3001 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SX3001, if the print source is also available online, then best practice is to include the URL. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

How do you start a new tempate? 96.5.248.100 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information at Wikipedia:Templates. If you would like to tell us what type of template you would like to create, we can give you more detailed information (or maybe find an existing template). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask for help from other editors

 – added header

Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get other editors to help improving an article or draft on Wikipedia? I'm trying and failing to help improving an article/draft of Draft:Michael Rainey Jr., help. Motlatlaneo (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Motlatlaneo: This is the place to do it, but you got to be specific with what problem you may have. Editors here will not write your draft for you, but we will give you tips and direct you to relevant policies that you should be familiar with. My general advice to new editors is to complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a pretty good crash course for newbies. You're also free to drop by the Teahouse at any time for any time; there are no stupid questions.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Motlatlaneo: I hope you can provide some independent WP:reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Rainey. Since the infobox mentions 50 Cent, that's something you should also explain in the draft. If you haven't done so already, see Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uhhhhhhh how?

uh how do i make an actual page TrevorHenderfan (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TrevorHenderfan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, by thoroughly understanding what are the fundamental requirement for an article, and how to write one. You can find information at your first article. But I always advise new editors interested in creating an article to put the idea aside for at least six months while they 'learn the trade' of editing Wikipedia. In my experience, an editor who starts with small improvements to articles that interest them, and gradually expand their scope as they grasp more of Wikipedia's strange policies and practices, generally starts adding value to Wikipedia straight away, and gets satisfaction from doing so. Editors who try the extremely difficult task of creating an article bafore they understand what that takes typically have a disappointing and frustrating time, and often end up taking value out of Wikipedia, as they take up more experienced editors' time in sorting out the problems they inadvertently cause. --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I try and visit my article that I wrote, it continuously redirects me.

When I try to visit my article, "Black Death In China", I am always redirected to "Black Death". Can anyone inform me why this is happening? IntellectuallyOlder(Alt. Account) (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:IntellectuallyOlder(Alt. Account), welcome to the Teahouse. If you look in the article history, which is here, you will see that the last edit of the article, by User:Mccapra on November 8, turned it into a redirect to Black Death, giving the reason "this mostly repeats material from the main article. The one sentence that’s actually about the topic has no source supporting it". Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, IntellectuallyOlder(Alt. Account). To add to what Bishonen has said, if you think there is enough material to ground a separate articler, I suggest opening a discussion on Talk:Black Death and see if you can attain consensus that this is worthwhile. --ColinFine (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help to get published my wiki page

Hello, I want to know about my Wikipedia page how can I make it better and how can I get it approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MariusCatalinPredut MariusCatalinPredut (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the advice at WP:AUTO, don't try to write about yourself. Also, articles here must be in English. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MariusCatalinPredut (talk) If you read Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English you will learn the importance of writing English Wikipedia articles in English. If you are able to translate it yourself it would lessen the work others will need to do. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MariusCatalinPredut: I suggest you also review WP:NBIO, WP:EASYREFBEGIN, WP:EL, and Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

creating signs

Hello,

I'm editing Brest Tramway and I want to add signs for corresponding bus stations just like the French article, could this be done in English wikipedia? I found similar symbols in articles like Lusail LRT, such as this "M1" for a metro station.

Thanks for your effort! Elhady514 (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elhady514. Do the templates documented in Template:Rail-interchange/doc/FR help? --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repinging Elhady514 --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful! Thank you! Elhady514 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I just recently posted my second article, and when I went to google to see it, it was nowhere to be found. The article is titled Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal and normally any part of that title would get a hit, but even when you go to the bottom of the google search page and click on related questions, it is still a no show. It's as if it doesn't exist. I don't understand. Can you explain this strange phenomenon, and is there anything I can do about it? Change the title? Is something hidden on the page that shouldn't be? Am I in an alternate universe? Please help! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't control when articles start appearing in search results on Google. That's up to Google themselves and there's nothing we can do to make it appear faster. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Blaze The Wolf, sorry, I thought maybe there was something I had done or not done that I was unaware of (too inexperienced to know about). I've made a couple of flubs that way! I wonder what google's standards are! Oh well! Ce la víe! Thanx for the quick response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! This is definitely not a fault on your part. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenhawk777, the article needs to be marked as "Reviewed" by a new page patroller before it is sent to Google for indexing. The purpose of this is to try to ensure that articles are in decent shape before they start showing up at the top of a Google search. There are currently over 8,000 articles in the New Pages Feed awaiting review, but there is also an NPP drive going on this month to try to clear out some of that backlog. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dang DanCherek!! I knew it was my fault somehow. I was told that I didn't need to have an article reviewed before publishing any longer and could just go straight to article myself, so I did. Then someone came along and rated it B class, and that was okay - I will do more later - but it needs to be reviewed after all it seems, so I will put it on that list! I hope... I think... I'll try! How about volunteering for that Dan?  :-) You have provided me with half the citations I used I'm sure! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of confusing terminology. By "review" I don't mean going through the Articles for Creation process and submitting it as a draft. It is totally fine to create it directly in mainspace as you did. All new articles, whether or not they go through the Articles for Creation process, are put in the new pages feed for review (unless the article creator has the autopatrolled right). DanCherek (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DanCherek Okay. I think I understand. Does the fact it was rated B mean it was reviewed or does the fact it doesn't show up anywhere indicate it hasn't been? Where would I find that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page assessment is an unrelated thing. When the article is reviewed, it will probably show up in the page log (for example, see this page log for your Religious responses to the problem of evil split). DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How Does One Start A Wiki Page?

 2601:644:202:E060:6152:DF11:C337:773A (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have pages. Instead it has articles. The distinction is subtle but important. You will be guided if you follow the process at WP:AFC FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to suggest a new brand page?

Hi, we are looking to create a Wiki page for one of our clients and wanted to understand the best way to do this?

While we usually suggests edits to our other client Wiki pages, how do we actually create/suggest a page on Wiki? SSuggests (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SSuggests Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may make a suggestion at Requested articles, but the backlog is so severe it may be a long time before it is acted on.
Creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. Your clients may not understand what Wikipedia is actually for, and that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing. Any article about a topic is in no way for the benefit of the subject. There may be benefits, but those are on the side and not our primary goal. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject says about itself(this includes press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities), only in what others completely unconnected with the topic choose to say about it. Please read Your First Article. If you still wish to attempt to create an article, please use Articles for creation. We also usually recommend that you first gain experience by editing existing articles. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sources behind paywalls

Hello, I was wondering what is the policy for referencing sources that are behind a paywall. Is it enough that I have access to these sources and accurately cite them? Do all sources need to be available to the public? Smerdyakov911 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Smerdyakov911 Smerdyakov911 (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely free to use paywalled sources; WP:PAYWALL is the relevant guideline here. It is useful to denote sources behind a paywall with either the {{Subscription required}} template or with the relevant fields if you're using a citation style 1 template. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 22:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific thanks exactly what I needed Smerdyakov911 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Smerdyakov911[reply]

How to remove tags

In a draft article I was writing, I was looking for the tag "Dance" as in "Dance music". So, when I searched "Dance" in the tag searcher thing, I found a tag titled "Dance". So, I clicked on it, adding it to the page's talk. I didn't suspect anything was wrong, only to find out later that it was the wrong "Dance". Instead, I had entered the "Dance" as in dancing and ballet or stuff, and unfortunately, I didn't know how to remove it. Can someone help me to remove this? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean wikiproject banners? If so, to remove the Wikiproject Dance banner, just delete the text which reads {{WikiProject Dance}} and save the page. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 23:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make heads or tails of a blacklist message I'm receiving

All I'm doing is replacing a WREX source with its original AP source, and for some reason, I'm getting the error message: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: b ". I have absolutely no idea what the hippity-hoppity heck is going on with this, but it's clearly erroneous, as nothing I've changed has had a blacklisted link. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheTechnician27, I suspect the problem was a typo in a change to the local spam blacklist; the typo has already been fixed, so try the edit again and see if it works now. Writ Keeper  23:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Somebody (with "Black" in their name) accidentally blacklisted every url containing a 'b'. Special:Log/spamblacklist suddenly got busy for 15 minutes. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Payment?

I got a notification about client payment. I would like to say that I DO NOT want to be paid for anything I do on Wikipedia. If necessary, I will no longer make any edits. The message was from VViking. DuneEditor (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DuneEditor. Apparently, Viewmont Viking interpreted your addition of many plot details to the article Dune (novel) as being promotional. I cannot see any promotion. I hope that VViking can respond here with an explanation.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it was because the username is DuneEditor and all edits of the account were to Dune (novel). Paid editors often have a username similar to an article they edit promotionally. I agree the actual edits don't look promotional. Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names says that "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" are not permitted. It can be debated whether "DuneEditor" breaks that. Dune (franchise) is old and famous with many fans. I would permit the username. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking another userpage.

Hi so I want to link a user's userpag, it says it is not created, even though the userpage is created. Can you please tell me how to fix this problem. Lol78231469 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lol78231469: Which page are you trying to link to? RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to link a user's homepage. Lol78231469 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Which user? RudolfRed (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User ButteronBread Lol78231469 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You can do [[User:ButteronBread]] which links to User:ButteronBread RudolfRed (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Have a good day. Lol78231469 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram as a source

Hello friends! I'm very new to Wikipedia and really enjoying editing. I'm curious about the use of social media, Instagram in particular, as a source for information. I recognize that social media can be sketchy at best, but in my attempt to make an article for Club Quarantine, I've found myself citing Instagram as the only source for certain pieces of information. Perhaps I need to review certain items relating to sourcing or what qualifies for an article - if so please provide the appropriate links. Generally, I'm curious to discuss Instagram or other social media platforms as citations - are there instances where this is ideal? What sort of Instagram posts could/can be cited? Thanks for reading, and I look forward to reading your thoughts. Pteridaceae (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking! User-generated content is generally not acceptable as a source. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 02:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! On reading the section you linked to I see that user-generated materials can be acceptable when certain criteria are met. The main reason I was hoping to source information from Instagram was to compile information about what performers have been a part of Club Quarantine - and one of the criteria for including user-generated content is that it does not make claims about third parties. Thanks - I'll go tidy up that article. Pteridaceae (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! It may also be worth asking on the talk pages for the LGBT and Toronto WikiProjects to see if members of those projects can help with sources. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 03:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback confirmation

I was about to ask for the revocation of rollback rights due to having concerns that the lag I am experiencing when using the web browser version of Wikipedia may cause accidental clicks of the rollback function when browsing the history logs of articles. The problem is that, by default, the rollback function is lacking a preview mode/confirmation dialog that would prevent such accidents when there is a lag. Therefore, and until these web browser performance issues are addressed, I am trying to find a solution to this. While reading this page here: [3], it came to my notice that there is a script created exactly for this purpose: [4] and I just followed the instructions and created this here: [5] but, this is unusual for me, I am not sure I did right, or if I have missed something. Does really the Wikipedia Project function that way? By creating new pages just to configure the behavior of a gadget for a certain user? Thank you. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 03:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

common.js (and common.css) are indeed the pages/files that allow users to add many customisations to their MediaWiki experience – you can find out more at Common.js and common.css (which links to more documentation) ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Thank you! --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i want to create a placeholder page

so the page i want to create is a placeholder for other wikipedia editors to edit is this allowed?  Clock broken (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clock broken: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can create a draft and ask other editors to help you develop it to become an article. See Help:Your first article for lots of information. GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of “original research”

I added the film Legends of the Fall, a movie known to be, and described in the article itself as being “about three brothers and their father,” to the category of Father and son films. A user reverted my edited and wrote on my talk page, “It's not clear to me on what basis you categorized this as a 'father and son' film, especially as I don't see any real discussion of that dynamic in the article.” When I replied that it’s public knowledge the film centers on father and son relationships, the user claimed that my application of film categories based on the plot description and poster rather than any sources qualifies as “original research.” I’ve only been editing articles here for about a year, but does adding a film to a category when the article’s own plot description contains the elements of that category count as “original research”? I don’t place films in categories if they do not fit the described category. If the user is correct, was the addition of the movie Beethoven to the “Films about dogs” category considered “original research”? Spectrallights (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this film (other than what I skimread today). Or indeed about most films in Category:Father and son films. But it seems to me that (i) a huge number of films would have, as major characters, fathers and sons (I mean, of each other), and (ii) there really aren't many films in the category. So imaginably the category is (rightly or wrongly) only being used for films that are described as primarily about father–son relationships, and that it's not obvious to at least one editor that this film qualifies. (If so, this surprises me, as categories usually seem to err on the side of inclusiveness.) Well, if the film is known to be “about three brothers and their father”, then presumably you'd be able to cite/quote a review (several of which are linked) that says this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examination

Hello. Tell me how to submit an article for review? Nikeek (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Nikeek has created a draft in User:Nikeek/sandbox. David notMD (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! You can read about the steps to create an article, and you are strongly advised to read your first article as well. It's also a very good idea to spend some time on other tasks here before creating a new article, which is one of the more difficult tasks in Wikipedia. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox content copied to Draft:Klepikova Svetlana Arkadyevna and submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikeek and David notMD: Moved to Draft:Svetlana Arkadyevna Klepikova and did some light copyediting. Also tagged a section with no references. GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove “needs update” on wiki page

Hello i have tried to remove “needs update” on a wiki page but idk how please help. Thank u! 178.22.207.254 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? David notMD (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to the [needs update] in Tetra Pak, I see you recently provided 2021 data without providing a reference for that data, so David notMD reverted your edits. You can remove {{update inline}} when the 2017 data and its reference has been replaced with 2021 information. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Request for Recovery

My teammates and I used Wikipedia for presenting our university article, so that everyone could have access to the content and even they could modify them under the topic of decentralised and distributed archives. Is there anyway to recover it? 188.189.240.163 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This query is the only edit made by IP address 188.189.240.163. Did any of the 'teammates' create an account that shows a history of working on a draft or article? Was it given a name? After working on it, did people click on "Publish"? Because that means Save. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are translations fine?

I guess 50 of my articles are just translations from French Wikipedia and rest are mostly stubs I made on my own. Is Wikipedia fine with translations or it discourages it? Excellenc1 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A faithful translation is no better than the original, and an unfortunate fact is that a huge percentage of Wikipedia articles are pretty bad (or really bad). Their problems include mis-citations: confidently implying that such-and-such assertions are presented in this or that source, when in reality they are not. Do you check that the cited sources actually say what they're presented as saying? If the original is good, and you are conscientious, okay; otherwise not. And of course see Wikipedia:Translation. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me when it comes to translations, I try to find topics and articles that are already decently sourced in other language Wikipedias. That way, I know that when I translate them for English Wikipedia (which has more stringent guidelines on sourcing and notability) that there is a better chance of it staying. Bkissin (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: I mostly do my own research for translations. Just sometimes, if I don't find a source, I rely on the sources in the original article. Excellenc1 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1 In short, not only is it absolutely fine, it is very much encouraged!
The more complicated answer is, each language Wikipedia has their own standards for notability of subjects, sourcing etc... for example German Wikipedia has stricter standards than say English Wikipedia. As an editor who may fall upon one of your translated articles, while knowing it is translated may be helpful (and required for licensing), I will solely review/edit it based on what I see inside the enwp (English Wikipedia) namespace. English Wikipedia does allow non english sources, as evident by the thousands of articles in Category:Articles with non-English-language sources. It does make it harder for other editors to review an article, but is often necessary for niche/regionally specific topics. I for one, am a huge fan of connecting intra-language articles and wish I spoke more languages. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I think I can conclude that translations are very much accepted till they abide by the guidlines (reliable sources, verified translation etc.) Excellenc1 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to reply to an editor.

Please tell me how I can reply to comments by an editor. I find this site almost impenetrable.

Liffernet (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Liffernet (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am, replying to you, Liffernet. You asked a question; I answer it (I hope) below, indenting the reply. (I indent by using one more colon to start a line than you used. You used none, so I use one.) If on the other hand you're asking about the content of a reply ... well, please elaborate here a little. And are the comments in an article talk page or on your talk page? These are straightforward; by contrast, comments on a draft do present some complications. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liffernet At Preferences > Beta features > Discussion tools you can enable a tool that makes it easier. WP:TUTORIAL can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

 LalMalMax (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What help do you need, LalMalMax. All you seem to have done is add unsourced information about an actor called SobuJ Ahmed to lots of articles, and to attempt to remove the record of Sockpuppet investigation from User:BalPakna2021. By a remarkable coincidence, BalPakna2021 made repeated attempts to create an article about SobuJ Ahmed (with the same weird capitalisation). Are you a sockpuppet of BalPakna2021? --ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Oswald George Powe

Hi friends, I'm working on the page below, the biography of a deceased person.

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

I've leaned heavily from two sources that are written by his daughter and his wife. I'm worried about the neutrality of those sources. I don't need them to establish notability, that is already done, but still, have I relied on them too much?

All/any help on this or any other aspect of the draft is welcome.

CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC) CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the subsection titles and reordered content David notMD (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tizen problems

 41.114.159.26 (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is there a question we can answer for you? --Jayron32 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to use tools for a post

How do you use the different tools for a post on Wikipedia? MagicalWinx (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicalWinx: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're asking for resources to learn how to edit Wikipedia, I recommend Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. If not, please clarify your question. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia page that shows a list of articles most viewed on that particular day? Like the 'trending videos' on YouTube? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: You may be interested in Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, which is a weekly report. Happy reading! GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thank you! Also another question, not related to this: If suppose I edited an article such that its quality is probably increasing, how do I ask someone to review it to change the quality in the talk page? Say for example I improved Departments of France, currently rated C-Class. If I made it a Good Article, how do I know I did; how do I know it's not B-Class? You get me? Excellenc1 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: There's a nomination process before an article can be considered a Good article. Lower assessments are more informal - you can reassess yourself or contact the related WikiProject (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Review). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs that prove an entire "section"

Hello! So in my second sandbox I'm currently working on improving the table that's currently on Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm not quite sure what I should do with the refs. They're originally there to prove specific parts of the description of the map DLC, however since I'm simplifying it to just show what countries were added/improved I've just been moving the citations to the end of the last country added. Would this be the best thing to do here or is there a better way to do this? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the table in the "Awards" section, I think that ref is correctly put there. Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: I'm referring to the one under map expansion packs. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of the "Infobox television" template in/on articles

Hi Teahouse, Barbie Dreamhouse Adventures is a streaming TV series which thus uses the "Infobox television" template. But I looked across the "last_aired" parameter and it stated that "If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using the "End date" template. Why then do I see "present" on its infobox when the series ended more than the said "12 months" prior/earlier, i.e. on April 12, 2020? The films/movies derived from it (which are stated in this section) are spin-offs from that series. Fooliard (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fooliard, and welcome to the Teahouse. Why does an article contain out of date information? Because you haven't updated it! (and nor has anybody else). If you can find a reliable published source for the last broadcast date, you can edit it and insert the date in place of "present". --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Diaz Balart Page

I recently edited Congressman Diaz Balart page to include the fact that he voted against the Infrastructure Bill, that would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to his state of Florida in areas such as roads and bridges repairs, and to bring the Internet to poorer areas. I cited as my source the New York Times that published on November 5, 2021 a roll call of all votes for the Bil. However my Editing was removed and I am being called disruptive . I really do not understand whhy. Chalaju (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalaju: Welcome to the Teahouse! While one of your edit summaries mentioned the "New York Time", you did not include the information about the specific NYT article in your edit as a footnote. You should not repeat your unsourced edit again and again. If you would like to learn how to add a reference, you may be interested in WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Or, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you may discuss it on the article's talk page: Talk:Mario Díaz-Balart, with the URL of the NYT article or the information about the printed version (e.g. article name, date, author, page number). Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Chalaju Your edit to Mario Díaz-Balart was not a neutral summary of what happend, but editorialising in tone, so somebody reverted it. Then instead of discussing the issue, you reapplied your edit: that is called edit warring and is a kind of disruptive editing. It is almost certain that the information you want to add can be added, but you need to reach consensus with other editors about how it is worded. Please read neutral point of view, and WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new so want to make sure this is not a COI

I work for The Violin Channel, so want to flag this and ensure I am not breaching anything.

We did this video interview with Blake Pouliot and he said in it: "I'm absolutely obsessed with Ella Fitzgerald". I think this is a very interesting fact about his character, with him being an accomplished classical musician, and would like to add it to his article and and cite that point in the video.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Pouliot Youtube video where he says it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buXFVAASHQQ (at 19 seconds).

The potential conflict is, this is a Violin Channel interview.

Blake does not work for us in any way, or has not, or never will pay us. I am also not doing this as a traffic driving exercise.

I've been updating and fixing many violinist's pages the last few days, but to this point never linked to any of our sources. But our site is referenced hundreds or thousands of times on Wikipedia already by others. Violinchanneljohnjohn (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Violinchanneljohnjohn! I really appreciate how careful you're trying to be about this. You've disclosed your conflict of interest on your userpage already, which is great - You can also do that using the template at Template:UserboxCOI. As long as you've done that, you should be totally fine adding that as long as you properly cite it. One thing to be aware of, however, is that one of the reliable source guidelines we have says that websites that mostly have user-generated content, like YouTube, are generally considered unacceptable (WP:UGC). If you can link to an article on your actual site, that would be preferable to linking the YouTube video itself. Happy editing! :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entry for YouTube at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." Since the YouTube video was posted by The Violin Channel's official account, it should be OK to cite it. Deor (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Violinchanneljohnjohn: While it may be OK to cite it, a person with a COI should not add a citation to an associated source. Propose it on the talk page and let others decide. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist Are you basing that on WP:COIEDIT's suggestion that editors run all possible COIs through talk? I'm not sure that this meets the criteria, since Violinchanneljohnjohn doesn't have a COI with the article subject, just the source. My initial answer was based on WP:SELFCITE, which indicates that it's acceptable as long as its not given undue weight. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThadeusOfNazereth: No, I am basing that not on the article subject, but the fact that one can have a COI with a source. Regardless of SELFCITE, citing oneself just looks bad and typically gets reverted as far as I've seen it happen. Proposing your own link on the talk page is just good practice. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There should be no rush for a COI source to be cited. There are no deadlines here. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Is there a way to get attention of new page viewers in a draft? BruhOfficial (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Why do you want to get their attention? Do you need any help? Lightbluerain (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: I thought you might want to know that BruhOfficial is a Confirmed block evading sock awaiting a block. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus change

How can I request a consensus change on a talk page? There is this article which I believe has been violating Wikipedia's manual of style; I brought up the issue on its talk page more than two months ago, and after a failure to discuss have sought other alternatives (which ultimately led to no result) and the editor who contested the change has stated that they've taken the article off their watchlist, so no chance of further discussion. It's a pretty complex issue and I would really appreciate some advice. Do let me know if concrete details would be helpful. Coconutyou3 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coconutyou3. The Request for comment process may be helpful, because it draws uninvolved editors into the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sheffield

 2.26.61.32 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! Did you have a question that you wanted to ask us related to editing Sheffield? ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

I believe the page Miss International Queen Vietnam is partially or wholly translated from VI Wiki (with at least some copyedits). Should this attributed and, more importantly, how should it be attributed? I’m having difficulty finding this information in what I thought would be relevant policy pages. Thanks! :-) postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Postleft! Yes, translated material should be attributed. The relevant page is a bit difficult to find since it isn't at WP:TRANSLATION, its at Help:Translation. If you check the first section of that page, called "License Requirements," there's an edit summary template and a template to add to the very top of the page as well. Happy editing! :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you!! postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Postleft @ThadeusOfNazereth That is confusing indeed! I WP:BOLDLY updated WP:TRANSLATION to more conveniently reference Help:Translation and encourage you both to make content changes that would have helped you find it more easily. The two pages possibly could be merged to reduce WP:ASTONISHMENT ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is very helpful! postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff Woody article

Hello there fellow wikipedians, I’ve been working on the article Sheriff Woody a lot recently and I’m just wondering if someone can check over the work I have done to make sure I’m doing things right. I would really like someone to look over the section development specifically. I’ve been looking at the article Elsa (Frozen) to help me with examples on what I should add and get rid of. Kaleeb18 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18 Welcome to Tea House! I looked over your edits and they look like improvements to me! I noticed this was your second question about the article on Tea House, and would encourage you to continue seeking feedback directly on the relevant talk page Talk:Sheriff Woody in this case. I'd also encourage you to read the essay WP:Other Stuff. The available sources, WP:V information will differ for every article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just using Elsa (Frozen) as a guideline of what my writing should somewhat look like I also used WP:DISNEY character guideline. Kaleeb18 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted the above referenced article. I would like to ask if it is actually considered orphan, given that there exists within numerous links to related Wikipedia articles. The following template message is placed above the article:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions." (November 2021) Tonymartin (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonymartin: hello Tony! The article would still be considered an orphan because it's not linked to by any other articles on Wikipedia. You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/ARTICLENAME to see what pages link to a specific page. The WhatLinksHere for the article you linked (seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Donald Arthur Hatch) shows a log for the editorial team, your userpage, a subpage of your user page (Which redirects to the article), and the article's own talk page. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Situation

While I have not come across any of these, I believe some may exist. There might be some articles that are old and forgotten (don't ask me how), and the last edit was over years ago. And it might have spelling errors, or maybe you just want to help and improve it. Either way, the page is protected, and you can't edit it to do whatever. So what would you do if this happened? Do you contact an admin or somebody? Do you just wait for the person to respond to you? Or create a new page? 68.50.116.194 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evert article has a talk page. If you want to edit a protected article, you can post to the talk page of that article and make suggestions for edits. If nobody reacts to your talk page post in a couple of weeks or so, you can always ask here again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Tea House! It's always encouraged to solicit feedback/discussion on the talk page, especially on protected articles. You can alert other editors to review your edit requests by using the template {{request edit}}. If you have follow up questions, you can reply here or ask a new question again. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles talk pages list the WikiProjects that are interested in that article. A posting on the talk page of the Wikiproject can also bring attention to issues with a particular article. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Note that {{request edit}} is to be used when the requester has a conflict of interest. The documentation at Template:Request edit states "For edits to a semi-protected page, see Template:Edit semi-protected. For edits to an extended-confirmed protected page, see Template:Edit extended-protected. For edits to a template-protected page, see Template:Edit template-protected. For edits to a fully-protected page, see Template:Edit fully-protected." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very new to this

I actually have no experience with computers. I am ready to learn but finding it difficult to get a start. I am actually interested in research and would like to work with wiki with some companies that are affiliated with wiki I think. I don't know I was manic when it came across for me to read. I would like to research child predators and start a project to reach out to children and teens. Teach parents how to promote healing environment for them etc. But I'm guessing if there's already one you can point me in the right direction. I wouldn't mind editing and helping where I can. I've just spent most my life in the search for advancing myself for this purpose, I'd like to work in that arena 😅 Down4it4ever (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Down4it4ever: welcome to Wikipedia. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of project you propose. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or to "reach out" to any group of people to help them. However, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia's articles, there are many ways to help out. You'll find some tutorials here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Sources?

How do I link a source about a sentence or paragraph without making a separate area? Lancelincoln214 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lancelincoln214 You might also like to read WP:REFBEGIN. I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by "separate area". All inline citations are inserted immediately after the relevant statement, and both appear as a superscript number at the end of the relevant sentence/paragraph, whilst the full details are displayed within a separate area at the bottom of the page, titled 'References'. This requires a special template ({{reflist}}) to be inserted into that section which makes all the inline citations appear together there. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Guidance on Editing Diana Nyad Entry

I would like to help clean up the Diana Nyad WP entry, but I'm not sure where to start or even if I ought to. I'd very much appreciate some guidance.

I have devoted much of the last six years to unearthing information about Nyad's career. Much of what I've found can be unflattering to her. I have lots of opinions about Nyad. However, I have no interest in sharing those opinions in the edits. I'd just like to help get things right. The facts need no help from me.

Still, if I edited her page, would that be considered a conflict of interest? Here are my two Nyad sites:

  1. Diana Nyad Fact Check
  2. Diana Nyad Fact Check Annex

Here are a few (but not the only) examples of problems in the introductory paragraph of the Diana Nyad entry:

  1. Citation [3] links to an article that no longer exists on the NY Times site. However, you can still find it at AP News.
  2. "In 2013 . . . she became the first person claiming to have swum."
    Peculiar construction, though I'm not sure how I'd fix it.
  3. [The Cuba-Florida swim] "has not been formally ratified by any recognised swim body."
    This is no longer technically true. In 2019, Steven Munatones, Diana Nyad's main supporter in the marathon swimming community, edited Nyad's Openwaterpedia entry to retroactively ratify her crossing under the auspices of the World Open Water Swimming Association (WOWSA). Munatones founded and remains the driving force behind both Openwaterpedia and WOWSA. The ratification contradicted a statement he made two weeks after the feat: "Diana's swim was . . . off-the-grid, with no organization regulating it. The classification of her record may never be resolved."[1]
  4. "Nyad was also once ranked thirteenth among US women squash players."
    Even if this were verifiable, does it belong in the introduction? And the sole source — Ahead of Their Time: A Biographical Dictionary of Risk-Taking Women — contains multiple conspicuous errors. Other references to Nyad's squash ranking, including two from the dictionary's own Nyad entry, give it as 12th.[2] Others give 14th.[3] Many websites give 30th, though that's probably a mix-up with 13th. I've searched for the actual rankings without success. IMO, any statement that relies solely Ahead of Their Time for verification should be excluded. Examples of other problems with Ahead of Their Time:
    • The first sentence — "For a decade Diana Nyad held the record as the best marathoner in the world for both distance and speed" — would be too vague to be verifiable even if it weren't false.
    • "Her father died when she was an infant." Diana was born in 1949. William Sneed died in 2015. He'd changed his surname to "Blake," though, so this can be confusing.[4] Diana's entry included her biological father's premature demise until December 24, 2013. Ahead of Their Time was the source.
    • "Nyad practiced both sports [swimming and squash] with the hope of competing in the Mexico City Olympics in 1968." As far as I know, Nyad never held a squash racquet until well after 1968.
  5. Reference [4], "Nyad Completes Cuba to Florida Swim," does not address the ratification issue in any way.

 


Two problems from the first paragraph of "Early Life and Education," and then I'll stop.

  1. At some point, an editor added that Nyad's biological father, William L. Sneed Jr., was a stockbroker. The editor gave no source. Ahead of Their Time is the only source I know of for the stockbroker "fact." The reference given at the end of the sentence, the Social Security Death Index, doesn't give Sneed's occupation.
  2. Regarding "Charlotte N. Winslow, the inventor of Mrs Winslow's Soothing Syrup." The question of who concocted the stuff is a fascinating but far-from-settled issue. Not to mention that the given reference only provides the partial name, "Soothing Syrup." The reference says nothing about its inventor. Most sources hedge. For example:

So getting back to my original question: Would it be reasonable for me to begin editing Diana Nyad's entry?

Thanks! Danslos (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danslos Welcome to Tea House! Without having looked in depth at the sources/suggestions you've made, I'd recommend making {{Request edit}} suggestions on the talk page, one edit at a time. You have a strong agenda and your edits are more likely to be well received if you do not edit directly. There are exceptions for example demonstrably false information that violates WP:BLP (she's alive from what I can tell) and blatant vandalism. There are some relevant WikiProjects you could seek feedback from as well, like WP:SWIMMING. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Danslos to be more direct, yes there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, even if it is not necessarily paid, so as I suggested earlier, make {{request edit}}'s on the talk page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah, thanks for your responses. Would this apply even to more benign sorts of edits like repairing the link to the no-longer-existent NY Times article (which lives on at AP News). Danslos (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COIU does say that editors with a conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits such as repairing broken links. I would think you could make this particular change if you are absolutely sure it is the same article – and, looking at the date and aponline in the NY Times article, I suspect it is. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 21:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robertson, Linda (September 18, 2013). "DIANA NYAD: FROM HAVANA TO KEY WEST 'We did it squeaky clean'". Miami Herald. pp. 1, 2. Retrieved November 8, 2021 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ Greenspan, Emily (March 1985). "Out of the Water and Onto the Airwaves: The Obsessions of Diana Nyad". Ms. 13 (9). Internet Archive: 74, 76–78. Retrieved 9 November 2021.
  3. ^ Hummer, Steve (4 June 1978). "Nyad Will Bow Out After 'One More Magnificent Swim'". Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved 9 November 2021. She is now the 14th-ranked squash player in the country.
  4. ^ "Nationwide Gravesite Locator". U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved 9 November 2021.U.S. Dept. of Veteran's Affairs: National Gravesite Locator https://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/ngl/ngl

Thank you!

To everyone who’s spent time answering my questions and helping me out with my first article, a million thanks! I managed to get my first article accepted thanks to all your feedback and guidance. Elenatina (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special thanks to @GoingBatty, @David notMD, @Blaze The Wolf, @Mikehawk10, @Anachronist, @Maproom and all the awesome hosts on the teahouse who make newbies at home in the wikipedia world.

Elenatina (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina Congratulations. Creating an article (as you've probably now realized) is not an easy task. So, well done. Onwards and upwards! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina great work! I'm excited to see what you do in the future. :D Amazing job! WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina: Hey no problem! I'm technically not a Teahouse host, however I do occasionally answer questions when I Feel I can give a good and accurate answer. I enjoy making newbies feel welcomed on Wikipedia because it makes Wikipedia seem more friendly and less like a place where everyone is super serious all the time (which isn't always a bad thing, but makes Wikipedia seem a bit... endearing to new users). Also for future reference, using the Template:Ping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template will notify users, although I'm not sure if that was what you did here or not since I probably missed this notification.Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Blaze The Wolf:, you won't have been notified, because Elenatina did not sign the relevant post. See Help:Notifications. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. That makes sense, didn't realize that wasn't part of the same post. (although I am curious why sinebot didn't sign it afterwards) ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenatina: I see you just added a signature to the pings. That still won't ping the users as it requires the ping be added along with the signature at the same time. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to create a wikipedia page

please friend i need a help in creating my wikipedia page please help me David Osmond (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:David Osmond/sandbox
What is your connexion with School Boy Husler (talk · contribs)? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status: DO's Sandbox Speedy deleted for G11 (promotional) and image at Commons deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with verification

Hello, my name is Uma Sori and I am originally from Monrovia and am a direct descendant of Prince Abdulrahman Ibrahim Sori (Prince Sori). I was privileged to meet two of my cousins from the United States at an event honoring my Great Great Grandfather Prince Sori. A reference to this event can be found in the documentary "A Prince Among Slaves". I have tried numerous times to add the names of my cousins Dr. Artumus Gaye the son of the famous football(soccer Player Bourba Gaye and who was also shown in the movie with Karen Chatman. In the year 2018 Gaye and Chatman both met with the leaders of Morocco, Monrovia, and the United States Congressional office stating their claims of Royal lineage. Although no Government such as the US where Chatman is a citizen can demand a Title; she was recognized as an Heir to Prince Sori and as his direct descendent along with Gaye.

My intent was to create individual pages for Gaye and Chatman as they are leading the initiative of informing the world of Prince Sori's story and existence. Black American history is often not documented or committed from the history books. I would like this community to assist me with the correct way to reference both Gaye and Chatman to ensure our family legacy is not lost.

I thank all readers and contributors, it was not my intent to take over or add erroneous facts, but the stories are ours to tell as my family and my US family from Natchez were left behind as Prince Sori sailed to freedom unable to take what he loved most with him.

Please assist me if possible. Uma Sori 2600:1700:FB5:81B0:606D:4611:7EC5:8447 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Ibrahim Ibn Sori exists. There have been additions and reverts going back more than three years - heated up recently - as to whether Gaye and Chatman, his great-grandchildren, deserve mention in the article. Given that they are not themselves subjects of articles, my opinion is no. (That he left children behind - yes; about their descendants - no.) Other editors may disagree. The proper place to try to reach consensus is the Talk page of the article. There, an editor has requested page protection, which would block people without accounts from editing the article. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help with "Lie (NF Song)" page

I am trying to get some info right in the Lie page. The page says it was released on April 17th, 2018, when it's album, Perception, was released on October 6th, 2017! This is very confusing. I'm not really sure how to approach this. Can someone help? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC) WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change the sentence in the Lead to "...was released as a single..." Singles are often released after albums. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: But what would be the point of releasing it again if it already was on the album? ??? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WaterflameIsAwesome To make more money. Often, an album is released, one or more of the songs rise in the charts, and those are released as singles for people who do not want to purchase the entire album. Sometimes the other way - a single becomes a hit and is then released on an album. These practices make more sense in the era of physical vinyl records. David notMD (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My submission has been rejected twice; but to me it meets criteria #1 for notability of musicians

Can someone look at draft:Ichon and explain why it does not meet criteria #1 for notability of musicians? I cite three publications that devote entire pieces to the musician, including one of the largest daily newspapers in Switzerland.

I just don't see where the article falls short -- so your thoughts on how to improve it are welcome. Thanks!

Jayintheusa (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1, 2 and 3 are interviews. Wikipedia does not accept interviews as confirming notability. Ref 4 confirms he performed at an event. Ref 5 is his discography. So, nothing so far. Find more. David notMD (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jayintheusa, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are online dictionaries reliable sources?

I was going to try to add a source to a page, but I don't know if either Dictionary.com or Wiktionary are reliable. Thanks! Michael.Ringo (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends – see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and Dictionaries as sources for some considerations. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 03:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is not a reliable source, it is user generated content. RudolfRed (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! I would like to create a Wikipedia page but I am not a programmer.I need someone to help out

 41.223.76.61 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Article Wizard. ––Formal 🐧 talk 07:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your question is a bit like "I want to build a house but I'm not a builder. I need someone to help out" - except that, where knowledge of building is necessary to build a house, knowledge of programming is not necessary to create a Wikipedia article. What is necessary, however, is a substantial understanding of many of Wikipedia's policies. My advice to any new editor who has the idea of creating an article is to put that project aside for at least six months, and spend the time "learning the trade", by making small improvements to some of our six million exiting articles. That way you can start adding value to Wikipedia straight away, and minimise the disappointment and frustration you experience, by not trying to take big steps before you understand the small ones. Most people who try to create an article before they have an understanding of what that entails have a very frustrating time, and often in the short term put negative value into Wikipedia because of the time that experienced editors have to spend sorting out the problems they unwittingly cause. When you are beginning to understand the requirements for a new article, you can rad your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I lock an article?

I just got my first article published and I’ve seen edits to it that aren’t notable and it might lead to vandalism unless someone keeps an eye on it. Also I noticed users removing stuff which is substantiated with references. Either way it’s bad. How do I lock the article? 

 Elenatina (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina you can ask for protection at WP:RfPP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you! Spot on! This was exactly what I was looking for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talkcontribs) 09:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina However, assuming this is about Jonathan Roumie, per a quick look at the edithistory this month, you won't get it at this point. "Worse can happen" is not a reason they'll accept. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Well noted! The article just got accepted a few days ago and maybe there needs to be more wrong edits to subsantiate my claim for protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenatina (talkcontribs) 09:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenatina: yup, and also you'll need to remember that WP is a collaborative encyclopaedia. There is no concept of locking as such; the article you've written will remain, like all WP articles, open for further improvement by other editors, who will add things, take things away, change your wording. If you disagree with a change, you can of course revert it, but you should discuss this at the article's talk page, or at least in edit summaries. If you just undo everything anyone else does without explanation, it will cause friction. Elemimele (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elenatina, please understand that sincere disagreements over content are not deliberate vandalism intended to harm, and that despite your having originated the article, you do not own it, are not the sole arbiter of what should or should not be in it, and should not edit war over other's additions, corrections or deletions to it. Instead, please participate in the standard Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle procedures.
(This mostly reiterates what Elemimele has already said above, but adds links to the relevant Wikipedia policies and procedures, which you should study.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.31 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And chiming in as an administrator regularly working in protection-requests: please have a look at our protection policy. The article wouldn't get protected, because essentially there is not enough disruption. Lectonar (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional vs Facts from a Neutral Viewpoint

I recently wrote my first article. I did not understand notability, encyclopedic style and a lot of other things and after a lot of feedback I managed to develop the article to a point where it got accepted. I noticed that after it got accepted, parts of my article which was already there before the article acceptance was removed by citing promotional fluff. And now I've got a twinkle tag for the article being promotional. (I haven't add anything to it for a long time before I left it to review)

Where do we draw the line between being promotional vs factual? Is there something concrete we can bank on?

Elenatina (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting an article accepted, and don't be discouraged; but also note (as mentioned in the previous section) that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. This means that everything is a work in progress, nobody owns articles, and subsequent editors may identify concerns that were not identified by the article-for-creation reviewer. If some portions of text or sources are called out for being 'promotional', have a look at Reliable sources, if you haven't done so already. And while we try to be generally encouraging and helpful in the Teahouse, the article's talk page is usually the best place to discuss specific issues. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 10:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elenatina, this edit, which perhaps is one of those that you are referring to, removed a sentence starting "He donned the sandals of the character of Christ for the first time". My guess is that this means no more than "He first played Jesus"; I'm sorry but, whatever the intention, it does rather sound like Variety-speak. It's better to avoid metonymy and the like and instead be concise when writing articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Jonathan Roumie TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain better your sources?

 Sevilha2015 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Sevilha2015. It's not clear what sources you mean. Are you looking for WP:Reliable sources?--Shantavira|feed me 12:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with city (town) name in China; Xiaocao'ezhen or Xiaocao'e, what are the rules?

Dear all, A few days now I have some trouble with a member of this society with a page on this English site, the page is Xiaocao'ezhen (or Xiaocao'e), the name of a town in China. Communication is a problem and I have sugested to talk over the talkpage, but that does not work up till now. What are the rules for naming a city, town or village on this Wikipedia site? Where can I find the real name as prove of authenticity? JCBS (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Xiaocao'e TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arno Jacobs: From the edit summary, you’ll need a better source than Google Maps, which can be crowdsourced. I suggest if you can find a source, start a discussion on User talk:Yinweiaiqing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 12:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the official site of the government of Yuyao stated every time 小曹娥镇 (Xiaocao'ezhen) when they refer to the town, here is the link to the page of their government: http://www.yy.gov.cn/col/col1229143566/index.html , the link is also on the Xiaocao'e(zhen) page. Wouldn't that be not prove enough? What more prove can I get? JCBS (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arno Jacobs welcome to Tea House! Regardless of what article name is decided in the end, having redirects from all the different spelling variations/names makes sense and including the different names. I'd be happy to help with that if you want. In general for article names WP:COMMON applies (commonly used names as opposed to official subject names in English), and a geography specific flavour of this policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). For an iconic example, see the multi year discussion about Danzig vs Gdansk naming Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Shushugah's comment, doesn't mean "town" or "village"? It's possible that it's not included in English when being translated because of that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article for myself

I want to write a article about this person. which is mentioned in below link. if possible then please let me know how I can write it. Kanwarpartap Singh 2409:4055:182:CA21:D1E8:ADC2:2D58:C53 (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking rather than just trying to do so. You could certainly draft such an article (read WP:YFA and use WP:AfC) but based on the sources I could see in the search engine you linked there is little or no chance the draft would be accepted into the encyclopedia because there is no evidence he is WP:notable in the sense used here. There are over 6 billion people on this planet and most of us are not notable. Hence we use Social Media or sites like Linkedin to communicate. WP:NOT pretty much covers this. Note that autobiography is even less likely to succeed, as it would be difficult to write in the neutral tone required. Why not contribute to some of our existing articles instead? You'll find that's a much more satisfying experience. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why is that my article getting deleted?

When I have made sure that the content is reliable and the particular person is notable it is still getting deleted. It is not a article about myslelf. Please be specific while giving the answer. Preethi Mohan Film editor (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi Mohan Film editor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You say the draft is not about yourself, but your username would suggest otherwise. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about Draft:Preethi, the explanation on the draft as to why it was deleted is pretty clear: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page". - X201 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Jimfbleak: - X201 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thanks, I'll post further guidance at her talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add information about teachers who worked for a school under a 'Controversy' heading?

I'm editing information about Cutler Bay Senior High, a high school in Miami, Florida.

I noticed that there were numerous news articles related to the high school describing two teachers who were faculty at the school being arrested for separate reasons.

  • The case of Bernardo Osorio, a former teacher at Cutler Bay Senior High accused and convicted of sexual assault[1][2]
  • The case of Alphonso Thomas, a former athletic director at Cutler Bay Senior High accused of stealing more than $3,000 from students for at least two years[3]

Should I add information about these cases to the school's Wikipedia page? Cadenrock1 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cutler Bay Teacher Admits to Sexual Relations With Teen Student". CBS Miami. CBS. CBS Local. February 3rd, 2017. Retrieved November 4, 2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ [hhttps://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/ex-cutler-bay-senior-high-teacher-convicted-after-inappropriate-relationship-with-student-denies-being-the-aggressor/131674/&usg=AOvVaw3I-CL-VWdKucwv6m7Dqo2S "Ex-Cutler Bay Senior High Convicted After Inappropriate Relationship With Student; Denies Being the Aggressor"]. NBC. NBC Miami. February 3rd, 2017. Retrieved November 4th, 2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
  3. ^ Burke, Peter (October 26th, 2016). "Cutler Bay athletic director accused of stealing from student-athletes". Berkshire Hathaway. Local 10. Retrieved November 4th, 2021. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
As neither of these people have articles on Wikipedia (although there is one on a deceased Alphonse Thomas) I would say "no", because they and their offences are not WP:notable enough. However, other editors here may disagree and the correct place to discuss this is at Talk:Cutler Bay Senior High School, as I see you have started to do. Incidentally, mere allegations of an offence would be unlikely to reach an article about a person, per WP:BLP policy. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Tea House @Cadenrock1 @Michael D. Turnbull if there is no conviction, do not include it per WP:BLPCRIME and even if there was a conviction, if it's a one time event Wikipedia:BLP1E may apply as well. Thank you for asking, and happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! Also, you have to think about whether, overall, the article then truly reflects the school. Does inclusion of these create an undue impression that the school is particularly famous for having scandalously bad behaviour on the part of its staff? If it's just a normal school where a few teachers have been convicted of awful things, but this is not a general reflection on the school's history, present and accomplishments, I would not be keen to include much, if anything, on controversies. If the school made major headlines as a hotbed of scandal but is otherwise completely unknown, i.e. the school is notable only for being scandalous, then you must include a section on the controversies. Elemimele (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cadenrock1: Criticism and controversy sections are generally discouraged. The main consideration is WP:NOTNEWS. Most schools have regular controversies of one sort or another, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, and our goal is to summarize information of historical importance rather than to provide detailed coverage of every controversy. Think about whether or not someone ten or even fifty years in the future would find the level of detail provided on an incident appropriate in a several paragraph—length account of the school's history, and keep it only if so and only at a reasonable length, merged into the overall history section. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of this page

are joke questions allowed on this board? since i dont exactly want to vandalize anything, i felt like it might be good to ask first. Apexelite3303 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Teahouse hosts have no sense of humor, but the purpose of this page is to reply to queries about how to be better Wikipedia editors. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, technically yes (They won't be considered vandalism), however it tends to be seen as a waste of time as it takes time for volunteers here to answer your joke question when that time could be used for a new user with a question that is not a joke. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Apexelite3303, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, jokes aren’t necessarily disallowed but the problem with “joking” here is that it tends to distract us from the core aim of the Teahouse. The purpose of the Teahouse is to provide assistance for editors who require our aid when in doubt or want to learn something new as stated by my co-host David notMD and joking about here does us a disservice. Celestina007 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting incorrect editing changes

Hello. I've come across edits to my work, deletion of content, in an article that are not called for and seem to reflect in the short explanations of why they were made a lack of in-depth knowledge of the particular subject matter by the editor. I don't mean that unkindly, but the information that is deleted is based on documented and published research that is new to the larger subject matter. I can go through the deletions and Undo them (though the deletions were not accompanied by deletion of related footnotes and the whole reference section is out of sync), but the reasons for my Undos can't be simply explained in short descriptions, nor do they lend themselves to the larger subject matter without taking the article off track.

I can find no way of directly addressing the editor involved, and I suppose that I could just Undo the problem without explanation, but that would invite starting the process all over again.

Advice? Or a method I'm not aware of. I've gone through the deletions and documented the deleted material to be restored for my own purposes, but it's a several page document which I will retain in my file for this article.

Thanks Vabookwriter (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vabookwriter, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, could you be so kind as to express yourself better? That is, can you just ask precisely what it is you want help about in fewer words? Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vabookwriter This seems to be an ideal case for starting a discussion on the talk page. You will have all the space you need there to explain your position, but I highly encourage you to be succinct. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vabookwriter: is this to do with editing at Commonwealth_War_Graves_Commission, where Labattblueboy (talk · contribs) disagreed with a paragraph you added about how US citizens had been returned to the US for burial? If so, it looks very much like a content dispute between two editors both of whom feel they are well-informed, and who disagree with the other. The correct thing to do in the first instance is to discuss on the article's talk page. If you make sure you use a template that refers to Labattblueboy by name (as I have here), they will be informed that you've mentioned them, and can respond if they choose (you can also post on their talk-page, but this has the enormous disadvantage that any other editor who gets involved in that article will be unaware of the discussion). If you still can't agree, there are various further options, such as seeking a third opinion and requesting expert attention. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vabookwriter (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Succinct: when an editor comes along and deletes content incorrectly, how do you reinstate it without starting the process all over again. In a normal exchange reasons and documentation would be offered, but there seems to be no mechanism for doing that. Now you've given me a method. I'm relatively new here. That's helpful.Vabookwriter (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how make page

How do I make my own page? I want to make something on my own and I don't know how AmongNutBaby3426987523 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 17:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmongNutBaby3426987523 Welcome to Tea House! If you're considering writing a brand new article, please read WP:YFA, but know that article creation is one of the hardest things you can do. We usually tell newbies to edit existing articles to gain experience before attempting to create a new article. Wikipedia is also collaborative, so as @Victor Schmidt mobil said, no one has exclusive Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AmongNutBaby3426987523 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article (not just a "page") is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users sometimes fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and angry that things they don't understand happen to something they spent hours on. This it why it is highly recommended that new users first edit existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial will help too.
However, if you still want to create a new article now, please read Your First Article, then go to Articles for creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]