Deep web:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Hi again: new section)
Line 599: Line 599:
 
I have a question. A few days ago, an editor asked to have a draft (since deleted as [[WP:G11|G11]]) reviewed, and [[User:John from Idegon]] said, among other things: "First, lose the registered mark symbols. We do not use them." As a reviewer at [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]], I occasionally review a draft that has registered mark symbols, and I have always said to get rid of them, because their use is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]]. So John and I are in agreement that the symbol should be deleted. However, I have not seen a guideline that explicitly says not to use them. Is there such a guideline, so that I can point to it the next time that I encounter a draft that uses them? (I'm not surprised that the draft got deleted, but that isn't the issue.)
 
I have a question. A few days ago, an editor asked to have a draft (since deleted as [[WP:G11|G11]]) reviewed, and [[User:John from Idegon]] said, among other things: "First, lose the registered mark symbols. We do not use them." As a reviewer at [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]], I occasionally review a draft that has registered mark symbols, and I have always said to get rid of them, because their use is [[WP:PROMO|promotional]]. So John and I are in agreement that the symbol should be deleted. However, I have not seen a guideline that explicitly says not to use them. Is there such a guideline, so that I can point to it the next time that I encounter a draft that uses them? (I'm not surprised that the draft got deleted, but that isn't the issue.)
 
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Hi again ==
  +
  +
I was also wondering, how do you change the "(talk)" button near your username after your posts, to something fun, or creative? [[User:Gumshoe97|Gumshoe97]] ([[User talk:Gumshoe97|talk]])

Revision as of 00:13, 5 December 2019

Contents

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

A page a edited was subsequently deleted, wrongly

Hello, I edited a biography of a person I know, and then someone deleted her Wiki page, which had been up for a decade without any problems. It was deleted for the reason of not having any references, but it had a lot of references to big newspapers. I feel like this is bullying and when I ask talk to them about it, they are rude in response. How can I quickly restore the page and prevent this in the future? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talkcontribs) 08:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

SarahWoodstock, as the deleting admin told you, the venue to go to to request restoration of a deleted article is WP:DRV. In the meantime, please review our conflict of interest policy at WP:COI, as they also asked you to. Having been online for a long time doesn't exempt an article from deletion if any of the deletion criteria apply. It was deleted for serving no other purpose than promoting/advertising the subject. The number of references isn't as important as the quality of them, that's what was challenged, in addition to the promotional nature of the article content itself. Usedtobecool TALK  08:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, SarahWoodstock. I am an administrator so I could read the deleted article. The article was not deleted wrongly. It failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that this person is notable by Deep web's standards. None at all. The article was previously deleted in 2008, so there have been previous problems. If you want to challenge the deletion, please try Deep web:Deletion review. In my honest opinion, you are unlikely to be successful, but you are welcome to try. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, SarahWoodstock, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Hilary Rowland was deleted, not for lack of references, but under WP:CSD#G11, as promotional by Bbb23. An earlier version was deleted back in 2008 after a discussion at Deep web:Articles for deletion/Hilary Rowland, which did refer to notability issues and lack of sources, but also to promotionalism.
I might not have deleted this under G11, but it was far from an ideal article. The ciuted sources in the last version before deletion were:
  • The subject's father's author bio; (not independent)
  • An article "5 Reasons I Love Being a Vegan" in Urbanette magazeine, written by the subject (not independent)
  • Beauty and the Biz". an articel in Faze Teen magazine.
  • "Hilary Rowland, Reasons I Love Lyon". from This Is Lyon. Only ne paragraph, and saeems to be by the subject.
  • "My International Life: From NYC to France". from Urbanette Magazine. Written by the subject.
Earlier veriosn had more sources, but not much better oine in the last coupel you edited, and i don't see any major news organs or other celalry reliable and impressibve sources.
This deletion does not prevent starting a new article, preferably as a draft, and making it more clearly neutral and supported by bettre sources, if those exist (I haven't looked). Or you could discuss with the deleting admin, or ask for a WP:REFUND. But the deletion nwas not "bullying " -- it was quite in accord with Deep web policy and procedure, as far as I can see. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
In addition, SarahWoodstock, you have a declared conflict of interest regarding Hilary Rowland. You should defer to the judgment of experienced, uninvolved editors on this matter. It is a well known fact that a conflict of interest can often cloud an editor's judgment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the feedback and your time! I am still learning and want to do everything correctly. Can I research more, get more (big-name/credible) references, remove the references you mentioned, and re-post? BTW - what is wrong with the Faze magazine reference? It's one of Canada's largest magazines. Also, can a link like 'This is Lyon' be used for proof that she lived in Lyon? It seems to me that there are profiles of notable entrepreneurs and inventors, and that hers fits those same criteria since she created the first online magazine and the first online portfolio website. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talkcontribs) 13:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, I created a draft. Can you please check it and give me feedback, then please publish it when you think it's ready? Only an administrator can publish it. Thank you! /wiki/Draft:Hilary_Rowland — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talkcontribs) 15:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
SarahWoodstock, just a couple of style notes First, lose the registered mark symbols. We do not use them. Second, magazine titles are italicized on every usage. John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
SarahWoodstock, you should check out WP:OVERKILL - many of your article's sentences have way too many citations. The first sentence in 'Career' has 8, where one well-placed citation would be more than enough.
Some of the wording still leans in the promotional direction. For instance, "the first online portfolio site (of any kind), the first online agency, the first time casting was done online, and also the first online community for talent".
Firstly - you've repeated "the first online portfolio site" twice when this sentence rolls around; there's no need to do this. Once is enough to establish the facts.
Secondly, these claims read contentuously. When you stick a lot of "firsts" in an article, they should be more specific. "the first online agency" - were they the first agency to be online? Or the first to be a solely internet-based enterprise, with no physical offices that models visited for their agency work?
You can improve the way these "firsts" are written, but remember, it's only an improvement if they're true. Be specific.
Since this is a WP:BLP, you have to adheer to much more exacting editorial standards, and I'd suggest you have another read through of the manual of style for BLP articles before continuing. You should probably add a date and location of birth and an early life section, though if the article's subject hasn't revealed this information publicly, I don't think it's a requirement - use discretion in regard with WP:BLPPRIVACY.
Lastly - under the 'Awards' section, is receiving a number of accolades that account to little more than 'Hottest CEO' relevant to the article? For a business entrepeneur, I'd say no. Perhaps one sentence would be enough, but it shouldn't be longer than the actual awards she's won for her work as a businesswoman. You say she's won a number of business awards - switch this section round and detail those, and leave the 'Hottest CEO' awards as small "number of" line instead at the bottom of the paragraph.
This article isn't the worst I've seen, and the prose isn't poorly-written, but it needs work to take it out of conflict-of-interest territory. Please get down to grips with that before submitting your article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
OP has been blocked for promotion/advertising. I also suspect there was undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Nat Turner

The talk pages for Nat Turner and Nat Turner's slave rebellion both seem to have come to a consensus that the two articles should be merged. I would like to take a stab at taking the best content from both articles and consolidating it to a single article but I'm not sure how to get started. Should I copy / paste from Nat Turner to Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion or is there a more elegant way tool to merge the articles? If there are step by step instructions for merging articles and setting up the redirect that would be especially helpful. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarylandGeoffrey: Is WP:MERGE helpful? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the guidance I was looking for. Apologies if everyone already knows that process, I'm a fairly new editor. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MarylandGeoffrey, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:MERGE is the right guideline, (IMO) but before proceeding you might want to consider addressing the arguments of GuzzyG opposing the merge, and consider seeking a wider consensus. Nat Turner's slave rebellion is a very significant historical event, and Nat Turner a central figure in that event, who is very widely known and has been much written about, althoguh the basic data available is quite limited. The points of those favoring a merge are not invalid, but this is a case to move with care in my veiw. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think a discussion is essential because it'll fundamentally change how we treat rebellion biographies. There's tons of articles of figures like Pemulwuy that are in the same situation. I think a rule that was meant to keep reality tv show and beauty pageant contestants from all having a article is bad to apply to historical rebellions. They're highly significant events and as the central figure responsible the leaders should get a pass; even if the information is relatively similar. Britannica has it's article on Nat Turner himself. There's not much information known with Spartacus beyond the rebellion too, should we merge him for example? Where do we draw the line? GuzzyG (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Since this appears more controversial than I thought, I'm not going to take any action until a consensus is reached. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Birth name: Candy Darling

Not sure if this is a Teahouse or Help Desk question; but - the Warhol actress Candy Darling was born James Lawrence Slattery. "He" later became a transsexual so the pronouns in her article are "she" - which is appropriate. But there is not one mention of his birth name in the lede, infobox or article. Is this proper encyclopedic entry writing? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Maineartists! If properly sourced, a treatment similar to Chelsea Manning in the lead might be appropriate. In this discussion we decided that birth names of trans and non-binary people should only be included in their articles' lead sentences if the people were notable prior to coming out. I'm not familiar with the case of Darling specifically but hopefully this guidance is helpful. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you: Chetsford for pointing out the WP policy. Of course, to me this is absolutely ridiculous and exclusive to "trans" and "non-binary" as opposed to anyone else who simply changes their names and becomes famous after the fact: Irving Berlin / Israel Isidore Beilin, Al Jolson / Asa Yoelson etc, etc, etc. Why on earth should trans, non-binary or anyone else exceptional to the rule be given special treatment here at WP? Maineartists (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Maineartists. The WP:RFC cited above by Chetsford seemed to be fairly well participated as RFCs go, but it was also something discussed back in 2015. There's nothing wrong with seeking further clarification or even seeking that the situation be reassessed since a consensus can change over time. The best place for you to probably further discuss this would be at Deep web:Manual of Style/Biography since that seems to be the relevant guideline for this type of thing; however, if you do, try to keep "Deep web:Assume good faith" in mind and avoid jumping to the conclusion that those who participated in that previous discussion who were in favor of the change just had to be doing so for the wrong reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You may have a valid point, though I haven't given the matter much study so can't offer an informed opinion one way or the other. I think Marchjuly offers excellent advice as to possible next-steps, however. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Note also, Chetsford, that the 2015 discussion linked above dealt only with wheather to include the birth or pre-transition name in the lead sentence. It did not so much as mention the question of whether to incldue it later in the articel, yet most of the arguments for keeping nit out of the lead sentence or lead section would also apply to keeping the old name entirely out of the article. That really should be more clarly settled. Further discussion may be needed, as Marchjuly suggests boive. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Maineartists: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Correct! Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfC of new content for now-moved page?

I've been wanting to improve an article originally titled Sacred Heart Preparatory (Atherton, California), and my first step was to propose a move to the more accurate title of Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton. The move request was unopposed and so, at the end of 7 days, an uninvolved editor moved it over – apparently a few hours ago.

In parallel, I've been working on improving the content, a draft of which I also submitted for AfC review about a week ago. It sounds like it can take up to six months to get these reviews completed, though, and because the new title isn't all that consistent with the more limited scope of the old content, I'd like to hasten the process. Can I just move the content over, boldly and in sections, via copy and paste (but plowing over its history, sparse and stale though it may be, in the process)? If so, what do I do with the request for review? Ottoump (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's not really plowing over the history as much as radically appending it? Ottoump (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ottoump, I have declined the submission as a duplicate. You can bring the text from there and improve the article. Take it slow when you radically alter an article. Start a talk page discussion about what you intend to do, have done, are doing. Make one or two bold expansions, and wait a few days to see if anyone objects and/or reverts. If someone does, discuss it with them. If no one does, continue. That would be my advice. Usedtobecool TALK  08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool – that's excellent. Thank you. Do you know how long I have before the draft is deleted? Can I move it back over to my sandbox, as a staging area? Ottoump (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ottoump, you have six months before it will be considered for deletion. You will be notified when that happens. Yes, you can move it back to your userspace. Usedtobecool TALK  08:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Good to know.

Hello, Ottoump. To clarify, the AfC process is only for a new article about a topic not currently the subject of a Deep web article. It is not appropriate to submit drafts of rewrites of existing articles to AfC. The best way to improve an existing article is through a series of incremental changes to that article, explained clearly through edit summaries and talk page discussion. Massive rewrites all in one fell swoop are often controversial, and are sometimes perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who have worked on the article over the years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. In retrospect, I see how that makes sense. I'll proceed incrementally, and use the talk page to make it clear what's going on. Ottoump (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Language translation

Is it possible to translate English Deep web article in another language you do not speak or understand? If yes, how do I do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talkcontribs) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Akgideens: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure I fully understand the question - are you looking to translate a Deep web article into another language to help you read it? If so, you have two options really: The first would be to see if the page exists in another Deep web in your language, just visit the home page to see all the options. However, that page may not be a direct translation of the English page, as generally each Deep web is written by different volunteers. Option 2 is just to put the page into Google Translate, simply to help you read it. But I am a bit puzzled by why you say you want to translate a page into a language you do not speak? Why would you want to do that? If what you are asking is how to translate a page from English into another language, it will be down to the policies of the other language Deep web. For example, if you are translating into French, you would need to go to the French Deep web and find out what their rules are - for example would they accept a machine translation (i.e. through Google translate). It seems unwise to get involved in that if you don't speak the language, though. Maybe if you can explain more about why you ask the question, I can give better advice. Hugsyrup 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing a Contentious page

Hi there,

I just made a small edit to a page in the field of Politics (the page not the edit!). I debated whether I should make the edit for the past day or two, even though it is a tiny edit and is really a "houskeeping/admin" type edit. I had this internal debate, not because I imagine the edit to be problematic, but because the subject matter of the page is one that provokes strongly-held views.

The specific edit is that I marked the page Militant (Trotskyist group) as being in the category "Labour Party (UK) factions", but my question goes to the general case... Is there a way to mark an edit for independent review for such very small edits? Or, should I just go ahead and make them and see what happens?

I would love to know what is the correct etiquette. I don't want to waste anybody's time with unnecessary reviews.

Any help appreciated.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Dublin (talkcontribs) 11:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Dublin (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Dublin. No there is not exactly any facility to mark a specific edit as needing review. A few pages have a form of protection known as "pending changes", where every chnge by an editor without special rights is reviewwed before it goes live. More commonly, people may be using a personal watchlist to be notified of changes to a particualr articlewor page of interest, and may then choose to reveiw any such change.
The steps you shoulkd take are: 1) include an Edit summary with each edit, explaining what you are doing, such as "add ctegory" (or "+ cat") for the edit you describe. 2) If you think the edit might be at all controversial, you can also post to the article talk page, explaining at greater length what you are doing and why you think it is a good idea. Usually adding a category does not rquire that, unless the category is controversial. 3) When adding or changing factual statements, be sure to have the support of reliable sourcves, and in all but the most obvious cases cite them in the article. See referencing for Beginners for how to do citatioins in various styles. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, DESiegel. Thank you for the prompt response and sound advice. To be honest, part of my concern was that it is exactly those users with strongly-held views that have the pages on a personal watchlist!
I appreciate you taking the time for me and will do as you say and also post to the talk page when I feel I may be straying into controversial territory.

Paul Dublin (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Россия город Клин.

  Я хочу исправить в википедии данные по городу Клин.   Могу ли я в свободной и удобной для меня форме сделать это ?
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                       Клинчанин.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Клинчанин (talkcontribs) 12:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 
Клинчанин Здравствуйте. Это английская википедия. Пожалуйста, задайте свой вопрос на английском языке. Спасибо. (Hello, this is the English Deep web, please ask your question in English. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Здравствуйте Клинчанин. Это английская википедия. Если хотете исправить что-нибудь по-русски, надо исправить в русскоӣ википедии. Пожалуйста, смотрите ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Dr Rosie Knowles notable enough to have a Deep web page written about her yet?

She is an award winning speaker and the author of Why Babywearing Matters published by Pinter & Martin. She is in demand as a public speaker in the Babywearing world. Last week she was the main subject of a yahoo news report. She has previously been interview on BBC TV and Radio. Her Carrying Matters project focusses on the importance and benefits of carrying babies for good mental health for the parent and carrier. She is a citation in an article about "Baby Transport" on Deep web.

https://www.carryingmatters.co.uk/about-rosie/

https://www.pinterandmartin.com/why-babywearing-matters

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cuddling-babies-helps-them-grow-into-confident-adults-expert-says-110915366.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma

/wiki/Baby_transport

Any thoughts about whether she should be included yet would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robekn (talkcontribs) 14:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robekn: It's difficult to come to a general assessment about whether an individual is notable enough to have an article about them without doing substantial research of my own, but what I can say is that your sources are not sufficient to establish her notability. Carrying Matters appears to be her own website, so is not independent; Pinter and Martin is a shop stocking her book - not a reliable source; the Yahoo article quotes her in order to support reporting on another topic, but the article is not about her, so this is not significant coverage of Knowles (the same would probably go for her BBC interviews); and of course Deep web itself cannot be used as a source - nor does the fact that her book is used as a citation elsewhere make her notable in her own right. Hugsyrup 14:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, are you by any chance Rosie Knowles, or do you know her well? If so, please just check out our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Hugsyrup 14:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your reply. She is actually my wife and I'm aware of the conflict of interest issue. I hope in the future she'll become more notable and someone will consider creating a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robekn (talkcontribs) 14:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Robekn I would note that Deep web has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Academic profile

Hello,

I am trying to publish my academic profile as independent researcher on wikipedia. I have listed notably commissions and publications. Unfortunately, publishing the article has prompted a speedy deletion. please advise in how I might improve my article?

best...

mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPilk (talkcontribs) 16:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Deep web is an encyclopedia, and is not here for promotion. Please read the advice against trying to create an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello DrPilk. Your deleted sandbox draft User:DrPilk/sandbox read in many ways like a resume, combines with a brochure or personal profile from a personal web site. It does not cite any independent published reliable sources. Those are key to making a Deep web article work. Text such as The music reflects the emotion of electronic sound made with analogue and digital synthesisers its angular with strangely warm melodies, thoughtfully syncopated rhythms, noise textures to pushing beyond the conventions of techno and ambient music. do not belong in a Deep web articel except perhaps as a quotation attributed and cires to a named person or entity. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

is wiki going down

I heard that wiki needs money because it will soon go down is that true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txgjayjay (talkcontribs) 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Txgjayjay Unless you have a media report to the contrary, I'm not aware of any financial issues that the Wikimedia Foundation has that are as dire as putting Deep web at risk. As a nonprofit, it does operate on donations, but there isn't a particular or extraordinary need for them at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Txgjayjay. You are welcome to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation if you wish. However, the foundation had income of over US $100 million in 2018 and has an endowment of about US $35 million. It is not in imminent financial danger. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

So do references mean that the whole article we cite is about what we put the reference on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysaurasrex (talkcontribs) 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tysaurasrex, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, a cited reference does not need to about the point it is cited for and nothing else. It should contain information that supports one or more statements in an article. If it is unclear exactly what information is being cited, and if citation templates are being used, the |quote= parameter can be used to include a short quotation showing exactly what language supports the statement. If the source is a book, PDF or other paginated source, a page number (or numbers) should be specified to help locate the exact part of the source which supports the statements in the article. See citing sources and Referencing for Beginners for more on how to use citations to sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

How to report editors that censor Deep web- How to block governmental control of information

Hello Wiki Community,

There have been ongoing protests in Iran and over 400 killed. The Islamic Republic blocked the internet for a week so the news are not leaked outside. Some users are actively deleting pages that contain information about the protests. Is there a way to resist such governmental supported efforts to block the control of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmomen (talkcontribs) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Esmomen. Please provide the exact names of the specific articles that have been altered or deleted. Please consider filing a detailed report at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The most relevant article appears to be 2019 Iranian protests which has extensive information about the protests, the casualties, and the efforts of the Iranian government to suppress and conceal the facts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi. How can I edit at least 6-month-old articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge333 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sponge333: With the exception of a small number of protected articles, you should be able to edit any article in the encyclopedia. Check out WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE to learn how. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sponge333: Indeed; there isn't any age-of-article based limitations on editing. Some articles may be protected for periods of time, but that isn't based on the age of the article or when it was created. If you want to edit a protected article and cannot, you should make an edit request on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Judging grounds for reverting articles.

One editor has frequently criticised my writing as appropriate for academic papers but not for encyclopedia articles. He reverted my "Fact-value distinction" on the following grounds (without discussion on talk page): "22 May 2018‎ 131.111.185.45 0‎ Recent changes have turned this article into an essay. Reverted to previous version which represents a better starting point for a comprehensive re-writing." Are there any WP protocols or definitions to which I can appeal against these arbitrary definitions and actions? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

TBR-qed, I see multiple reviews about your edits on the article's talk page. The IP has a point, but the editors who left you their thoughts on the talk page opined that your edits were generally helpful and only had some issues in need of addressing. One of them even linked two pages which they said would help an editor understand what makes an article more like an essay and less like a summary of what sources say. Why not first ask them there, whether they too agree with the wholesale revert, or would they be ok with restoring your edits and letting you work on improving it further to address theirs and the reverting IP's concerns?
Back to your original question, the burden would be on the asserting editor to show that their argument is per policy and guidelines. So, it is they who need to say what exactly, per policy, do they mean when they say it has turned into an essay. Usually the most likely answer to that would be WP:NOTESSAY, and the elaboration on how your contributions might veer into the essay territory and how you can fix that would be in those two pages that were linked for you by one of the editors who reviewed your work on that article. According to WP:BRD, when your WP:BOLD edit is Reverted, you should initiate a talk page discussion as a productive alternative to rereverting and starting an edit war. Thus, the recommended course of action is to ask the IP why exactly they reverted, and what they mean when they say the article has turned into an essay. Could they provide a few specific examples and explain how they could be written better or not written at all? Etcetera. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool TALK  23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone?

Is anyone willing to adopt my Deep web account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumshoe97 (talkcontribs) 00:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97, Try asking one of the adopters on their talk page. See Deep web:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters for a list of adopters. Interstellarity (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The advice was to ask "one of the adopters", but you have already asked several. I suggest you pause for a while to find out if any of those agree. Meanwhile, you might proceed with cautious editing of existing articles that are on topics you have knowledge. Make sure you reference as you add content. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft Page improving references

An experienced editor told me that my references need to work but wasn't very specific about what needed to be done, so perhaps someone could give me some advice on improving my references.

My draft page is /wiki/Draft:Colin_Grubb — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talkcontribs) 02:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FFeldspar, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Several things. A good citation should give:
  • the title of the page or article being cited;
  • the name or title of the enclsosing work (web site, magazine, newspaper or journal) except when the work cited has no enclosing work, such as a cite to a book; (This may be wiki-linked if there is an article about the work.)
  • The name of the author when that is known;
  • The date of publication when that is known;
  • The name of the publisher when that is known, except when it is redundant to the name of the work. For example it adds nothing to say that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Co (as it is);
  • For online sources, the date you accessed and retrived it and verified that it supported the statements in the article.
  • For paginated sources, thre page number(s) of interst.
The cites in Draft:Colin_Grubb are missing much of this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Now let's look at the specific cites in that draft:
  • The first is a Wikiipedia article. Deep web articles are never valid sources.
  • The second does not link directly to the text and video, whoch is at https://www.abc.net.au/gardening/factsheets/behind-the-scenes/10815908 and does not indicate where in the video the cite is pointing or if it is in the text.
  • The third again links to a general summary page, or it may be a slide show, not to the actual text supporting the statement.
  • The fourth does not link to a page that gives the actual name(s) of the winner(s) of the award;
  • The fifth links to a general home page for the show or channel, not to a page that shows specifically what shows Grubb directed and when;
  • The sixth links to a general home page, not to an actual list of the members of the board of directors, nor to a page about Grubb showing that he was on the board;
  • The seventh links to a page which does not show that Grubb was the director, in fact does not even mention his name;
  • the eighth links to a page which is just a summary of the film, and does not give any credits or mention Grubb's name at all;
In addition two sources are just bare URLs with no name given. URLs can change, and without fuller data, can be hard to recover. See WP:LINKROT.
Does that calrify things a bit, FFeldspar? I hope it does. Do see referencing for Beginners for more details on how to do Wikipoedia citations. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

DES for this - so is it better if i just remove the citations if i cant be specific enough? Gardening Australia still exists and because he used to be a producer there I thought i could just link to their page for reference. Also I didn't think it was a problem to link to another wikipedia page when like referring to Colin's brother? Also I have fixed the seventh and eight links - can you check these are correct now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talkcontribs) 00:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, FFeldspar a ping does not work to notify the intended target unles it is signed 'as part of the same edit with four tildes (~~~~) or the signature buttone on the editing toolbar. (in any case all talk page and discussion page posts should be signed in this way. It helspe keep tjhings straight.)
Second, the 7th and 8th cited sources do now go to better locatrions, but they still do not include any title or other publication metadata (title; name of work/website; publisher; publication date if known; author if known; access date). This really should be provided. Indeed in this edit you actully removed the metadata for one source, in the process of correcting the URL. Please don't do that.
Third, you may link to other wikipedia pages, indeed this is encouraged. But you may not cite them as sources, that is, they may not be in <ref>...</ref> tags.
Fourth, a reference source must be quite specific, and must include the actual information that it is supporting in the article (or draft). Best is to ind a source page that does include this information. But for a published movie or video, the credits of the work itself are a source, just as the title and copyright page of a published book are, and as long as enough info is given to find and vioew the actual work, including the credits , a cite can be omitted, or given as "see credits on {name of video}" in the ref tags. But that is very much a second best. It is still better than citing a page that deos not in fac contain the information being supported.
I hope this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft References Help

Can someone look at this and tell me if I did the references correctly? /wiki/Draft:Mista_Roe Jonathandtaylor (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathandtaylor: Thanks for asking, but no, they appear to be mostly or all bare URLs. See the advice given to the questions above yours, and read WP:REFB RudolfRed (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Jonathandtaylor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that the references in Draft:Mista Roe are not really properly formatted. Most are bare URLs, and thus subject to link rot, none seem to give title, author, or date information. See my detailed comments on a different draft in the section just above. But cite format, while not unimportant, is far less important in a draft than finding independent, published reliable sources to suport notability. For example, the IMDB is not generally considerd reliable for much of its content. First get high-quality sources, then learn how to format them. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I think I got it. I am updating them now and I will let you know when I finish. Jonathandtaylor (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@ RudolfRed and @DESiegel Can you take another look at the references? Also do you see anything else you think I need to do?Jonathandtaylor (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I say delete the Interviews section, but curious what others say. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Per the spirit of Deep web does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence, yes. If something in them are useful as cites, use them for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, drop mthe intereveiws section totally, possibly using the links as refs if ther is any statement that they support which fits into the text. Drop IMDB and find a better source for that statement please. And the Discography should be text listing his works with supporting cites, not links to external sites. I made a few minor improvements in reference formstting, including combining two uses of the same source article. I could wish that there was more significant national or regional coverage of the subject. One or teo more signifdicant news storei and this is looking good. Also if there are several reviews with significant comment (good or bad) from reliable sources, a "Critical response" section can be added that quotes or summerizes teh reviews. Note that each must be cited and attributed in the text, Something like: John Jones, writing in Blah Blah Magazine about the album Great Record said "The smnoothest collection of songs I have ever heard, but the rythem just isn't quit4e sharp enough."{citation here} Given that, this is looking close to appoval in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Funding for Deep web

Dear Sir or Madam Why can't Google and other search engines pay for Deep web ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordnova (talkcontribs) 08:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fordnova! See for example Google.org donates $2 million to Deep web’s parent org. They contribute, but being funded by volontary donations is a big part of the WP "style". Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was interesting: "Our research found that the median value that U.S. consumers place on Deep web is about $150 a year—but the cost is $0. That translates into roughly $42 billion in consumer surplus that isn’t reflected in the U.S. GDP." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Fordnova: you could certainly make a case for that, given the extensive use they make of Deep web to fulfil search queries. However, one of Deep web’s founding principles is that the content is available under a Creative Commons license meaning that anyone can use it for free. And from Google’s point of view, having to pay for the content they list in results is a slippery slope which would pretty quickly take them to bankruptcy, I suspect. Either way, it’s probably not really a question we can answer properly here at the Teahouse, as this is more for queries about how to edit Deep web. Hugsyrup 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
See also Facebook donates $1 million to support Deep web. Of course, FB may be less inclined to donate atm. A corresponding worry with large donors is "Ok, but does this mean that they are getting influence or good coverage on WP as a result?". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
"That translates into roughly $42 billion in consumer surplus that isn’t reflected in the U.S. GDP." There was an article recently that discussed how due to the digitalisation, we have so much 'hidden'/'free' value in our economies now, which are not reflected in GDP, that this is one of the reasons that GDP has become so much worse a metric than it used to be. Kind of an interesting dynamic. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect many people would stop participating in Deep web as editors or readers if a large corporation such as Google or Facebook were to start to "pay for Deep web" (as the original question phrased it), since there is an underlying assumption that when you pay for something, you own it, and Google does not own Deep web content (they are free to use it but that is a different thing). It is important that no commercial entity should own the free content contributed by millions of volunteers from around the world who have donated their time. A slippery slope indeed, not from Google's point of view (which I don't give a fig about), but from Deep web's. --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Bonadea, You could've just said you didn't want to purge the comment you already typed, that's a reasonable enough reason to unclose too. Usedtobecool TALK  10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't imagine unclosing a discussion for that reason, and it wasn't why I unclosed this one, so it wouldn't have been true if I'd said that. Maybe move the meta discussion about an edit summary somewhere else, though, if it is important. --bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Page deleted

So I created a page for the technical fest of my college but after being accepted it was deleted. Reason being it's an event but the problem is that there is a category page for these events, /wiki/Category:Technical_festivals_in_India There are 30+ pages of the same kind as my page was and there are some pages with hardly any content. The page that I created has citation and was informational but it got deleted anyway. So, I wanted to ask what exactly is different in those pages and my page... Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talkcontribs) 12:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shoaib Ahmed 00: I can't see your article now it's been deleted, so I can't comment in detail on its content, but the reason it was deleted isn't because it's just an article about an event, but because it's an article about an event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. You can do that by showing that the event has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. As to the existence of other articles, it's best to ignore that - the argument that 'other stuff exists' isn't a good argument for why your article should be kept. It's quite possible that some of those other articles should also be deleted, or maybe they meet the requirements in ways you don't appreciate, but it doesn't matter - ignore them, and focus on making your article compliant with Deep web policies. Hugsyrup 12:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Shoaib Ahmed 00: I have a somewhat alternative view. Examine those other articles (the "good" ones, anyway) to see how they are different from the one in question. Looking at Techfest, for example, it has references to many newspaper articles discussing it in detail. While you don't need that many, maybe three such independent sources that discuss the subject in depth should be sufficient. Also, a short paragraph that compares and contrasts with other such festivals might help both the reviewer, and ultimately the readers of the article, understand how/why the subject is relevant. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about discussion closure

Hi! I am a Deep webn for 2 years and a closure of a discussion is requested on October 2019. However, no uninvolved editor came forth to determine the consensus. On this situation, what should be done? --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 14:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You could resolve it as C, because proponent B/C won proponent A (and others) for the C case, if proponent E, who won proponent D for the E case, and D accept this result (or are not more involved). Clearly A+B+D lost, and for C vs. E somebody would have to check that the arguments for E are not better than the arguments by the C-majority. If D or E object you really need an uninvolved editor willing to read the long discussion. (Teaser for others here, are you interested in SpaceX? I have no clue about the topic.) –84.46.52.57 (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Blatant whitewash of Deep web page

Someone has whitewashed Live India page. Likely paid editing. I don't know what to do in these cases. Can someone please look into it? Thank you. TryKid (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@TryKid: thanks for the heads-up. Yes, a user who was subsequently blocked for undisclosed paid editing had removed some sourced criticism from the article and added some promotional text; I have reverted to the state the article was in before that happened, and then restored a couple of good edits that were more recent than the white-washing. The article may be a bit outdated now, but at least it is sourced and not an advert for the company. Feel free to improve it! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where do I request a Title change.

So This article /wiki/Dayton_Christian_School_System should exist, but under a different name. The Dayton Christian School “System” use to exist, but the system no longer exists, as the school, Dayton Christian School is the only school in the “System”. All the other schools are now independent schools. Where do I request a title change. Also, the article is being kept up to date as of this year, so it is being updated as “Dayton Christian School” and not the system. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You can request a page move(which is how to change a title) at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The first Miss Arizona was my grandmother, Ethel Elizabeth Cole in 1927. I tried to edit the wiki article, but the addtions I typed didn't save to the page.

The first Miss Arizona was my grandmother, Ethel Elizabeth Cole in 1927. I tried to edit the wiki article, but the additions I typed didn't save to the page.

How do I save my edit?

Thank You, Polly Edgerton

How do I save my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.72.50 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you click the blue Publish changes button and that will save you edits. Interstellarity (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, please consider registering an account, as by not being registered, the computer access you are using has an "IP" address 207.231.72.50 that has been involved in many past instances of vandalism to Deep web articles. (This sometimes happens from a computer at a school or library.) David notMD (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of company logo on wiki page

Hello, I would like to use our organisation's emblem on our Deep web page but was notified that I may be violating copyright. I am the creator of the image in behalf of my organization and have permission to use said emblem. My question is how to I grant copyright permission without "giving away the farm"? For example, Starbucks has their logo posted and must have granted a creative commons license, but you can't just use Starbuck's logo in your commercial works without a trademark violation. How does one manage this arrangement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNewhouse (talkcontribs) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

TNewhouse, It is strongly discouraged not to edit about your organization. This consists of a conflict of interest and you must declare this. More info has been posted on your talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi TNewhouse, welcome to Deep web. The Starbucks logo is used according to the fair use provision in US copyright law. Without going into all of the details, this means that a low resolution of the image can sparingly be used on Deep web in specifically for the purposes of providing encyclopedic commentary about the company (you'll notice that the Starbucks logo is used only twice, and only one one article). Starbucks did not release or licence their logo and neither did Deep web seek permission from them to use it; this kind of minimal usage is allowed under US law. As you'll see on the image's page, the logo is not licensed in the way most images on Deep web are, so it is still protected by copyright.
Your question sounds like you are editing on behalf of a company or organisation - is that true? Deep web strongly discourages contributing to articles with which you have a conflict of interest. If you are being paid to edit Deep web, you must disclose this and should read WP:PAID. If you wish to create an article about a company you own or work for, I very strongly discourage you from doing this. Deep web has very strict standards about neutrality, and Deep web may not be used for promotion - if you do this, it is likely that any articles you create will be deleted and your account could be blocked. Also, you username looks like it refers to a company you own/work for? Is this true? Promotional usernames are also disallowed and you could be blocked and required to choose a new username. If your username does refer to a company you are associated with, you can request a change of username by going to WP:CHU. Does this help? WJ94 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I do work for the company I was writing about. This was my first time posting on Deep web and it appears I have made a mess! The article has been deleted and the logo as well. Thank you for your information. I will know better in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNewhouse (talkcontribs) 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Carmen Gentile, confirm receipt

Hello, I resubmitted this article draft for author Carmen Gentile on 11/23 and am awaiting feedback. May I please have confirmation that my draft has been received and is in queue for review. I'm a novice contributor and appreciate the assistance. --Dawnpalmyra (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Dawnpalmyra, Your draft is not submitted for review. You can submit it by clicking the blue Resubmit button and then clicking the blue Publish changes button. Your draft is submitted for review when you see a banner at the bottom that indicates it's submitted for review. Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. The resubmission appears to have gone through this time.--Dawnpalmyra (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnpalmyra: I made some changes to improve the article's chances of being accepted. One thing you might do is add a section about his writing, and use the sources that you had in the external links section. Something like "Gentile has written articles for publications including Esquire, The New York Times and USA Today", and use those article links as sources, but not as inline external links. I left the links in the text but hid them. Books are good to list, but not articles. For example, imagine how long any weekly columnist's article would be if they listed every column they wrote. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Acidentlly made redirects to a draft in Articles

I moved an unfinished page to draft space, however links to the article had been made, and the move created redirects to the draft. Am I supposed to remove this redirect? And If so, how? Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Helloimahumanbeing, I have tagged the redirect for speedy deletion under R2 so there is not much you have to do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget to notify the editor that you've draftified their page, otherwise they won't have any idea what happened to their article. There is a script that automates it: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. I'd also recommend waiting at least an hour between an article's creation and moving it, since those brand new short articles may just be under construction. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Deep web Helpful Message

Hi I Um, Saw The Donate To Deep web Thing, And I Want To But I'm Just A Child So I Cant. But I Hope That Deep web Survives And Keeps Thriving To Give Information, And I Hope The Person, And The Company That Reads This Has A Fantastic Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.90.228 (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, there is no need to donate, and the Wikimedia Foundation has plenty of money as is. Thanks for the kind message :) – Thjarkur (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
There are always other ways to contribute to Deep web, though, such as editing articles and adding more information onto them. Perhaps you can donate your knowledge instead. Thank you for the message, and I hope you have a fantastic life as well! :)) Chlod (talk | contribs) 06:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello World

I was using this in 1970 when I learnt FORTRAN back in 1970 while at Loughborough University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:BB0B:B00:31A9:D5BA:CA36:7C8B (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have sources to add, you can mention this at Talk:"Hello, World!" programThjarkur (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Two existing articles for the same subject

I found that GMO Internet and GMO Internet, Inc. are virtually the same articles? Should one redirect to the other? lullabying (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. Both were apparently created by the same editor, who is no longer active. May be worth considering a merge. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy notice - article has been redirected. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I edited the plot for Child's Play (2019), but it went back to normal. Why?

I just finished editing the plot for the 2019 horror film, "Child's Play". But, why did it go back to normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talkcontribs) 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vincentmacefe: Sorry you had your work reverted, but the reverting editor cited WP:FILMPLOT for limiting the plot to 400-700 words. If you think your summary is better, please discuss on the talk page to get consensus for why policy should be changed in this case. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Language links

How do i connect new pages with the same pages in other languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerVasi (talkcontribs) 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Misplaced quesation movced from top of page into new section. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@SerVasi: See Deep web:Wikidata#New articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nay

Hi, Why my article about the big Egyptian production company Nay /wiki/Draft:Nay has been deleted? I don't know why!! Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se5kofta (talkcontribs) 02:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Se5kofta: As it says there, and also on your talk page, it was deleted due to being advertising or promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability Question on YouTuber

So I think the YouTuber SSundee is notable enough to warrant his own Deep web article. Before I begin finding sources on him, I wanted to get a few people's feedback on if he is notable or not. He currently has 12.7 million subscribers. I know not every YouTuber is notable, but to me, 12.7 million subscribers is notable. Please let me know what you think below. Thanks in advance.Elijahandskip (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elijahandskip. It is impossible to assess the notability of a person without looking for significant coverage of the person in reliable, independent sources. The number of subscribers or followers is utterly meaningless without the required coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
He is, in fact, quite notable, but I don't think he's had much coverage on accurate sources that can accurately describe him. As Cullen said, notability isn't really something that can be assessed easily. If you think he's had enough coverage in the news, then sure, go give it a shot. Chlod (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
There's a List of YouTubers, all notable (at least in theory) under the enwiki idea of notability. If you know somebody on this list, you can check their BLP, and if you have similar reliable and independent sources for your over 12M subscribers person, you can start a BLP-stub. –84.46.52.57 (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

draft review

Hello fellow wiki's!!! Can someone take a look at this article and give me some feedback? Thanks in advance! Draft:Mista Roe Jonathandtaylor (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Jonathandtaylor. My advice hasn't changed much since my post in the section #Draft References Help above. Lose the interviews, convert the Discography from external links to prose in the article, and find and use one or teo more news storeis about Roe, if at all possible. Did you see and note the recent edits by me and by Davidnot MD? Others may have other advice, of course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel you are the best! I did not see the recent edits by you all. I just looked at them and that helps a lot. I will check everything out in detail and make necessary adjustments. Thanks for all your help! Jonathandtaylor (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Finding articles that need proofing for grammar, punctuation and/or style.

Hi everyone,

I often stumble upon articles that really need some help with proofing. Typos etc, but also editing by people who may have difficulties with English not being their native or first language.

Is there a list anywhere of such work needing to be done, or perhaps a place where proof-reader contributors can be contacted for help? I am a retired teacher of English with Latin skills as well.

Cheerypips, Sid.

Sid the Obscure (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There is! The list is here: /wiki/Category:Deep web_articles_needing_copy_edit - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
There is also a list of general community help here: /wiki/Deep web:Community_portal - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
And there is WP:GOCE, the Guild Of Copy Editors, you can suggest an article for copy editing, typically in preparation of a GA (good article) nomination, but some class=B almost ready for A or similar might be also okay (untested, I only tried the GA preparation twice, and got the GOCE help.) –84.46.52.57 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

IP block page error

The content of the IP block page for an organization I'm a part of is incorrect. It renders the article title name instead of the viewer's IP address. I don't want to publicly disclose what this organization is, nor can I find a channel to report this kind of issue. Is there a way I can privately go in depth about the issue?

Thanks, Violet VioletWTF (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi VioletWTF. Please refer to Deep web:Oversight since this seems like something that an Oversighter should be able to help you with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@VioletWTF:
Dear Violet,

Our "Oversight team" received your ticket, however you used an invalid reply address so we could not reply. 

To request an unblock privately you may use the UTRS system:

/wiki/Deep web:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System

Go to that page and click on "Submit an unblock request".  UTRS uses PGP on SSL encrypted pages, and requires ticket responders to authenticate.

Sincerely,
Xaosflux
The English Deep web Oversight team
Direct link: Deep web:Unblock Ticket Request Systemxaosflux Talk 12:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Hey. Sorry if I was unclear, my intent is to **change the text of a block page**, as in the page that shows up when my organization attempts to edit a wiki. The block is correct. The page itself has an error. I can be securely reached at vi [at] violet.wtf using PGP key DE07E177FF03BBA9E54749E6D808BF76BCD9221A. My PGP key is also available in whole at https://keybase.io/violet_wtf. Cheers, VioletWTF (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@VioletWTF: I will email you. My PGP information is here at: User:Xaosflux/PHP. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Stuck in the sandbox

I created an entry for my name. I recently won some awards for a film (noted in national press) and was encouraged to create a Deep web entry. I deleted a personal website linked to my name, Elizabeth Coffman, as I read that could be a problem. I do not see any problems or critical comments next to my entry.

How do I get my entry out of the sandbox and published?Elizabeth Coffman (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth Coffman. I think that before you try to create a Deep web article about yourself, that you might want to take a look at Deep web:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Deep web:Notability (people) and Deep web:What Deep web is not. If after looking at those pages you still feel that a Deep web article can be written about you, please then take a look at Deep web:Autobiography, Deep web:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends, Deep web:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences, Deep web:Ownership of content and Deep web:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Ideally, you should not be the one trying to create an article about you; so, if you're Deep web notable and you really want an article written about you, then you can try asking someone to do so at Deep web:Requested articles or try asking at a WikiProject like Deep web:WikiProject Women to see if you can find someone to write an article about you. Just for reference, your sandbox User:Elizabeth Coffman/sandbox is currently not really ready to be upgraded to an article, but someone might be able to build upon what you've started and create an article out of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Elizabeth Coffman. In addition to everything that Marchjuly posted above, which is spot on and should be read, there's an opportunity to add info about your film to the section Flannery O'Connor#Legacy, awards, and tributes. You could post an edit request on that article's talk page. See Deep web:Simple conflict of interest edit request for info about how to do this. Good luck! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Elizabeth Coffman. While I believe that you likely are a notable person by Deep web's standards, I must caution you about using your real name for your Deep web username. This is permitted - however, to protect you against the possibility of impersonation, you might be asked to send verification of your identity if an article about you is accepted. Alternatively, you could opt to change your username instead. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

David Hobbs

Hello, I have created a biography for Mr David Hobbs from this page NATO Parliamentary Assembly but his name is still red. The biography is still in the sandbox. How do I link it to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idjelassi (talkcontribs) 09:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your sandbox draft is not yet in a state to be published as an article, as it has no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate the subject's notability in Deep web's terms. You ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing the instruction in line1

Been trying to help someone who wants the page under his name not to automatically redirect to his company. LINE1 has hash REDIRECT Company name All attempts to amend get cleared shortly after ? what is the solution please

  1. REDIRECT Columbia Games Grant Dalgliesh is the name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urospin (talkcontribs) 10:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

/w/index.php?title=Grant_Dalgliesh&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urospin (talkcontribs) 11:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Urospin: and welcome to the Teahouse. The title Grant Dalgliesh redirects to Columbia Games because when the article about the person was created, there was no indication of how he was notable according to Deep web's definition of notability. Your attempt to remove the redirect was reverted for the same reason – the only information there was that Dalgleish is the son of Tom Dalgliesh, the founder of Columbia games, and a game designer. All that information is in the article about Columbia games, so it makes sense to have the title redirect there. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Another issue here is the fact that you say that you are "trying to help" Dalgleish, which means that you have a conflict of interest. I have added some information to your user talk page about things you should be aware of, and policies you need to follow, in that situation. --bonadea contributions talk 11:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing out COI I can't see any exists but I heard his exasperation about not being able to edit what is under his own name. I have no interest other than thinking there must be a solution. Does Grant (or I) have to present fully formatted text that adds significantly in matters beyond what is in the Columbia Games entry? My connection to Grant is slight in the least and can't waste too much more time on this myself but would to know the solution now I have strayed into this. As I understand it he has tried unsuccessfully for some time and never been able to get any editing he has done not be wiped clean immediately. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urospin (talkcontribs)

@Urospin: You should direct him to Deep web's guideline on autobiographies, and the essays "Deep web is not about YOU" and "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing", so that he understands why we highly discourage people from writing about themselves. If after that he still genuinely believes himself to be notable per the policy on biographies of living persons, he could attempt to create a draft article with the WP:Article wizard. He will need to demonstrate that he is independently notable by showing evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Nothing based on his unpublished personal knowledge or experience will be accepted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One way to have Grant Dalgliesh no longer redirect to the company article would be to have someone, pereferably not Dalgliesh himself, create a valid article in its place. This could only happen if he is notable. If he is, the 2016 attempt at an article was a long way from demonstrating it. There would need to be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss Dalgliesh or his creative work in some detail. See our guideline for notability of individuals and our guideline for the notability of artists, authors, and other creative people as well as the general notability guideline. Note that merely working for a notable company, working on notable games, or being the son of a notable person are not relevant to a person's own notability. Creating a valid Deep web articel requires significant effort and time.
The other way would be to ptopose that the redirect page be deleted by starting a discussion at Redirects for Discussion (RFD), but I see no obvious basis for it to be deleted.
Merely trying to help someone does not establish a confliuct of interest but we do get a lot of p[eople trying to edit "on behalf" of friends, famnily, and buisness associates where there is in fact a conflict. You can understand why Bonadea raised the issue, I trust. If you want further assitance on this matter, you can respond here. Or Dalgliesh can use his existing account to post here, if he so chooses. If there is private information involed, you (or anyone) may use the "email this user" to contact me -- I am an admin on Deep web and have access to deleted content. But pelase respond on the site unless there is confidential information involved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Urospin: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Urospin If someone is going to seriously work on an article about Dalgliesh it would be possible to have the existing text moved to draft spacve as a startiong point, but I won't do that unless there is a specific request that nindicates a serious intention to work on this and soem understandign of what would be needed to create a valid article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to Post My COMPANY's Info

Greeting! I am really a fan of Deep web and the authentic, free and quality information it delivers to all across the globe. For my company, I am really keen to discover that is there any way or source, I can put a universal details of my company at Deep web? If so, then I am looking forward to the guidance for all people reading this. Thanks in Advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickfitautos (talkcontribs) 10:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Step One. NEVER spam questions across multiple locations. It really winds people up. I suggest no one answers in this thread and all answers are directed to the thread on the Helpdesk. - X201 (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mincho Panayotov, аrtist and art teacher biography - reliable sources of information

What is considered reliable source of information regarding the wikipedia standarts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GYT19701086 (talkcontribs) 12:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GYT19701086 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about what reliable sources are generally; in short, a reliable source is any source that has editorial control and a reputation for fact checking. This is often the media, but can also be published books(on or off line). You may also wish to read the Deep web definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
GYT19701086, I see that Draft:Mincho Panayotov, аrtist and art teacher was declined for being completely unreferenced (there were other reasons for declining it, but that's the most obvious). Within twenty minutes, you had resubmitted it, without making any attempt to address its problems. It will certainly be declined again if it is reviewed while in its current state. No wonder there's a four-month wait for reviews. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Page submission not accepted because it is deemed to be more of an advertisement.

Hi,

I submitted a page, made it factual (at lest I thought so) and referenced it to authoritative webpages. However it was rejected because it was deemed more of an advertorial, which is not the intention. No suggestion was made as to what needs to be changed, which I am more than happy to do so.

Can anyone help on this?

page in question: /wiki/Draft:Sal_Jobe

Kind regards

Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talkcontribs) 13:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Echezuria: Unfortunately page reviewers and, generally speaking, commenters at the teahouse don't have the time to provide detailed advice and feedback on pages. The onus is really on an editor who wants to publish an article to read our policies, understand them, and write the article in a way that complies. We'll happily point you towards policies and advice, as the comment on your draft did, but that's probably all you can reasonably expect. To give you a bit more help here, just from reading through the first couple of paragraphs of your article, it's written in a way that comes across as more promotional than encyclopedic, for example phrases such as: "he turned his talent to acting", "Having a good understating of the sport, a sport he played from primary school," and "Miller was given the opportunity of his career" do not sound like language I would expect in an encyclopedia. The inclusion of unsourced information about his company is also likely to have flagged up to the reviewer as being potentially promotional. Hugsyrup 13:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


Thank you syrup - I did read and follow the policies (so I thought) :-(( Will take your valuable comments into account and re-draft. I do however think that if an article is rejected, highlighting why it was rejected does help, rather than being too generic in the response. Once again, thank you for your valuable help. Echezuria (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echezuria (talkcontribs) 13:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Echezuria: You're very welcome. And I understand what you're saying - it's a common complaint, but you have to appreciate that right now the backlog of unreviewed articles for creation stands at 3,449. If reviewers (all of whom are volunteers, remember) had to give detailed feedback on each article, we would not have a hope of ever keeping up with demand let alone reducing that backlog. We give general reasons for declining articles, along with links to policies and essays that have lots of helpful information, and we then rely on editors to do the work themselves in making changes and improvements. Hugsyrup 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Echezuria Note that the IMDB is usually not considered a relaible source (with a few limited exceptions) because users can change its content with limited oversight, and should not be cited as a source in Deep web articles or drafts. Note also that interveiws with the subject of an article are not independent sources. They can be cited, but do not help much if at all in establishing the notability of the subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DES. Will look for different sources. Having said that, the information is factual, nonetheless will look for another source. Still, I am very surprised as IMDB is an Amazon company. Echezuria (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How you use an archive.gov pdf for a source

Is there anyway to use https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10133.pdf as a source for an article? --Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: technically, sure - it can be cited like any other document. But bear in mind that it is a primary source and therefore should be used with caution. We are more interested in what secondary sources have said about this document than what the document itself says, and you certainly should not base an entire article on a primary source. Hugsyrup 14:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Dylan Wruck

Hi Zamekrizeni I don't understand why you keep putting your own opinionated comments about injury to Dylan Wruck's profile. No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile. So I keep changing the profile fit with the other profile of Professional player I read on this sight. I would appreciate if you would delete the comments that you put on his profile about his injury and the part about him going to Canada to rehab this has no bearing on his accomplishment as a athlete.

It seems as you have a personal issue here in which you need to overcome and instead of looking up articles that verify what was written by people that know the above person and his background of accomplishment. Something the non administrator can not do and it is not easy to leave notes on this sight. I have tried to leave you notes to verify the edits and looks like some of the other administrators has found the stats , from the 2009 U17 tournaments and other edits. I will leave it up you to remove what I have ask you to do. You know it is the right thing to do as again no other hockey professional has anything about injury his his profile this is not a injury report and a place to put personal edits from a journalist who has been taken out of context -with the return to Canada thing not sure what is so important to you to have that in there. Again Please remove Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.6.50 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@198.169.6.50: I think you may be posting in the wrong place. If this is aimed at Zamekrizeni you are better off posting on their talk page, or else on the talk page of Dylan Wruck, which I assume is the article in Question. The Teahouse is for general questions about how to edit Deep web. Hugsyrup 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hugsyrup Please remembver that pings don't work for unregistered (IP) editors. One can use a Tehouse talkback instead (as I have now done).
IP Editor, I endorse Hugsyrup's advice, but would suggest posting to the article talk page, perhaps with a ping to the user in question. Remember, pings must be signed to work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-doing on Question of Notability of YouTuber

Scroll up for extra information, but I have found 6 sources (More probably, just a quick search found 6 reliable sources) for the YouTuber Ssundee. With 12.7 million subscribers and sources about him/his channel, would that make him notable? /wiki/Draft:Ssundee_(Youtuber) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talkcontribs) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: First off, you can reply under the original section rather than creating a new one. But the short answer to your question is 'no'. Social Blade and Statsheep track YouTube stats but they do nothing to establish notability because YouTube stats do not equal notability; Wikitubia is not a reliable source because it is user-generated content; the same goes for teamcrafted.fandom and UrbanDictionary. Please read our policy on reliable sources carefully. You would need to find coverage of this individual in reliable, independent sources such as newspapers, journals, or published books. Hugsyrup 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I would add that the reason subscriber numbers are not an automatic indication of notability is that they are easily gamed; it is not difficult for someone to make more than one account in order to subscribe to a certain 'YouTuber' and boost their numbers. Donald Trump Jr. just had the Republican National Committee spend money to buy his book to get it on the best seller list, for example.[1] 331dot (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Having 100, 12.7 million or 1 billion subscribers does not, in itself, make someone notable. You might as well forget about using that statistic as a benchmark of notability.
Repeating what Hugsyrup said, the first three sources you list are just statistics on this person's YouTube channel. They do not discuss the person behind the channel in any meaningful way.
The last three sources you list are self-published sources, where the content is generated by the sites' users. This disqualifies them from being reliable. Blogs, wikis, social media or any site that consists of user-generated content won't count as a reliable source.
Therefore, the sources you have do not establish this person as notable. You need to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (e.g. mainstream media) to do that. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

how to prevent / reserve some pages for some time from editing by other users

Hi, I along with NGOs volunteers want to put Bangalore lakes precise details in Deep web. So far, we can see that very few lakes in Bangalore were having dedicated pages. Whatever exist are not in good shape and needs to be fixed with better contents and citation. We have some 30 pages to work upon and in between we wish that no other users should edit those pages.

So, my question is - whether preventing those pages from editing by other users is allowed / possible in Deep web or not?Bharat1 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Bharat1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are not protected from editing merely to prevent other editors from editing them, as this encyclopedia is editable by anyone. There must be a specific reason like intractable vandalism or edit warring in order to protect a page from editing. If you want to attempt to prevent others from editing the article while you have edits in progress, you can add {{In use|time=~~~~~}} to the top of the article(as seen when viewing this page, not in the edit window for this page). If you want to draft a new article, you can do so in your personal sandbox(User:Bharat1/sandbox) and that should reduce the chances that others will edit it. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Avoid posting as "we." Each registered account is supposed to be to an individual. If a group of people are interested in a topic(s), then each can register an account. As 331dot stated, once an article is created, anyone can edit it. If you want to work in private, then in personal sandbox. David notMD (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Bharat1 note that even in a persoinal sandbox, other users may and sometiems will edit, although they normally will not do so without good reason. But no one owns or controils any page on Deep web at all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
However, one can place {{Under construction}} to request other users, on a temporary basis, not to edit a page, and such requests are usually honored if the time involved is not too long. Follow the link for more details on how to use this template. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis Drake article

Hello Teahouse hosts. When reading the Francis Drake article, I see significant sections that are not adequately cited. I believe they are egregiously lacking citations and should have an appropriate message on the talk page to indicate such. However, I am unfamiliar with the proper process to do this.

I have found what I believe is the correct template. You can see the template to which I refer HERE. I am glad to post it myself it that is acceptable. I would like others' thoughts, those much more experienced than I, regarding the matter. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

On your user page I inserted a template for when a section is lacking citations. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Getting an article to be semi-locked.

I have began a news article which is notable and a hot topic in American News. /wiki/CNN_Lawsuit_2019 I would like to get it semi-locked before edits fly in. How do I request that. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, Won't happen without good reason. See WP:PP MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Elijahandskip: Deep web is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so locking an article simply because you think lots of people will want to edit is rather counter to how we do things. Lots of people editing an article is usually a good thing as it often means it rapidly improves. And remember you do not own an article just because you created it. If and only if the article is subject to persistent vandalism, you can request to have protection applied. Hugsyrup 19:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Understood. I wasn’t thinking like an editor and I had the mindset of owning the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Too late! I have already edited the (very, very, vey) short article. I expect others will contribute, and the article will be improved thereby. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I suggest you change the name to Nunes lawsuit. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It has been moved to CNN v. Nunes. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Is that in accordance with the naming convention for lawsuits in the USA? In the UK they are named as plaintiff v defendant. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The US convention is not rigid, but Plaintiff vs Defendant is the usual naming convention. This is probably backwards, and none of the sources I have read give this style of name, nor have I seen a trrascriptt of the actual suit yet. But this probably belongs on the articel talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Nunes v. CNN (plaintiff v. defendant is standard and logical, though there are likely some exceptions (IANAL)). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Stub vs draft article

Kia ora Wiki editors,

I am committed to improving coverage in Deep web in specific subject areas. I have a lot of resource to hand of legitimate sources (ie. piles of books), and some time on my hands. I am very new to editing for Deep web. I have been adding citations to other articles, but I am now ready to be creating new articles.

What are the advantages and disadvantage of creating an article or a stub? I have one article in my sandbox, but it is not ready to go yet - can I have more sandboxes? I think maybe I can create draft articles but this is a bit hazy about how to actually do this. I have connected with my regions Deep web groups and had a couple of face to face sessions which have been great, but not formed quite enough relationship to bug them with my questions.

Do people recommend new editors creating stubs or spending longer and getting articles together? The definition of a stub does seem a little hazy. When do I decide it isn't a draft anymore? Could I invite specific editors to give feedback on a draft (and how do I do that? how do I use a talk page!?) or is it just fine to throw it open like I have with a recent article.

Many thanks, Pakoire (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pakoire and welcome to the Teahouse. You may create as many user space drafts, or pages in draft space, as you please. For example, a draft about "NewTopic" could be at User:Pakoire/NewTopic or at Draft:NewTopic. You can create such pages by searchign for the exact page name, and when the Wikipedi search engine does not find the page, it will provide a link which you may use to create the page. Personally I would advise agaisnt creating stubs if the sourced information at hand permits crearting a full article. I would also advise agaiusnt creating new articles directly in article space even stubs. Use a user page or a draft page to get the basics doen and sourced first, then move the draft into mainspace. You can use the Articles for creation procss to get an experinced editor's review first, but that does involve a wait. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Pakoire: I'll add that, in addition to searching for the exact title you think should be used, please take some time to search for other articles that may already exist about your subject. Often, people will go through the trouble of creating a whole new article when the subject is already covered in an article with a different title. This happens a lot with articles about people, especially when their names are not originally "English" (i.e., because of different transliterations) or they are known by "stage names" or other pseudonyms. Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Can a redirect direction change?

On the topic of the term makerspaces & hackerspaces. These days, though apparently there is a debate if they are differing things, the term makerspace is much more widely utilized and this can be even be seen as viewed by google trends keyword 'makerspace' compared to 'hackerspace'. Here on Deep web the term makerspace redirects to the page hackerspace wherein the terminology is conflated between the two.

Is it possible to have hackerspace redirect to makerspace and the content of hackerspace moved there, or to split the two and remove the redirect completely (although some of the information would then become redundant though would need to be replicated)?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TribeEng (talkcontribs) 22:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TribeEng, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, either of those is possible. In general a redirect can always be changed to point to any relevant article, or be converted into an article. However, it is usually best to obtain consensus of intersted editors by posting on the existing article talk page, and inviting discussion of the proposal. People may have different ideas, or perhaps no one else will care. Requested moves describes the procedue in soem detail. To move over an existing redirect may require an Admin, the RM page tells how to list a request for such assistance, once consensus is clear. See also WP:SPLIT. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing a joint biography about two brothers into two independent biographies

My grandfather is in a joint biography with his brother.

Is there a way I can give my grandfather an independent biography? Obviously it would involve removing his name from the title of the existing article--can that be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1480:89FD:110A:5D60:69CD:16D3 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be easier to help you if you told which article you were talking about. What you ask is certainly possible, depending on the situation. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Donations

I used wikipedia on on my phone earlier today and was asked to donate. I made a donation and even set up a monthly donation but now using wikipedia on my laptop and being hassled about donations again. I know it's probably because I don't have an account with wikipedia but that's my choice not to have an account. Anyway you can help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.238.181 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Deep web - and thanks for donating. I don't believe there's anything you can do to stop those banners when you log in as an IP. Once you create an account, the donation banner doesn't come up, and you can opt out of other banners. Onel5969 TT me 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Hello. While I don't have a suggestion for you (other than registering an account, which is usually quick and simple), while waiting for someone to offer another solution, I just wanted to thank you for your donations. Face-smile.svg —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It is certainly your choice to have an account or not- but if you decide to not have one, you will need to accept what comes with that decision. If you have an account, you can turn off the banners- along with other advantages. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to join others in thanking you for your donation. Deep web is a wonderful thing and it relies on generous people like you to exist. If the requests keep showing up, take it as an opportunity to bask in the glow of thinking "I already have done; you're welcome." You certainly don't have to make an account here if you don't want to. If you do, we'll be delighted to have you, and if you don't we're grateful anyway. › Mortee talk 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

how do you become a template editor? Gumshoe97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Registered Mark Question

I have a question. A few days ago, an editor asked to have a draft (since deleted as G11) reviewed, and User:John from Idegon said, among other things: "First, lose the registered mark symbols. We do not use them." As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I occasionally review a draft that has registered mark symbols, and I have always said to get rid of them, because their use is promotional. So John and I are in agreement that the symbol should be deleted. However, I have not seen a guideline that explicitly says not to use them. Is there such a guideline, so that I can point to it the next time that I encounter a draft that uses them? (I'm not surprised that the draft got deleted, but that isn't the issue.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again

I was also wondering, how do you change the "(talk)" button near your username after your posts, to something fun, or creative? Gumshoe97 (talk)