Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cullen328, a Teahouse host

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237

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

Bottom infobox

hello. i have a simple question. those things at the bottom of articles, those tiny boxes that have related articles displayed in an order, whatever it is they're called, how do i make one/ add things to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give us an example of what you're talking about? Which article, & what does the box include? Are you talking about categories? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill cage. It sounds like you might be asking about navigation templates (also known as navigation boxes). If that's the case, you can find out more about them at Wikipedia:Navigation templates. If that's not what you're referring to, then please clarify what you're referring to (perhaps by providing a name to an article where it can be seen) so as to make it easier for others to try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes the navigation boxes. i am attempting to create one on the page Bill Weld. Bill cage (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill cage, as you see Bill Weld has a whole stack of those at the bottom, though they're collapsed so one has to click "show" at their right edge to see what's in them. Creating new ones are possible but probably very complex, but you can indeed add stuff. They are actually their own WP-pages. See the 3 tiny letters at the left of each, VTE? Those are links, E is for edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well you see, i'm attempting to create one for weld himself. granted, there is'nt all that much that would be placed there Bill cage (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, like you can see at Mitt Romney? I don't know anything about Weld, but I think several articles focused on him would be required for this to be a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well i like just like to be prepared. if he becomes president, then it will likely be made anyway, so i think we should get it started now. Bill cage (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill cage: He is unlikely to become president and he already has a sidebar {{Bill Weld series}}. I don't see a need for adding a navigation template with mostly the same links for display on mostly the same articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok firstly that's just your opinion....actually that's all i had to say. Bill cage (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i still have'nt gotten a legitimate answer. how do i create a navigation box? Bill cage (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Navigation template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't really know if the information that Bill cage would be putting into the navbox is redundant until we have seen it. About the question raised, when I have to make these kinds of boxes (sidebars, navbars) I often look at the pages that have them and copy the codes accordingly. For example, if you want to make one for the Bill Weld page, you can look at the Source Editing interface of the Mitt Romney article. Find the part beginning with this:

{{Navboxes

|title= Articles related to Mitt Romney

You can copy this section and just replace the linked pages. See if it will work for you. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried creating it but it did'nt turn out as a navbox. why? Bill cage (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested on the text-over-image photo

Can someone with more experience provide Feedback on the text-over-image photo at top left of Mount Lyell (Canada) and its use in 3 other pages, like at the bottom of Walter Peak (Canada). There's confusion over Walter Peak especially - Google Earth has it as a major peak (it's on their site even if you go up 200 Kms) while the much larger and somewhat higher Mount Lyell isn't even noted (a search actually points to Walter Peak). I'm asking because it's my first attempt at something that isn't straight photo or straight text (I'd be willing to try again if it's deemed substandard... I'm used to Photoshop and could do a better job of it - this is done with the GIMP which is the only thing I have now). TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrettA343. I think your placement of the image in Mount Lyell (Canada) is not really a good idea per MOS:SANDWICH; so, perhaps it would be better to move it somewhere else. However, that's not the only thing I noticed. The file also seems to be basically the same the main infobox image; so, I'm not sure how relevant it is encyclopedically to the reader. One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's read by all kinds of people from all over the world, including those whose might be using devices other than computers or might even be visually impaired in some way. This is one reason why there are things like MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES. There seems to be information about the different peaks in the article which is supported by citations to sources; so, I'm not sure why another image is need for that. Moreover, your image could be considered to be a sort of image original research since there's nothing to verify your addition of the text to the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Marchjuly... Let me take this one at a time, because your response surprised me (I was only expecting problems with the quality of the image). The [[:MOS:SANDWICH}} issue says "most images" and sure enough, most are to the right. I suggest that an exception here is warranted because there's related text right next to it but someone new to this mountain will benefit from a visual clue (a pic is worth a thousand words and all that). And as I said, there's gross confusion about these peaks, partly because WP has been calling Walter Peak a 'mountain' and anyone who reads the references knows it's thought of as a mere subpeak (Mt. Lyell is the mountain, here.) And without clicking on the Info box image, it's difficult to tell whether the peaks are 1 through 5, r-l of l-r as they are numbered N to S in actuality. Also, lots of articles have left-placed photos.

Re the MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES, I guess I see this image as an additional visual clue, to save sighted users time and ambiguity about these peaks (again, a pic is worth a thousand words). As far as original research and verifying, if you read the references closely enough, you can likely come to the same conclusion but I see this as a timesaver. Also, many books use this technique where there are multiple peaks in an image and it's difficult to describe which is which. Anyway, I just wanted to get my ideas out, but if you read this and still disagree, I'll move it or delete it - your choice (I would like to keep it for a couple of weeks until I can get Google Earth to fix their end, but I won't push). BrettA343 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the file with the additional text cannot replace the one in the main infobox? It seems to provide the same information as the one currently being used there and the captions for both files seem to be quite similar and using one image would resolve the sandwiching problem.

As for "original research", it's not really our role as Wikipedia editors to interpret reliable sources for others as explained in WP:SYN; so, if the peaks are laid out and clearly described in the cited source(s) using that particular image as you've done, then that's OK to reflect in the article and perhaps in the image; otherwise, at least in my opinion, you need to be careful here and not try to assume how other are going understand or interpret sources.

Finally, as for there being "gross confusion" about these peaks possibly due to what's written about them on Wikipedia, that's unfortunate and the Wikipedia articles should only be reflecting what reliable sources are saying about them per WP:RSCONTEXT; if reliable sources are calling them "subpeaks" then that's what the articles should reflect. At the same time, if reliable sources aren't in agreement as to whether they're "mountains" or "subpeaks", then perhaps that properly cited content about that disagreement should be added to the articles;t Wikipedia, however, shouldn't be taking sides and used (even unintentionally) in an attempt to try and resolve such problems as explained in WP:RGW. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS and shouldn't be written to be treated as one even though I do understand that many people out in the world often see it as one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you might try doing (if you already haven't) is asking about this type of thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains since that's where you're liking going to find other editors who share you interest in this subject matter and have experience working with articles related to mountains, etc. It's possible that what you've done or what you're describing in your posts are things which have been tried by others or which have been discussed before. Asking for help at a relevant WikiProject can often get you more specific feedback than you'll get at the Teahouse since Teahouse hosts might not be very familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Marchjuly, there's a number of reasons why I wouldn't use the file with text in the infobox: 1. It doesn't take in much more than the subpeaks and a bit of the glacier while the Mt. Lyell massif is so much more. 2. I disagree that the captions are similar for the main reason that the existing infobox photo also has 5 Columbia Icefield area mountains (and I recall one moderator - or whatever you're called - saying that identification of other features was a good thing for WP). 3. As a photographer, while the zoomed in text-image serves its purpose of identifying the subpeaks, it doesn't do as well to represent 'Mt. Lyell', and it's not (subjectively to me) as pleasing a composition as the current infobox image. 4. I don't think text markup has a place in an infobox image that will pop up in all sorts of external links; i.e. for people who know the mountain, it's rather redundant to see on every mouse-over. 5. I asked a mountaineering friend whom whom I did the Lyells if he thought that image was useful to people who don't know the mountain, redundant with the text or something else, and he thought it was useful (and he's already run into the Google Earth problem re Mt. Lyell and Walter Peak). No, I'll remove the text image, but I won't use it in the infobox (but now that I've given away rights, I guess you could ;-).

I'm not sure I get what you're saying with the 'original research' issue. Most sources clearly identify all 5 and mention that they were named from N to S, but when looking at them in a photo, it's difficult to tell which is N and which is S (I just want to clear that up).

I agree it's unfortunate, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google Earth (GE) used WP as a verification (and the problem is compounded with a GE photo of some humongous mountain mountain captioned 'Walter Peak'. I've seen them called 'summits', 'peaks' and most often 'subpeaks' (always 'of Mount Lyell'), but WP is the only place I've seen or heard them called 'mountains' (and then, only Walter Peak'. So I'm not taking sides, I'm using what the sources say or imply - it's whomever updated Walter Peak who 'took sides', IMO.

OK, I'll try the mountain project, but I don't want to beat this thing to death... If I can't get it resolved soon, I'll just delete the text-photo (I might wait a week to see if GE can be brought on board to correct their images (of mine, BTW) to go with the right mountain, if that's all right (I'll write GE today). BrettA343 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel more comfortable, Marchjuly, I asked my two regular mountaineering partners the same question as noted above about the text-over-image photo being 'useful', 'redundant' or 'something else', and they were both positive about it, as well. And re joining the Mountains Project, do I just edit the members list and add my name? I did a Find on 'join' in that page and none of the 4 hits were links to join (or is Nick Moyes a better person to ask? Also, I have got a related post into Google Maps, so I hope that clears their end up (I could elaborate if you want, although I've done a bit of that above). BrettA343 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for feedback on the image and that's all I gave as part of my being WP:HERE. You don't need to make me feel comfortable or get my OK on this; you only need to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're satisfied that you are and (more importantly) that the consensus of other members of the Wikipedia community is that you are, then that's all that matters. If anyone (myself included) disagrees with either assessment, then they can challenge it per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One thing I would suggest, though, is that you should be careful with trying to solicit advice from those who don't participate in Wikipedia (or those who are not really familiar with editing) when it comes to things Wikipedia. Many persons may be considered WP:EXPERTs with respect to a particular subject matter, but their opinions aren't automatically given any special weight on Wikipedia; so, trying to discuss things on Wikipedia by saying "so-and-so from outside Wikipedia said it's OK" is not typically going to carry much weight with other Wikipedians when it comes to discussing Wikipedia content; you're better off showing how something meets (or doesn't meet) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than "outside standards".

You can freely "join" or "not join" any WikiProject you like; there is no official requirement that you have to be a member of a WikiProject to edit certain articles and there is no official form which needs to be completed if you want to join one. Some projects have a "sign up" list on their page where you can add your name if you want, but this is just a way of letting others know your interested like adding you're name to a "mailing list". Some projects have a userbox that you can add to your user page if you want, and this will add you're name to a category page where other members are listed. You don't, however, need to formally declare yourself to be a member to participate in the project or ask questions on its talk page. Some projects may have more members and may seem more organized, but all projects are basically the same: they're places where editors who share an interest in some subject matter and an interest in Wikipedia editing can discuss and exchange information as part of being WP:HERE. If you and your friends are interested in editing Wikipedia and improving its coverage about mountains, etc. then WP:MOUNTAINS is probably where you're going to find others who share both those interests.

I think this post is growing beyond the scope of what's typically discussed at the Teahouse which is why I suggested you ask for the feedback of other Wikipedians at WT:MOUNTAINS; you don't have to do that, but I'm not sure what other suggestions I can give you here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA34: Sorry I'm late to the party. I think Marchjuly has given you some really excellent and detailed advice (as they always do here), and there's little for me to disagree with. My take (on a quick read through of the above thread) is as follows:

Images with annotated details can' be very helpful, as I commented earlier. Your numbering is helpful, but not in the way you've done it, I'm afraid. See Goûter Route for a subtly-labelled imaged used on that page, or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pano_from_Aiguille_du_Midi_03.jpg for an alternative approach. Thje former is subtly labelled - your current version is not, I'm afraid.
Your annotated image on Mount Lyell (Canada) virtually duplicates the wider image used in the infobox. I suggest you subtly label that one and remove the close-up, labelled view on the left side of the page. It's current layout position doesn't seem to conform to how I would expect a left-justified image would normally be placed
The text labelling of that image is not good - especially the massive text running over the glacier which doesn't label the glacier, but labels the image. That text should go, and appear within the caption, in my view.
There's no need to include 'click for details' in captions. All thumbs need to be clicked for their content to be clearly seen. That can go.
Ensure that image filenames and descriptions are clear and easily understandable by those with no knowledge of them.
I would reorder the text in the article to describe the Lyell subsidiary peaks from 1 to 5, not 5 to 1.
There is no indication of the heights of any of the five subsidiary peaks within the Mount Lyell complex. Can you at least indicate which is the highest, please, based on reliable sources? The mountain seems rather akin to an old friend of mine, the Monte Rosa group - the second highest summit in the western Alps in Europe, where it is variously referred to as a mountain, a massif, a group of distinct mountains, or a range.
I have restructured the Mt Lyell article contents - could I ask you to check that I haven't introduced any accidental errors, please?
I see no need for three maps in the infobox - they just serve to confuse. Two should do. There is, however, a way to offer a radio button to the user to select which level of map they want to see. Offhand, I'm afraid I've forgotten how to advise you how to achieve that function. I can investigate if you need me to.
Walter Peak is labelled as peak 4 on the Mount Lyell (Canada) page, and on your Wikimedia Commons file, but as peak 1 in text relating to the same image used on the Walter Peak (Canada) page. But on the latter page you've compounded problems by incorrectly put the image in the 'External links' section, and the text description is really confusing to me, as, indeed, is the description you placed on Commons. Clarification of image content should always go in the caption on Wikipedia, not in the article, as well as further detail being within the Commons file description.
If there is genuine confusion about which peak is which, my view is not to attempt to include it. Personally, I care little about what Google maps or sister projects say about places. I use real maps and believe what the cartographers and official mapping institutions say. (you could include a footnote to highlight current confusion or published mapping errors by Google, providing you cite reliable sources to begin with)
The geology section of Mount Lyell states the rocks are sedimentary, without saying anything more, such as whether they're sandstones, oolite, chalk, limestone or a host of other alternatives. I'm assuming they're sandstones, but 'Precambrian to Jurassic' is a vast time period - so which period does the 'Lyell formation' belong to? (According to this, we're talking about late Cambrian carbonate rocks. Can more information be provided on this?

I hope at least some of this is of help, even if it all comes over a bit critical. These issues can all be fixed though, and should improve the articles you've been working on. My apologies for any typos in this reply - blame it on the lateness of the hour here. (I'm in UTC). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BrettA343 as I mistyped your username in my reply. (Had you created a userpage for yourself, I'd probably have noticed the erroneous redlink, sorry) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Nick Moyes. There's a lot there. I'll be back at'cha ASAP, tomorrow for sure. I've been so busy mod'ing articles and adding photos and it didn't seem to be causing a problem for me. I did once Google 'Wikipedia.org create user page' but didn't get any hits I thought looked relevant (lots of hits, though). Sorry, I'll try again. BrettA343 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of your critique (and your use of “you”) applies to whomever set Mt. Lyell up before as I didn’t change things like the sentence structure dealing with peaks L5 through L1 (I did put in the numbers and put them in sequence – the peaks were randomly ordered in groups of 3 and 2 before and not in the same order as the people they were named after), but assumed that whomever did it initially had a valid point in dealing with the supbpeaks on the border before the 2 only in Alberta (I’ll change it based on your complaint). I also didn’t put in the 3 map choices but disagree with you, here. Whatever map you cut out (Alberta or B.C.) will irate readers in that province I think and for the one extra line, I don’t think it’s worth it (so I won’t change that, but you can).

Re the annotated image not being subtle, that was a conscious decision so people wouldn’t have to open it to see the peak numbering. That, and the fact that unlike a route, not much information is needed for its purpose. I’ll take your advice and remove that pic but I won’t mess up my infobox pic with labelling (if I was doing a route, labelling seems appropriate). Meanwhile, I put the image sown next to the text related to it. Can I at least wait to delete this image until my Google Earth input is no longer ‘Pending’, please?

I’ve noticed that most photos (or a lot of them) from other people that I’ve seen on WP don’t have detailed descriptions, hence my ‘click for details’ (there was space for it in the caption, anyway), but I’ll avoid that in the future, on your recommendation.

Your request to at least put in the highest peak is interesting and topical because it depends on which reliable sources one cites for the highest. My 1985 copy of the Bible in this – the American Alpine Club / Alpine Club of Canada ‘Climber’s Guide to The Rocky Mountains of Canada North’ – and currently used topo maps – e.g. here: https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Lyell-Canada/photos - and the WP-used Peakfinder.com site all have:

• Edward Peak AKA L2 (3514 m), as the tallest (3 m above central Ernest Peak AKA L3 (3511 m)). WP has no article for L2 (I’m working on writing one as my first article).

But…

• WP has L3 at 3498 m (just checked in August but now it’s 3511 m, too) and Mt. Lyell at 3504 (they’re the same geographic point by different names according to most reliable sources!). None of my sources has Lyell at 3504 (except WP).

• Bivouac.com has L2 at 3595 m, but all my sources say 3514 (again, no L2 Article on WP yet).

• Bivouac.com (and WP) have L4 at 3448 m, but all my sources say 3400 or 3401.

So, the WP-used ‘reliable site’ – Bivouac.com – seems to be one source of the confusion: it has Mt. Lyell (and thus L3) at 3498 and L2 at 3595 (still a 3 m difference, but in the other direction… It looks to me like whomever updated WP last updated WP heights used the odd-man-out – Bivouac. I’ve been waiting to get the L2 article in and clear it all up (and probably asking questions), but you Nick Moyes have forced my hand to get the data earlier in response to your post. But what it also looks like is the central L3 is marked as Mt. Lyell by most sources, NOT the higher L2. The AAC/ACC book avoids putting a height for Mt. Lyell, FWIW, and instead the following page lists all 5 subpeaks and their heights. So, do I use the highest peak for your request (L2), or the central peak (L3), or use both and differentiate them in the text (my preference, but only for Mt. Lyell / L3 and L2). And I’d avoid using Bivouac.com heights for other peaks unless a call to the ACC in Banff could clear things up by say, confirming that Bivouac.com is correct.

The ‘Geography’ heading is interesting because I don’t remember one on any of the pages I’ve worked on and consistency of presentation for WP seems like a reasonable thing (and I’m not prepared to rip apart all Canadian mountain articles just to add ‘Geography’). Not only that, but IMO – and I could well be wrong, here – the geography didn’t change in 1972 when the peaks were named after early guides instead of just L1 – L5, so I think that para should be back where it was, in the intro. The same thing with the 2nd sentence pointing out use of ‘the Lyells’ as a collective name. That’d leave 2 sentences for a heading (‘Geography’) that seems not to be used much for Canadian mountains (doesn’t seem worth it from my POV). Whether that’s an ‘accidental error’ or not is up for you to decide, but I think it should be changed back (however, I’ll leave it as is now that I’ve looked up ‘Geography’ on WP ;-)).

I can’t find my use of Walter Peak as L1 (I see 'Lyell 4' and 'L4') – could you be more specific or just change it, please (it’s clearly an error). As far as the use of an image in ‘External Links’ I recognised it was incorrect, but have seen many examples of an image below the text and it doesn’t seem worth putting in a ‘Gallery’ title for one pic – what do you recommend, please?

Personally, I do care about incorrect data, and I especially care about incorrect use of my photos, no matter where either are, so in that, we just differ.

I’m doing things at WP that I can do quickly with the resources: photos and books I have, and I’m not prepared to add info right now to ‘Geology’ when someone else – perhaps a geologist – has already done it (unless it’s quick and I have the resource, like for the ‘Lyell Formation’). I’m sure I could take time to expand all manner of text, but I’m doing things other than WP as well and haven’t the time or usually the resources to expand every section on every mountain (and again, I think consistency in presentation is a good thing). Plus, I, for instance, wouldn’t have recognised the importance you place on rock composition when most of the whole mountain by the normal approach is glaciated, anyway, and I didn’t have to touch rock to summit it. If, after I get done with photos and text or layout that I find obviously problematic or wrong, I’ll consider other sections.

On another topic, thanks again, Nick, for setting up my userpage :-). I read how to do it and the do’s and don’t’s, but still wasn’t sure where it went. BrettA343 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: When I next get a chance to sit down at a proper pc and keyboard (rather than this miniscule phone) I'm going to paste our discussion thread over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains and respond to you there. Not only might it be of interest to those Project members, but I fear the thread here at the Teahouse will get archived before I get a chance to consider my reply. I will 'ping' you from that page as soon as I can in a few days. Am rather tied up with real world affairs right now - sorry. But just to say one thing: I wasn't trying to tell you what to do; rather, was just giving my perspective on what I think is good for visitors to see in any article. To keep Wikipedia enjoyable, it's important to contribute only as much as one wants to (providing it conforms to our guidelines and style), rather than feel obligated to solve every issue that past editors should themselves have addressed. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright restrictions

I have copied a photograph from the web. https://thumbnail.myheritageimages.com/288/193/288193/500/500004_321803m8c23zy5h0g1ai82_C_398x570.jpg It derives from the web site https://www.myheritage.com/search-records?action=person&siteId=288193&indId=1000037&origin=profile. Am I right in assuming that I cannot add it to my draft AfC, even though the subject of the photo died in 1901? Also, would the source be acceptable in terms of reliability? BFP1 (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

Hello again, BFP1 a photo does not need to derive from a source which would be reliable for citation as long as it is reliable enough that we can trust thait it is not faked or mis-described, and I think this source is at least that reliable. If the photo was published before 1901, or indeed before 1924, it is public domain under US law. Since it was taken before 1901, there is a reasonable chance (but no certainty) that the photographer died before 1950, and so the photo would be PD in all countries which use the life+70 rule, that is most countries. I think it might reasonable be uploaded to commons with a claim of PD due to age. If commons objects it could probably be used on en.Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, but tht can't be done while then page is in draft status. There is no ciopyright claim on the source page, but that is not definitive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DESiegel, Thank you for your reply which I have just discovered. It is much appreciated. I will try uploading the photo to Commons. If it is successful I will not add it to the draft, but wait and see if it is accepted. I'll give feedback. Regards BFP1 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

It has been blocked. In case I have made some mistake in the procedure, I have copied the question to the Commons Help Desk. Regards BFP1 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

This is the reply I received. 'Hey BFP1. Unfortunately, without additional information it's hard to say. Wikimedia Commons does allow upload of very old images where the date of publication and the author are unknown, but in order to meet this the image must be at least 120 years old. Since we know only that the image was created 1901 or earlier, this image falls short of that by a couple of years. If we could find the source for the image in the site you reference, we may be able to adjust that, and demonstrate that it is suitable for upload here. GMG ^talk 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)' As I can't verify an earlier date for the photo, could you direct me to where I could check/get guidance on the fair use option? Sorry to be such a nuisance. Regards BFP1 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1[reply]

I've found the guidance I needed. Thanks BFP1 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)BJP1[reply]

@BFP1: BTW, on a totally cosmetic note, you don't need to type your username after the ~~~~; that's apparently why you're getting the duplicated name. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, 120 years? Given that William Oliver lived in England and there's no record of him travelling outside the British Empire, can't we assume that British copyright law applies? (The man in the photo doesn't seem over 77, I'd guess it was likely taken before 1899, but that's a separate argument.) I wish there was some way to get in touch with R. Oliver, who presumably uploaded the photo to My Heritage, to find out more (not just for copyright but also authenticity). Pelagic (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagic and BFP1: since Wikipedia is, in effect, published in the US, US copyright law always appliues, but Commons wants content that is free of copyright everywhere. In this case, UK law is as much of a problem as US. The photographer, not the subject, owns the copyright unless specific arrangements to the contrary are made. Thus under UK law, copyright lasts for the life of the photographer, plus 70 years, not the life of the subject plus 70. If the photographer was young, say 20, in 1900, s/he might have lived another 60 years or more, dying in 1960 or later. 70 years after that is is 2030. Under US law if the photo was published before 1924, it is now in the public domain. But if it was never published, it could have a copyright of 120 years from the date of its creation. The editors on Commons take a cautious approach, particularly when the source and copyright holder are not known. This might be uploadable to en.wikipedia as a fair-use image. (Commons does not accept fair use, because not all countries recognise it, it si a strictly US legal concept.) But that will ahve to wait until the page is out of draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interestng discussion Pelagic and DESiegel. If the page gets out of draft AfC I will try the fair use route. Thank you also from AlanM1 BFP1 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to translate a draft into an article

Hello, how do I change this draft (Draft:Samarkand economy and service institute) to an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I'm Olimbek Zayniddinov. I've submitted a Draft:Samarkand economy and service institute, This draft is written about one of the institutions of Uzbekistan, How do I post a draft to an article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Olimbek zayniddinov, and welcome to the Teahouse Draft:Samarkand economy and service institute is not even close to being redy for the main article space. There are several problems whoch would need to be fixed. Specifically:

The draft currently cites no sources at all. To be a valid article, there should normally be multiple independent professionally published [[WP:RS|reliable sources (not blogs or personal sites, and not the institutes own sites, and not based on press releases) that each cover the institute in some detail. This is the main way to establish notability. See our guideline on the notability of organizations.
The second paragraph of the lead section of the draft seems to be just a list, in prose form, of the topics the institute covers, with no detail. This is not helpful.
The sections "Faculties" and "Departments" are just numbered lists with no details of what these do or how they are organized. If there is no more than this to say about them, leave them out.

All these issues would need to be corrected before the draft could possibly be approved. If it were moved to the main article space without review, it would likely be moved back to draft or deleted. Please don't submit this for review before fixing the above, especially the source issue. It would only waste the time of all involved.

Please read all the linked pages above. Please also read Your First Article and referencing for Beginners if you plan to work on the draft.

I note that your account has made no edits to this draft, but Ozaynddinov has made several. Is that perhaps another account of yours? If it is, please see Using Multiple Accounts

I hope this is helpful to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have edited this article: Draft: Samarkand economy and service institute, but it has not changed when the article changes. Sorry if my questions are inappropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is still totally devoid of references, so would not be suitable to be published as an article. It is also overlinked. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a new article by deleting this project (Draft: Samarkand economy and service institute)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep creating a new section on the same subject. Just click the edit link at the top of the section. There is no need to delete the existing draft; just edit it to resolve the problems. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please tell me what is wrong with the edited draft, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 11:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how long is this draft (Draft: Samarkand economy and service institute) published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a button on top that you can click on to submit the draft. Don't forget to add reliable secondary sources to the article before submitting. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still no references. No references will result in declined. Once submitted, most drafts are reviewed within eight weeks, but some longer. (The list of to-be-reviewed is in the thousands.) David notMD (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting an IP for Vandalism

Is there a way I can report an IP whose contributions are Vandalism only? Example: 92.148.164.112 Sub |_HMU 09:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subwaymuncher Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can report vandalism to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sub |_HMU 12:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Snippet

How much time it takes to feature Wikipedia information in google Snippet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnajannu69 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Google is already showing a snippet from Wikipedia, it can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 days for it to reflect the latest changes here. If Google isn't showing a snippet, then that's just something Google's algorithm has decided and is unlikely to change soon. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect photo

Hi there, I have come across a page that has the incorrect photo listed... it won't let me change it and I don't know what else to do haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellecroft (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What page is it? – Thjarkur (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Castle

The photo was originally captioned as 'first edition'... it let me change that to 'second edition' but then I figured, the photo should probably be changed to show the actual first edition for people.

This is the reasoning (with sources): The picture shown is of the second edition of this book. ‘Almost all editions of The Blue Castle lack dust jackets. The true first edition, does not have a castle on the front boards, it was added after Montgomery commented on it, "Not so pretty. A plain cover." http://lmmontgomeryliterarysociety.weebly.com/collecting-l-m-montgomery.html The same information can be found in the book: A Collector's Guide to L.M. Montgomery Firsts. [Charlottetown, P.E.I.]: F. and J. Lechowick, 2009

Here's a photo of the actual first edition:

It's on my bookshelf and it has been approved by the L.M. Montgomery literary society as a true first. It is very rare which is why this may be helpful to see an actual picture.

(I apologize because to non book collectors this may not seem a big deal haha) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellecroft (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear as to why you're unable to upload the image - I should note the caption has now been appended to read "second edition"; however, since you have a good source regarding its publication history, and actually own a picture of the first edition, I'd encourage you to upload an image of the first edition to the article.

Also - if you feel you can improve the article, please do! I'm going to add a tag at the top indicating it's mostly a plot summary - if you have any good and referenced information on publication history and the like, I'd encourage you to add it to the article under a new heading.

You mentioned that you're a book collector; that's great! We always need people with niche interests to fix up the little articles in that area of interest (I'm one of those people myself!). If there are any other pages you feel you could improve, I'd encourage you to do that as well; I hope this helps. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniellecroft: done. You don't need to overwrite the original BlueCastle.jpg. Since you've already uploaded the image under BlueCastleFirstEdition.jpg, just have it display the latter image rather than the former. Thank you so much for the correction, and happy editing! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352:thank you:)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellecroft (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Prophet Muhammad PBUH

Some pictures depicting Prophet pbuh are uploaded on His wiki page. It is disturbing for Muslims. Please remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.36.55.187 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Frequently Asked Questions box on Talk:Muhammad for a fuller explanation, but in short, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. If you create an account, you can suppress the display of images that might offend you. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Suppress" meaning you will not see the images. The images will still be part of the article. David notMD (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

How are my edits? SpyChase808 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SpyChase808 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits so far are in my view rather less than perfect, but you are new here and should be able to learn.

When posting about a future event, please be sure to WP:CITE a reliable source as per WP:CRYSTAL (but then Kings Island timeline is woefully undercited, and that is hardly your doing).
Please do not mark as minor edits that add (or remove) content, Minor edits are ones which fix spelling, grammar, or formatting errors, or otherwise leave the meaning unchanged, and which no editor could plausibly question.
There is no point in asking here about your rights on another Wiki, particularly one that is not even a MediaWki project.

As long as you are doing your best to improve the project, and are willing to listen, you should be fine. I have posted a welcome message with some helpful links to your talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay SpyChase808 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get rollback rights?

How can I get rollback rights? I tried to add a request and it was denied. The reason was to request rollback rights was so I can use Huggle. I can revert vandalism and even welcome new users. Cheers! Central Time 301 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301 You may visit WP:PERM. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Even when I tried, it says declined. Cheers! Central Time 301 16:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you posted a request to WP:PERM/R(the specific board to request rollback). 331dot (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Most recent denied request was here, which also links to the previous one. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check it out now, because I posted a request 331dot. Cheers! Central Time 301 17:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301 request now declined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CentralTime301. It's good to be enthusiastic, but you're going to have a hard to convincing other editors that you should be granted the ability to do things like "roll back", etc. when your user talk page is pretty much filled with nothing but warnings or concerns about your edits, etc., many of which were posted by administrators or other editors who lots of experience when it comes to editing. You've been editing for only a few months so maybe it would be better for you to better establish yourself as a reliable editor before requesting permission to do certain things. You don't need to have special tools or user rights to be WP:HERE, and editors, especially fairly new editors, who focus too much on getting such things tend to viewed more cautiously by those who have the ability to approve such requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Self-Advertising (G11) Check Requested

Hello Teahouse Editors,

I've been working on an article that I have a conflict of interest with, which I have been careful to disclose on my User page. Prior iterations of the article have been marked for speedy deletion under G11, but after talking with some very kind editors, they've allowed me and some colleagues to continue working on the draft.

Can I politely request another set of eyes take a look at the article draft, Draft:GraphBLAS, to give me their honest opinion on whether it reads like an advertisement (or would otherwise not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia)? Any other feedback and ways to improve the article would also be greatly appreciated. I'd like the article to be similar to those of the LEMON (C++ library) and Basic Linear Algebra Subprograms, since they are similar technologies.

Thank you so much in advance! --ScottKolo (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ScottKolo, and welcome to the Teahouse. I lookeed over the draft. I don't think it is now particularly promotional, nor do I think that G11 applied when the tag was placed. Neither, apparently, did the reviewing admin. I wouldn't worry about that. I do have some concerns with the draft which I will state below, but overall I think it looks pretty good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cite Graph Algorithms in the Language of Linear Algebra. But this is a book, and a page reference should be provided. If you intend to cite only the online abstract, that should be made clearer in the citation. — DESiegel 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

I have now added page numbers. --ScottKolo (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cite the IEEE "Standards for graph algorithm primitives" But this is a sizeable work, and a page reference would be helpful, perhaps a quote as well, using |quote=. Moreover, this source requires registration to view, please show this with |, to notify the reader. — DESiegel 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

I have added an arXiv link that does not require any registration, and added a quote. As for its size, it is less than two pages. --ScottKolo (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Linear Algebraic Foundations" should ideally include a citation to a source for the math involed. An offline text will do, with page numbers. — DESiegel 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

The Mathematical Foundations of the GraphBLAS reference is meant to be that. I have also added a textbook reference. --ScottKolo (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft needs a few more Independent secondary sources cited to help full establish the notability of the specification. — DESiegel 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

I have added three additional news articles and a few more journal articles further backing up some of the text. --ScottKolo (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope those comments are helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Thank you so much! I've done my best to address your concerns and improve the article. I've also cleaned up the edit window by converting several references to named references. I hope it's getting close to submission quality! --ScottKolo (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is looking significantly better, ScottKolo. I think it is worth submitting to get into the review pool. Note that you can still work on the draft while it is waiting for review. A couple of points:

When the author(s) of a work are known, please include them in the citation. I have done this one one cite as an example. — DESiegel 23:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

I have added author lists to references where they were previously omitted. Thanks for the example! --ScottKolo (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources is an Independent source tht discusses this specification in some depth, say at least three parageaphs devoted to the topic? There really should be at least two such sources cited. There are now several independent sources, but all seem passing metions, not indepth discussion. see WP:SIGCOV. — DESiegel 23:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

Given the technical nature of GraphBLAS, it's hard to find content that goes into that much detail that isn't written by a GraphBLAS contributor. Here's what I could come up with for independent not-written-by-a-contributor sources that give more than a passing mention:

The first is written by a research lab press office who, to be fair, has someone on staff who has contributed to GraphBLAS, but the article was not written by a contributor. I don't think it's fair to flag it as WP:PRSOURCE, given that the focus of the article is very much on GraphBLAS and its history, rather than simply back-patting. The second is an interview with a contributor, but written/conducted/published by an independent entity (ACM), thus not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." There are many academic papers, tutorials, and presentations on "What is GraphBLAS?" but they are commonly written by contributors to the spec or authors of implementations - those are of course not Independent.

As you point out, there are several clearly independent news sources referencing GraphBLAS, but they generally only give a passing mention to it. I think I'll go ahead and submit the article as you suggest and continue to build the case for notability in the meantime. Thank you again for your ongoing help! --ScottKolo (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those can be dealt with, I think this should easily be approved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottKolo: It's generally not a good idea to insert comments into the posts of other editors like you did above with your responses to what DESiegel posted. Not only can it make thing confusing for others trying to follow the discussion, it can mess up the formatting (e.g. WP:LISTGAP) or make it seem as if a post was left unsigned. I understand that some online forums do commonly do things is such a way, but it doesn't work very well on Wikipedia and it's better to simply add your response below the other person's. If, however, you are going to do this type of thing, you should try and use Template:Interrupted when you do, so that others are at least aware of what's going on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I'll be sure to not do that anymore. Thanks for putting in the Template:Interrupted tags. --ScottKolo (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what to do when a reference internet link is not working?

In the article on Jan Fredrick Wiborg is a reference to an article in the California Aviation Org but this web page no longer has that article. The web page may have been hijacked by bad people or it may be that the CAA stopped paying for the site or maybe the CAA just decided to redirect the site to only be information about Chinese drone products. But in any case it no longer has the article mentioned relating to Jan Fredrick Wiborg. I can't understand how to edit the page to alert readers that they don't want to click the link. I find the link to be distrustful and would not want to visit it. How do I edit to make this correction? The reference is in the page already but it takes me to ^[1] Ruth Berge 22:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC) rberge0108 or <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rberge0108 (talk • contribs)

Courtesy link: Jan Fredrik Wiborg

Hi Rberge0108- first thing I normally do is check if there is an older version of the page saved by one of the archiving sites, like the Wayback Machine. In this case there was, so it was possible to fix it. It should now direct to a saved version of the original page. There is more information on what to do at WP:DEADREF- if you cant find another version of the page. Curdle (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rberge0108, You can find a detailed answer to this, with steps, at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1030#Archives PGN/ Gloria Casarez It describers the process which Curdle just helpfully performed on the article, and described briefly here. Don't forget to add or adjust |url-status= please. When the link still works but goes to a compeltely different page, as user, use |url-status=unfit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rberge0108: Reference listings appear at the bottom of a page by default (see WP:Citing sources). So if you use a reference when adding a section to the bottom of a Talk page or a page like this, the reference will appear right after your material as soon you preview or save the page after adding it, and that will look right. But as soon as another section is added, your reference will stay at the bottom of the page, after the new section, which is the wrong place for it.

The solution is to insert the template {{Talkref}} where you want the footnote to appear, at the end of your section or just before your signature. That template will capture your reference and display it properly, under a heading "References", and it will not stay at the foot of the page or be picked up by someone else's "Talkref", as your footnote did in my most recent post here, #Tag for outdated announcement?. So I have just added {{talkref}} to the bottom of this section, to capture and display your footnote in the right place.

Oh, and please always sign your posts on talk pages or pages like this one (but not articles) with four tildes: ~~~~. They will be replaced by your "signature", i.e., your username, with links to your user page and talk page and a date-time stamp, like mine here: Thnidu (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.californiaaviation.org/syma-x20-drone-review/>

Is there a maximum accepted length of a Wikipedia article?

I tried checking in the Manual of Style, but I must have missed it.

There probably is a point where an article gets problematically long, but is there an agreed-upon cutoff? How is it measured? Maximum number of sections? Character count? TangoFett (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TangoFett, Check out WP:AS. Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about using references

Greetings, I have a quick question about the use of books in references. I see that most books that are put in them, are Google Books. Does this mean Wikipedia doesn't allow books which are not in Google Books to be used as a source of any kind? Well I don't think Wikipedia will allow me to use some random blog that mentions books on its page, but will it let me use books as references if they come from another reliable web platform if it is not Google Books? Prana1111 —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prana1111. There is no policy or guideline that says that a book that is not catalogued in Google Books is not allowed or unreliable. Similary, the fact that a book is catalogued by Google Books does not mean that the book is a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Google Books tries to be a comprehensive catalog of all books, good and bad, and they do a pretty good job of it. They have scanned about 40 million of the estimated 130 million books. That site is especially helpful because you can find all of the bibliographic information needed to cite a book right there. But it is up to you to assess the reliability and suitability of any specific book yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prana1111. Just to add to what Cullen328 posted above, links to Google Books are done more for WP:CONVENIENCE reasons than anything else. Reliable sources are only required to be published and accessible for Wikipedia purposes; they are not required to be online and can still be cited as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. It does, however, make things easier for others to verify when the source can be found online so links allow the source to be checked can be helpful. Anyway, when people are adding links to Google Books, they are citing the book, not Google Books, as the source and it's the suitability of the book as a reliable source which needs to be assessed. Convenience links can sometimes be a problem when the linked-to website is questionable, etc., but in such cases the link can be removed and the book simply cited if you sure that it's a reliable source and it's used in the proper context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would add, Prana1111, that Google Books can be very convenient when searching for sources, but it often does not find the best sources, or the needed pages may not be included in its available view. People willing to take the time and trouble to cite from a physical book in hand, provided it is a reliable source, add to our articles in ways that those who stick to what can be found online may not be able to. Note also that sources need not be in English, although when an English-language source is available of comparable quality, it is preferred. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing tutorial

Hi, I just want to ask how the editing is done?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifeputi (talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeputi, Bonjour et bienvenue à la maison de thé. If you are looking for a tutorial in editing, the Wikipedia Adventure or this tutorial could be what you're looking for. Interstellarity (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another dumb noobie question: messaging

Hi folks. Is there a way to send a private message to another editor, not on their "talk" page? Thanks, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, CharlesGlasserEsq. Some but not all editors have email access enabled, which will show up on the toolbar on the left side of their userpage. There is no "private messaging" that is part of the wiki software. This project is based on transparency and openness, so email communication should be limited to specific situations where confidentiality is essential. Examples include dealing with child safety, death threats and other similar situations with significant legal implications. As an administrator, I sometimes get emails about situations that should be discussed openly, and I always encourage those editors to discuss the issues right here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for your time, and have a great week!CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq[reply]

@CharlesGlasserEsq: it's definitely better to communicate on-wiki for most purposes, as Cullen328 said. Still, if you should decide to use the email feature, you should read the WP:EMAIL policy page, so you know what to do and what to expect. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article submission

Please experienced editors Help me check my article Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2. Is it good enough for submission . If not, what should I do? Taymeedeeray (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious problem is that most of the references are from the channel which aired the show (so not independent), and that many sections are totally unsourced. If you can't find sufficient independent sources the answer may be the one which you received earlier, that the season may not justify its own article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to translate a draft into an article

Hello, I have edited this draft (Draft: Samarkand economy and service institute) but it has not moved into the article field — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olimbek zayniddinov You've basically asked about this already above at WP:THQ#How to translate a draft into an article and have received a number of responses. So, please refer to that discussion for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were also told not to keep creating new sections on the subject. I wonder whether perhaps English is not your first language and you are struggling to read the replies? If you have trouble understanding English, you may be better editing a Wikipedia in your own language; see the list at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A) you have not submitted the draft for review. B) the draft still has no references, which means it will be declined. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: A) He had submitted the draft for review, at 07:18 UTC this morning, despite having received advice not to do so. B) Correct. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent vandalism of a Wikipedia page - please help!

Hi there,

I would be extremely grateful if somebody could help me please. I work for a school and our page has been consistently 'vandalised' by a couple of users (or maybe it's just the same person). At the moment I am just playing cat and mouse up. I delete what they say, then they put it back up again. One is a registered user, the other isn't so it's just IP addresses. I am pretty IT literate, but am finding trying to navigate Wikipedia pretty difficult in terms of trying to find out what our options are. I would be extremely grateful if anyone could walk me through what we can do please.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrewsbury1865 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury1856 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you will need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to change your username, so that it reflects that a specific individual is exclusively operating your account(role accounts are not permitted). You don't need to use your real name. You will then need to review conflict of interest and paid editing as you have some formal declarations to make.

Regarding your question, you seem to have reversed the vandalism that had occurred on the article about your school(I would guess that it was a student or students). If vandalism is a habitual problem, you can request that the page be protected against editing from IP users at WP:RFPP. You can report specific instances of vandalism to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Artist's Page

Hello,

I am Ali Shahbazi, Music composer. I'd like to know how can I creat my page on wikipedia.

I already created a page on sandbox, But i dont know how can I change it to published page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shahbazi (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali.shahbazi Different people will tell you this with different levels of sarcasm, but generally, it's a bad idea to attempt to make a page about yourself. Please read through the policy page, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to learn why. Airbornemihir (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali.shahbazi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to be confused about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place like social media for people to write about themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy.

What you have written is more appropriate for a social media page and would not be accepted. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources, sources unrelated to you. Most people find this difficult to do. Wikipedia does not have "pages"; it has articles about subjects like people. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable, either, there are good reasons to not want one. If you truly feel that you merit a Wikipedia article and think that you can write it yourself, you should use Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can, however, have a page at EverybodyWiki – their policies are different from ours. Pelagic (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility of deleted contributions

I'm aware that deleted contributions are restricted to being viewed by admins, but I've sometimes been able to see a listing of deleted pages created by a user on an Xtools application (example). I was surprised, therefore, when I came across an ANI report on a long-gone user, of no interest to me other than that their contributions were not visible on Xtools. What do you think explains the difference? Airbornemihir (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Airbornemihir: The edit count page shows that they created no articles. They had 23 edits to pages (they did not create) deleted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: OK, it seems like the explanation was a lot simpler that I'd have thought. Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new movie to the upcoming movie list

Im unable to add Psycho tamil movie directed by mysskin to the upcoming movie list. Could anyone help me out how to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotta (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

asking what teahouse about ?

Hey!what is this Teahouse about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaden innocent mthwane (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Thank for invite me guyz!! I really pretiate your invitation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaden innocent mthwane (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaden innocent mthwane:. Welcome to Wikipedia and to The Teahouse. This is a board where you can ask questions about how Wikipedia works, how to edit, etc. Other users, most of whom are quite experienced here, will give you answers. And just a tip - please 'sign' your posts by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of your post. That inserts your username and the date/time you posted, which is very helpful for other users. Hug^syrup 12:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox format problem

I'd be grateful if someone would look at my edit today to Template:Muskingum County, Ohio and tell me what I've done wrong, causing my addition not to display. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. The parameter names should be title1, body1, title2, body2, etc. You'd typed "list6" instead of "body6". Maproom (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mother-Tongue Editing

Hoi folkies! (This is my 3rd question by the way)

I am a bengali, I know bengali. I want to edit a page to show what a bengali word actually means. May I do that? Or do I need sources or something?

Sincerely, BrightSunMan (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrightSunMan, This would be more appropriate on Wiktionary. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi BrightSunMan, welcome back to the Teahouse. Sometimes it can be appropriate to add a translation of a word to a Wikipedia article, but often it is not – which article are you thinking of? And yes, in general you should always have a reliable source for information you add. More info about that here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea Thanks! The page I am mentioning is this page: section 2.3, where it says 'deb is a honorific name' whereas 'Deb' actually in bengali means 'deity'.

Adding a photo

How can I add a photo in any article of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iufragknr (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a broad question, here's a broad answer: Wikipedia:Images. However, random images you find on the internet can not be used, since they are almost always copyrighted (in the wrong way for our purpose). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on draft page

Hi all, I was wondering if I could get feedback on a page I'm working on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Carpentries

The page was initially removed under speedy deletion under A7, and I'm hoping to improve on this so it will be published. I've added a number of external sources outside of the organization, but am wondering if these will be enough. I'd appreciate any guidance the community can provide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkerplus (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Punkerplus, and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at the cited sources in Draft:The_Carpentries. Most of them seem to be from the project itself, or from people or organizations clsoely associated with i, particularly funding it. None of the rest seemed to offer any in-depth coverage. It doesn't look to me as if notability had yet been established, please see our guideline on the notability of organizations. Additional independent coverage from published reliable sources that each discuss the organization or program in some detail is needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading an image to the common wiki files

I would like to know how to upload an image to the common files without having it taken down for copyright violations? The picture that I am trying to upload belongs to a public figure and is already available to the public through their social media channels, however it was removed right after I uploaded it, the editor that commented on the thread alleged that this picture was not free for use even if it is already public, however the owner of the image has expressly authorized the use of the image. What can I do to re-upload it without having it removed by another editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDelgadoDKM (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Available via social media is not good enough, copyright law is trickier than that. The owner must upload it themself to commons or release it with the right licenses, see WP:DONATEIMAGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining a Conflict of Interest

I am writing my first article on the National Herbarium of Guinea.
After a previous discussion on here it has been decided that I should declare a conflict of interest as, although I have no direct connection with the subject myself, my partner works with them on one of their projects. Neither she nor the organisation asked me to write the article, it just seemed like a good subject for my first foray into Wikpedia, but both have provided me with information. So to declare this COI I have added the {{Connected contributor}} tag on the article and the {{UserboxCOI|1=Herbier National De Guinée}} on my User page.
My question is where and how do I explain my connection to the organisation? Can an explanation be added to the tags or does it get written in plain text on the my user page and/or the article's talk page?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipikeia (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wikipikeia. The important thing is that you make a good faith effort to be open and honest about your connection to the subject. Despite the way it might seem sometimes, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we work more on common sense than we do about strict adherence to rules.

In terms of conflicts of interest, for the most part we are talking about people who have financial interests in the subjects about which they write. Yes, you may technically have a conflict through your partner's association. But lots of editors start out contributing to areas that are closely related to them personally, things they've studied, local landmarks, people they've met. The really important thing is that your goal in contributing is to create a neutral and useful educational resource, and not primarily to promote the subject, to work on behalf of readers, and not on behalf of the subject. GMG ^talk 15:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipikeia, and welcome! The approach you have now on your user page (i.e. explaining your interest in the context of a pages-I-have-created list, and mentioning that you had consulted the Teahouse) works really well. Best wishes, Pelagic (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are tags?

I see the use of the word several times on Wikipedia but I'm not 100% sure what they are. Do they come automatically or is there something you need to click on in order to use them?Prana1111 (talk) 9:00, 11 November 2019 (CST)

Hello Prana1111! Tags mostly refers to stuff here Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, it can be a "banner" at the top of an article or section, or small inline stuff like ^{[citation needed]}. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Prana1111. When people talk about tags, they're normally talking about the notification on articles and sections that serve two primary purposes. First they alert readers that some content might not currently meet Wikipedia standards, and so they should consider this when relying on the information there. Second, they automatically add the article to various lists of article that need cleanup work for whatever reason.

You can find a list of these tags at Category:Cleanup templates. There are a few automated tools that help make adding these easier, but you can also add them manually into the Wiki markup. So for example, if you find an article that reads like an advertisement, you can just click edit, and add {{Advert}} to the top of the page, and the tag will display at the top of the page once you hit publish. GMG ^talk 15:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prana1111, In addition to the cleanup templates described by GreenMeansGo, the term "tag" is often used for other templates which insert more or less temporary text into an article, particularly the speedy deletion templates such as {{db-a7}} and {{db-g12}}.

Somewhat confusingly, the term "tag" is often used for HTML elements enclosed in angle brackets, such as <ref>...</ref>. It all depends on the context in which the term is used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prana1111, tags can also be the seen in revision history like "Tags: visual edit, mobile edit, PHP7". Those are added automatically and seem to be used for statistical analysis on various aspects of the MediaWiki software. Sorry, I don't have a link to a more detailed explanation on hand right now. Pelagic (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am I engaged in an edit war?

So, I came across this article, Tauthali, which was tagged for issues. I did what I thought was cleanup and left it in the best shape I could without actually getting invested in digging up better sources and expanding the article. Contrary to my initial impression that the article had degraded over time, it now appears that it was actually maintained that way by an IP-hopping anon editor. I reverted their attempt to revert my cleanup a couple of times already, and now I am wondering if I'm in an edit war instead of just protecting the article. Doesn't their version need to be plausibly acceptable for it to be content dispute? I don't know because I have never worked in areas prone to a lot of challenges from other editors. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you are, Usedtobecool, albeit a mild one and with good intent. Lets see if I have the sequence of events corect:

You made a number of changes to Tauthali which you felt served as cleanup to improve the article.
An IP editor then made a series of edits which were not exact reverts but which undid many of your changes, and made a few new changes.
You then reverted the IP's edit to restore your cleanup changes.
The IP editor then reverted your reversion.
You then re-reverted to restore your cleanup changes.

Neither of you made any talk page comments, nor even anuy descriptive edit summaries.

Back-and forth reverting, and the IPs changes, while perhaps not good, were not blatant vandalism. Yes that is an edit war. Please don't revert any further without discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think the IPs edits truly constitute vandalism, make a case on the talk page. If you think the IP is being disruptive enoguh for a block, report on WP:ANI or ping me to the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.

FWIW, your preferred version is much better. It does not have absurdly large images, and all the text is in English. Maproom (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DESiegel and Maproom: I have left my rationale at Talk:Tauthali. We'll see how it goes. An uninvolved user showed up, from RCP I imagine, and reverted them in the meantime, so I feel more comfortable going forward. Feel free to look it over and suggest improvements (lest we get started on the wrong foot, or if I have unknowingly given an IDLI argument or sth), or join in, if necessary, if you can. Again, many thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale looks good,Usedtobecool. I have left a talk back on the IP Editor's talk page sugesting posting to the article talk page. We will see what happens. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted draft

plaease help me how to submit a draft for review.‎Draft:Samarkand economy and service institute, or how can I know if it's sent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 9:10 pm, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Olimbek zayniddinov:Hi greetings welcome to teahouse. You can submit a draft by adding this template--"{{Submit}}" on the top of the page. Also don't forget to sign with four tildes-- ~~~~ after your posts. --PATH SLOPU 16:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's already submitted and under review, which can take days to months. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Olimbek zayniddinov: Unfortunately, though you have added "references", they are really just poor footnotes, not a record of which sources you used for the information in the article. For this reason, it will be declined. See University of Central Asia#References for an example of what a reasonable attempt at proper referencing looks like (though it still should have more independent sources, and fewer cites to the university's own web site). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article with the same name

Hello. I have created an article in my sandbox titled: Karl van Beethoven. He was the nephew of Ludwig van Beethoven, famous for the bitter custody battle between the composer and his sister-and-law, Johanna van Beethoven. I would like to move it to the main space, however; when one enters "Karl van Beethoven", it re-directs to his father: Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven, who is sometimes referred to as "Karl" (and also "Kaspar"). How do I move the article to the main space, create the name "Karl van Beethoven", and remove it from "Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven" ... or better yet, how do I place a link: "This article is about Karl van Beethoven,the nephew of Ludwig van Beethoven. For his father, see Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven." as a header? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maineartists, without commenting on the suitability of subject for an independent article, the way to convert a redirect to an article would be to get to the actual redirect page and clicking on edit. To get to the redirect page, when you enter the subject's title and it redirects to another article, there should be a link at the top saying (Redirected from Karl van Beethoven). If you click that one, it will take you to the redirect page. Or, you can click "what links here" on the left side bar of the article that the title redirects to. The redirect page is listed there and also takes to the actual redirect page without redirecting to the target when you click the title there. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use {{about}} template to add distinguishers that you ask of, to the top of the article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Usedtobecool! This is very helpful! Best, Maineartists (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, how do I set up a new page for a recently new UFC athlete/ entertainer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JabanB85 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JabanB85, Wikipedia is not social media, so we can't set up pages for just anybody we would like to. We write encyclopedic articles on subjects that meet our notability guidelines. WP:MMANOT has detailed information on what's likely to make a fighter notable. Please read that page, go over the independent reliable sources that you can find which cover the life and career of the fighter you want to write an article about, and if you think the fighter passes the notability criteria, you can start working on a DRAFT. If you have a connection with the subject (personal, professional, financial, etc.), please review our conflict of interest guidelines at WP:COI. It's likely it's WP:TOOSOON to write an article if the athlete/entertainer is very new like it appears they are. In that case, we'll need to wait for the person to become notable enough to deserve an article. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I invite contributors to improve a page?

Hi there, another than the RfC, what are the other ways I can invite independent, reliable editors to an existing Wikipedia page so they can help improve the page's quality? --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KatherineBusby2019: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The Village Pumps are for discussing Wikipedia's internals, not the content. If you wish to find people to help you on a certain page, WikiProjects are usually the best way to find some. Check the page's talk page, oftentimes there are banners there indicating which WikiProjects are interested in this topic. Regards So Why 16:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Thanks for the support! --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I've filed a WikiProjects Council proposal here. Would you recommend doing anything else? --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KatherineBusby2019: I don't think there is any basis for a Project dedicated to a subject with only a few articles. What I meant was to ask specific existing WikiProjects to help out, not propose a new one. That said, the language you use suggests you might have a conflict of interest with these subjects, something you should declare. Please also be aware that the Terms of Use require paid contributors to publicly declare that and by who they are paid to edit Wikipedia and failure to do so will result in being barred from editing Wikipedia. Regards So Why 14:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: The COI has been declared. When you say "existing Wikiprojects" do you mean adding a note on the Talk pages of say, Wikiprojects Companies? Thanks for your guidance. KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Hello! What should I do if i spotted a dead link and haven't found a substitute? Should i delete it and add a citation needed notice or just delete? Thank you! --Less Unless (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a reference, as distinct from an external link, you'll find advice at WP:DEADREF. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless To summarize, you should not usually just delete such a link, because it can be helpful in finding an archived version or a replacement. The possibility of links going dead is one reason why information beyond just the URL should be supplied for citations, such as the date, the access-date, the title, the author when known, the name of the work or site or the publisher, and so on. But do read WP:DEADREF for a fuller explanation. If you want to fix the issue,see Help:Archiving a source and see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1030#Archives PGN/ Gloria Casarez where this issue was discussed in some detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the fastest way to find templates?

Greetings once again, I've been learning how to use templates, yet if I want to find specific ones I need to go through a bunch of different pages so I can see what code they are written in. Is there a way I can find them quicker maybe by some kind of word search or is there a certain pattern in which they are written? Signature error fixed. Prana1111 (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We now seem to have your signature 5 times on that one message, including one corrupted version pointing to the nonexistent user User:Prana. If you've tried to customise your signature in your preferences, I would strongly recommend that you reset it to the default. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prana1111. In the source code of pages, templates are used by putting them between double curly brackets, like so: {{tl}}. You can use Special: Allpages with namespace "Template" to list all templates. Also, many templates are collected into appropriate categories, for example Category:infobox templates. --ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prana1111 A great many templates used for putting messages on various sorts of pages are indexed at Wikipedia:Template messages. Most templates include documentation spelling out the parameters they use and the purpose they are intended to achieve. When there is good documentation, it is usually not essential to read the actual template code to learn how and when to use the template. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in the dedicated searchbox at Wikipedia:Templates can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way I do it is to use Google to search for "wikipedia template infobox horse". It usually points me to the correct template. Some templates are almost impossible to find if you don't know what they're called, in those cases I just wait until I come across them somewhere else and then try to remember them. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prana1111: As Þjarkur said above, Google can help but sometimes a template is near-impossible to find; that's when I personally go ahead and ask a question at the Teahouse. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport guru needed

Rail transport outline, category, and articles need super-help. Paptilian has commenced organization and categorization here, in which a project for Wikipedia:Asia month appears and organization of rail-related topics are now forming, maybe a new page will appear for collaboration. Paptilian has super-organization skill, yet lacks the other cool (Wikipedia) know-how, Editors who may fall into this latter category as expert or at least knowledgable are encouraged to fill in here.amendedPaptilian (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Teahouse, what would be necessary to accomplish a Rail transport over-haul? Paptilian (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that rather than here you meant to link to User talk:Paptilian? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying this again. User:Paptilian/Rail transport, and its associated talk page.Paptilian (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing straight into Main page without Review

Hello everyone, I have thought that one can either Publish straight into Main space with the risk of it being taken down OR submit it for a review with the risk to wait for two months for it to be reviewed. However, when pressed Publish changes it only offered me to submit it for a review. Is it because I am a newbie editor? The background is that I created an article about a Lebanese public figure and given the situation in Lebanon I was keen for it to be live sooner than later. Many thanks (I hope it isn't a stupid question, probably is...)! MarthaBergman (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarthaBergman and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have created a draft, either in "draftspace" (such as Draft:New Example or in userspace (such as User:MarthaBergman/New Example or in a sandbox, it can be transfered to the main article spavce with the move function. This is only available to autoconfirmed users, that is users that have had an account for at least 4 days, an have made at lest 10 edits. You are not yet autoconfirmed, but you soon will be if you keep editing. It is also possible for an autoconfirmed user to start a page directly in the main article space. Howe veer, I advise strongly against doing that. I, as a rather experienced user, never do it. I work up an article in user space or draft space, and move it to the main article space when I think it is ready. This is because I cannot create an article that is ready for readers to see in a single edit, and few editors can (unless they do the draft stage off-line)

I think you have misunderstood the meaning of the Publish changes button. All mit does is save the page (or sectiuon) you are editing, with the same name it had when you started the edit. It does not move the page to the main article space. It does "publish" in the sense that every Wikipedia page is public, and can be viewed by anyone unless it is deleted oe specially hidden. The button used to be simply Save changes but the caption was changed to remind people that anythign saved would be public. I think this caused more confusion then help. In any case "Publish changes' is just "save", to publish as an article the move fuction is needed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the main page is Main Page the introductory page for all of Wikipedia. I think you meant the main article space. If not, there are significant restrictions in what content appears on the main page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DES thank you so much! Very helpful. So yes, I remember reading about the Move button and I expected it to appear after I hit Publish changes, but as you explain given that I am not autoconfirmed, this wasn't option. I fiddled on the article draft for over two months now, so it isn't in any way a first edit and hit approach. And because I fiddled for ages and in the meantime the Lebanese situation is topical, I wanted to publish straight into main article space. What can I do now - can I 'de-Publish the changes' and take it out of the draft review process and do more other wiki edits to get autoconfirmed and Publsh the article? Many thanks again! MarthaBergman (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once you are autoconfirmed, MarthaBergman, which should happen shortly, you will have access to the move function. Please read that link to see how to use it. It does NOT start from the "Publish changes" button. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All clear, thank you very much again DES!! MarthaBergman (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mention that, even when your article is moved to mainspace, it will not be indexed by Google for 90 days or until it has undergone new page review. Dbfirs 22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

help with sam zell

hello! i would like some help with a banner and some cleanup at sam zell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Zell thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CocoTwinkletoe (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CocoTwinkletoe see my comments on Talk:Sam Zell, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC) CocoTwinkletoe DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

How do I change my name on Wikipedia? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Porygon-Z474: See Wikipedia:Changing username. --CiaPan (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I contact the Global Name Changer? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Changing username#Venues. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Steele

I have heard that the popularity of Bob Steele waned because of his stature. It is my understanding he was of short stature and it just did not look right for a small man to be whipping up on big men. Is there any truth to this? I enjoyed the western movies with him. Just curious about this rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.118.236 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse is the wrong venue for this question. If any sources have talked about this rumor and veracity of it, folks at WP:RD/E, the entertainment reference desk might be able to find out. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 21:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the pages

Hello, I would like to draw the attention of the house to the mass deletion of articles created by a blocked user User:Tyt0791. I am not here to address the block but the deleted articles are very notable names in the Ghanaian community. Names like the Ghana Education Service, Peace Fm, Kasapa FM, Tema Senior High School amongst others are very known in Ghana. Please, we should come together and help restore these pages, such a work cannot be taken off an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Refer to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Tyt0791 for the deleted contributions. --154.160.6.171 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately from your viewpoint, Unregistered Editor, Wikipedia has a rule, known as CSD G5 that if an editor is blocked (usually for improper behavior of some sort) and then returns under a different name in violation of that block, and creates pages or articels while breaking the block, all such pages can be deleted no matter how desirable they might be, until some other editor,who is not violating a block, chooses to recreate them. (This only applies to pages that no other editor has made significant contributions to.) Strictly speaking, the G5 rule does not say that such pages must be deleted, but it does say that they can be without discussion, and in practice such pages are usually deleted. Not everyone here thinks this is a good idea, but many do.

In the case of User:Tyt0791, it seems that a great many pages were created, and quite a few fake identities were used. That user is, I gather, considered a particularly egregious case, and there was a special project to delete all the pages that user had created, which i believe is now complete or largely complete. Much of it was done by Berean Hunter, and a significant part by TonyBallioni and quite a few others were also involved. While you could ask, I doubt that the decision to delete these pages will be changed or undone.

I am afraid that the only option is for some other person or persons to recreate these articles without the help of the versions that have been deleted. It might be possible to get a list of the articles involved, But I cannot promise that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why have two users deleted a category unnecessarily twice using HOTCAT?

I work on libertarian subjects. There's a page for activist Ed Lopez (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Lopez&action=history) I've edited for some time here and there and I noticed that recently it's been afflicted by an erroneous edit twice: two different editors have deleted an alumni category for Durham University. The subject is a graduate of the university. I notice the deletions have taken place through HotCat. Can someone please help me understand why this is happening and how it can be stopped given the fact that the subject is a graduate of this university in England?--Grant18650602 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grant18650602:The article is already in the category, Category:Alumni of Ustinov College, Durham. This category is in the category Category:Alumni of Durham University. So, adding that category to the article is redundant. That's why it's being removed. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Thank you, I understand how that seems redundant but for universities with colleges in England (and I believe Scotland too), having both the college and the university seems reasonable: I search for alumni under the university first when I research subjects that graduated from these, and ultimately that is the mothership of the alumni structure. I hope whatever has triggered that practice can be reconsidered; I understand the rationale - it just seems like a poor practice unless they just delete the overall category: so long as it exists it should include the aggregate of the alumni of all the colleges for these institutions. Thank you for your help, again!--Grant18650602 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grant18650602. There is a policy about articles appearing more than once in the category hierarchy, but I can't find it on a quick look. However, I think that PetScan will be able to help you find what you want even in this case. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Thank you - I hope they revise it if that's the policy, it really does seem to be in public interest to span both the broader universities and their colleges. Frankly, for a more universal familiarity, if anything, including the broader university rather than the college would be more useful.--Grant18650602 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grant18650602, ColinFine my memory is that some categories are considered to be "diffusing" and some to be "non-diffusing". In a "diffusing" category, a page may not be a member of both the parent category and a sub-category, while for non-diffusing cats this is permitted. The logic controlling which categories are diffusing I never fully grasped. It is explained at WP:SUBCAT and its sub-section WP:DIFFUSE reading those might help you. Part of the point is to avoid parent or high-level categories having so many members that they are of no value. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC) @ColinFine: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some relevant comment at Category talk:Alumni of Durham University. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it seems confusing. I really hope at some point they can use both categories: I saw that as a consumer of Wikipedia articles that pays attention to that type of thing.--Grant18650602 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grant18650602: The key is to use the right tool for the job. It's not as easy as just clicking on the category at the bottom, but PetScan (mentioned above) should get you what you want (and has lots of other options to customize the results). Easier still in this case, since there are no more than 5 levels of sub-categories or more than 256 categories in total, the deepcat: option on the standard search should do what you want. I just put Alumni of Durham University in the "Pages in these categories" field to get this. However, this search is only returning 527 hits, while PetScan returns 1392 (including Aba Andam, an example who is missing from the other set), so stick with PetScan for now. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have never used these tools so I need to get acquainted with them!--Grant18650602 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice for managing data/references for price history chart

I've spend bits of time slowly improving Ferrari 250 GTO over the past couple years. My next target is to fix up the Price history section, which is currently mostly comprised of a rather ugly and uninformative bulleted list that doesn't have many references. I have access to a variety of sources that will improve the quality/reliability of the information, including Ferrari periodicals, books, auction results etc. My current plan is to replace the current bulleted list with a matplotlib plot, plotting the price of each sale over time. While I'm familiar enough with generating the plot and building a table of the data, I'm at a loss as to how to present the data itself on wikipedia in a way that is accessible, readable, and easily updated so the plot itself can be updated by another user if needed.

Basically I'm imagining somehow sharing the table of price/date data used to build the plot, along with a metadata column showing the source for each row of data? Should this literally just be a table in the article below the plot itself? Or is there a better way to do it that won't crowd the article with a giant table that is already represented by the plot?

Similarly, I was planning on sharing the code used to make the plot on github and linking the repo from the commons page where I upload the plot. Good idea or is there another way I should do it?

Overall, I'm wondering what the best documentation/archiving practices are for contributing data-driven plots to WP and making sure both the data and the code used to generate the plot are accessible, reusable and maintainable. Thanks for any advice!!! Prova MO (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prova_MO, and welcome to the Teahouse. My first thought is that the whole section should be removed, as per Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. Failing that, a tabular form would in my view be preferable to any sort of chart or plot, with a source column to provide a source (a citation) for each row of the table. There should be no uncited rows allowed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on removing the section, per WP:NOTCATALOG: "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". There is extensive coverage (including citations already in the article) of the 250 GTO's price history in both the general-interest and automotive press. This is due to the model's tendency since the 1980s to routinely break records for most expensive car ever sold. To be clear, I'm not asking the best way to completely replace any tabulated data with a chart, I'm asking what is the best practice for including both the data in tabular format and a chart. If per your suggestion, the best way is to just put a regular old table in that section as well as a chart, I will do that. Totally understand about removing uncited rows, I will be removing the uncited price data "bullet points" already present in the article if I cannot find a reliable source. Thanks! Prova MO (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable approach to take. I will let others with more experience buiding charts answer as to the best way or ways to do that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prova MO: Chart-only would be accessibility-unfriendly, so definitely provide the table. Producing the chart on-wiki would be preferable for consistency of style and maintainability. Have a look at {{Graph:Chart}}; there may be others. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AlanM1, will definitely be providing the table as well. I just looked through {{Graph:Chart}}, glad to see that you can make a scatter plot with that template. Somehow I missed that capability looking through other how-to articles. That was my main reason for using matplotlib, but since the chart template can do it I will use it instead. Prova MO (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translating an article from a different language into English

In order to translate an article from another language into English, you must create the article in English, and then link it to the original article's language entry, right — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViscontiEnsi (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, ViscontiEnsi: you can only link articles in different languages together once they exist. You may use an article in one language as the basis for the article in another language (and then you must attribute it properly, to satisfy the licensing requirements); but you may change it and add or delete material, or start completely from scratch. Sometimes you need to make changes, because the article in one language contains material that is not acceptable in the other Wikipedia (each language Wikipedia has its own rules and procedures). See Translation for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What cool features are there in Wikipedia?

Are there any features that are mostly unknown and are cool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobalegend1 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobalegend1, Not really a feature per-se, but most non-editors don't seem to realise that most volunteers have a sense of humor. WP:FUN. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mobalegend1. If you want to know anything about how Wikipedia operates behind the scenes, then type WP: followed by a keyword into the search box. For example, WP:NOT takes you to an informative list of all the things that Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's so easy to intimidate people. You can cite all sorts of rules, and the exceptions to the rules, and the exceptions to the exceptions. And sooner or later, you will come to understand that Wikipedia really is not a reliable source. Fabrickator (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Nearby shows you articles about things in your area. I didn't know it existed until a few days ago. Pretty neat. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Television films

If an actor/actress were to be in a television film, would the television film be in the television section of the filmography or the film section of the filmography? --FromFrank✎Talk♬ 22:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FromFrank, and welcome to the Teahouse. That varies in different articles, depending in part on the zise of the Filmography and how far it makes sense to break it down, and the views of the editors working on the page. There is no hard and fast rule -- indeed no rule says that a filmography must be included at all, although it is not uncommon in articles about actors. WP:FILMOGRAPHY has some style suggestions, and shows several possible styles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FromFrank, It seems that that style guide I linked says: Please note: When using separate film and television performances tables (ex. #1), television films belong in the television table. So there you are. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --FromFrank✎Talk♬ 23:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk pages to communicate with other editors

Is it ok if I send messages to other editors by creating a new section on their talk page or are the users who own the talk page only allowed to publish changes on it? Heads up, the new sentences added beneath mine by DevilDrama do not belong to me, but I wouldn't care if you answered the question.Prana1111 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of user talk pages is to communicate with other users, so yes, it is definitely okay to leave messages there. I split the other user's question into a different section to prevent confusion. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prana1111. You seem to be asking two questions. The first one was answered above by SpicyMilkBoy, but second one might still be unclear so I'll elaborate a bit. Anyone can post on any Wikipedia page (except in some certain specific cases); so, yes if you want to leave someone a message, you can add it to their user talk page. Discussions about article content, however, should generally take place on article talk pages because doing so makes it easier to for others interested in the subject matter to participate, keep all relevant discussion in one place and archive such discussions for future reference. User talk pages tend to be more for general requests or questions, behavioral matters, notifications, etc.

Users do have the right to blank their own user talk pages (again there are some exceptions to this), but they typically should avoid doing the same to other users' talk pages unless there's a really really strong policy or guideline based reason for doing so. Users should also refrain from editing posts left by other editors as explained in WP:TPO (even if their intentions are good, e.g. correcting a spelling mistake), unless (once again) there is some serious policy or guideline reason, or formatting error that needs to be addressed. Users who post something on another user's talk page or an article talk page can remove or edit their posts after the fact as long as it has not yet been responded to, but they should follow WP:REDACT once someone does respond (except in some really obvious cases). Any attempt to change one's own posts or someone else's posts to try and mislead others, however, is not going to be permitted under any circumstances and is likely to lead to a strong rebuke or even a block from an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prana1111. The above advice from MarchJuly is quite good, but a couple of exceptions. Some editors, including myself, have given blanket advance permission to others to correct spelling and formatting mistakes. (That is listed on my user page And some editors, including myself, treat all posts to their user talk page as if each post had been replied to, and will revert any blanking. Some editors ask that particular subjects be addressed on particular sub-pages of their user talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images

Please Some one tell me how to add a image in any person's page on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilDrama (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DevilDrama, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Help:Pictures for the syntax of including an iamge on a Wikipedia page. Se Wikipedia:Images for more about image use in general, and Wikipedia:Uploading images for how images get onto Wikipedia (and commons) in the first place. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the TFA

I need to update some bits of information in several TFAs, particularly the one on Operation Catechism, where in the TFA it links as [[RAF Bomber Command|Royal Air Force heavy bombers]] where in the article it links as [[Royal Air Force]] [[Heavy bomber|Heavy bombers]]. How do I update the TFA with this information and others I have found? (note: I can't edit it straight from WP:TFA, as I can't find the template in the text) Thanks! dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other article. Ruslik_Zero 08:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: I can't find the location of the template itself though (in this case {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{tomorrow|long}}}}). dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this fit in Wikipedia?

I want to know if Wikipedia is the right page for a proposed "List of train departures in China", where I plan to put down the two termini for each train departure, after my previous page (which included all the stops as well as the time of arrival/departure was proposed for deletion (and I requested its deletion). (See my talk page.) If it doesn't work, does Wikivoyage work? Thanks.

This means I am planning something like this:

High Speed Rail train services (G1~G3)
Train Departure	Start Station	End station
G1	Station 1	Station 2
G2	Station 2	Station 3
G3	Station 3	Station 1

Please reply to me ASAP. 數神 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@數神: Asked and answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Does this fit in Wikipedia? (please don't post the same thing in multiple places). See especially WP:NOTDIR #4 and WP:NOTTRAVEL #2, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AlanM1: Okay and sorry - so it's still a no? Because my second question here (where the table was attached) is still unreplied. I was thinking that there might have been an understanding, so I went here to ask. I mean - there are many pages that list out the bus routes' starting and ending points, and this page should also serve a similar purpose except to trains (e.g. MTR#Rail network). So is this suggestion okay if these other pages are deemed acceptable? 數神 (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 數神. In general, just because something is done in one particular article doesn't mean the same thing should be done in all similar articles as explained in WP:OTHERCONTENT; there could be some special reason why it is being done in one article that is particular to that article, or it could be just as easily the case that it shouldn't have been done to begin with. Wikipedia has millions or articles and their are people from all over the world editing them every day; some editors have the best of intentions in trying to improve articles, but go about doing so in ways that aren't really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These editors may make lots of similar changes to lots of similar articles, but nobody notices the edits until much later on. It's quite possible that information about train routes/time schedules might be OK to add as part of a larger article about a particular train service, but not really something appropriate to create a stand-alone article about. If you'd like further clarification on whether this is the case with what you're trying to do, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains because that's where you're likely going to find editors experienced in articles related to trains. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. 數神 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article publishing, i published this article on behalf of Oshodhara Team, i am also followers of Osho SIDDHARTH: User:Osho Siddhartha Aulia

Hi Team, I published the article on behalf of Oshodhara Team, if wiki team ask for any document i will provide, copyright policy need to verify again due to i have only two sources to verify about Mater Osho Siddharth, 1.Oshodhara website (After communication with this team i used content from there) 2.My study through the different sources About biography:- I mentioned all detailed due to currently community belong to him presence in future me & any wiki contributors will contribute as per their knowledge. Kindly have a look & let me know how can i process with this article. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishashtri (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravishashtri, you created a user page for a Wikipedia user "Osho Siddhartha Aulia" who has not registered a Wikipedia account. It has been deleted as the user page of a non-existent user of Wikipedia. I assume that you were trying to create a Wikipedia article about Oshodhara, or Osho Siddarth. Are you connected with this person or their team? Maproom (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, i want to create article about Osho Siddharth Aulia, i am connected with his team, i am new on wiki i read multiple article will you help me to process step by step for a article or i will email my content to any contributor with reference detail, looking for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishashtri (talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read about conflict of interest, and (if appropriate) about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template error

I can't post User:Aman.kumar.goel/sandbox (this version) on Template:UN Population as seen here. Any experienced template editors out here should take a look and let me know what was is the problem here. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aman Kumar Goel, welcome to the Teahouse. Your diff added 2352 non-breaking space characters instead of normal spaces. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Okay so, how I do identify non-breaking spaces in my version? I can't see any. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 08:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: The diff hints they are after pipes. You can also copy-paste source text to the "Characters" field at [1] and click "View in Uniview" to look for special characters. In [2] I clicked "Advanced" in the toolbar, clicked a search and replace icon to the top right, copy-pasted one of the non-breaking spaces to the "Search for" field, wrote a normal space in the "Replace with" field, and clicked "Replace all". I use the desktop site. Start by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom if you are on the mobile site. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking names

While linking names is it possible to link the English Wikipedia page to any other language page of that person (Angunnu (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Angunnu: Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Yes, you can link to other wikis, though generally you shouldn't within an article. What would you like to link? DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my wikipedia article draft declined

I have written my article and got a rejection here. I have put the source, then also it went rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ranu_Mondal#

Rocky 734 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocky 734: Your article appears only to have been rejected once from what I can see, and the reason given is that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Simply adding sources won't solve this problem unless they are reliable, independent, secondary sources that show significant coverage. If you have an issue with the decision, it is better to address this at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk rather than here at the Teahouse, though. Hug^syrup 12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir thanks @Hugsyrup:

Hugsyrup, the Teahouse is in fact a normal and quite acceptable place to ask this sort of question. In fact, the decline templats automatically placed on the talk pages of draft submitters suggest asking for advice here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel - The standard decline template only says 'If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk'. The optional Teahouse-specific message says 'If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse' (my bold). Since you post here are lot, you are surely well aware that I frequently answer questions here about declined drafts, often at length. However, the fact is that specific issues with a decline decision are best addressed at the proper noticeboard and the tendency for the Teahouse to become the default place for these queries does not do us any favors, in my opinion. Hug^syrup 16:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky 734 on a moderately quick look, the main problem is depth of coverage. The draft has a number of cites to independant reliable sources, but most of them are to relatively brief stories about the singer, none seem to be really in-depth coverage. See our guideline on significant coverage. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A subsidary issue is that the citation metadata is badly messed up. I suspect that the cites were created with the VE cite tool or a simialr semi-automated tool. This an example of why such tools are a good starting point but cannot be trusted without checking, rather like machine translations from one language to another. The cites have confusedly put tiemstamps in author fields, and other miss-identifications of bibliographic data. There were also some duplicated cites, which i combined, and there may be more. Fixing these wpould make a review easieer, but should not affect the outcome. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel:Thanks sir, i will try to avoid those tools.

Real names on Notable Alumni

On a famous school which warrants a Wikipedia page, does the Notable Alumni section need the real names of people or do you just add the fake name (when an actor has a fake name, his/her fake name is also the name of their wikipedia article). A bit confused, need help. --FromFrank✎Talk♬ 13:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, FromFrankIf a notable person is known primarily by a stage name, pen name, or other alternate name, it might be best to use that name. For example one might use Mark Twain rather than [[Mark Twain]|Samuel Langhorne Clemens]]. This is an issue that can be discussed on the article talk page of the article involved, an might differ depending non the person. But since there should be a link in any case to the article about the person, anyone who follows that link will know both names.

I would not use the term "fake name" for a pen name or stage name or the like, by the way. And not all articles about schools inclkude a "Notable Alumni" section, although many do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a standard for this, but I would use "Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find page that I created

Hello Gentalman aftersome i made a page but some resone I don't know that was invisible automatically please help me tel me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Verma KMP (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravi Verma KMP, which page are you having trouble with? I see you wrote Gurjar Aandolan, which is not invisible. Is there another page? › Mortee _talk 13:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

paid

Hi, if I was paid indirectly for my edits on Wikipedia, (one of the tasks of my job), all I have to do is fill out the paid template on my user page, right? Anything else I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahisacarpenter (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your two questions: No. Yes. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahisacarpenter you need to read all of WP:PAID and comply with all of it. In addition to placing a notice using {{paid}} on your user page, you should place {{connected contributor (paid)}} (properly filled out) on the talk page of each article you edited in return for compensation, direct or indirect. Then you should usually confine yourself to suggesting edits, with sources provided, on article talk pages, using {{request edit}} to ask uninvolved editors to review them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A much better answer than mine. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with User Page Formatting

Hey guys, I normally consider myself pretty good at editing Wikipedia but I have no clue how to fix the formatting on my user page. I'm trying to put my "Medal Record" floating, pinned to the left, the image of the USS Atlantis in the center of the page, and different collapsible tables pinned to the right, one on top of the other. No matter what I do, it seems like the two tables on the right end up messed up. I will be eternally grateful to anyone who can figure out what I'm doing wrong. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth: I've given it a try - take a look at your user page now. Let me know if it isn't what you wanted DannyS712 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Thank you so much! That's awesome! Do you know if there's any resource to learn more advanced formatting like that? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Not really, it was just trial and error DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request diverse editorial input/advice for a draft under construction?

I am a new editor whose first article on a prominent academician was rejected. I have revised this as a draft (Draft:Tsontcho (Sean) Ianchulev), but would like to request inputs from multiple volunteers to improve it to Wikipedia's standards. The article was initially deleted/rejected primarily due to the perception that it was 1) promotional and 2) the subject lacked notability. I amended the text in a revised draft to try to eliminate any language that might seem promotional. A second editor then commented that it still seemed promotional and the subject lacked demonstrated notability. Additionally, this editor commented that there were too many references.

With respect to promotional language, I have strived to eliminate any passages that might suggest this, so would appreciate additional inputs from experienced editors. With respect to notability being called into question, the subject, a physician, has multiple achievements and made substantial scientific/medical progress, all of which are documented in high-quality medical journals (referenced). I wrote and revised this after thoroughly studying the page/tutorials on notability requirements for biographies, and can cite several other similar articles on individuals in the same field whose Wikipages might arguably demonstrate less notability than the current subject. With respect to the inclusion of too many references, I am unsure how to address this because I have taken pains to ascertain that no irrelevant "fluff" referencing was included.

Therefore, I am hoping to elicit the assistance of more experienced editors to assist me in improving this draft. Or advice on where else I should be seeking help if the Teahouse is not the most appropriate place.

I thank you for any advice or assistance that you can provide!

SharkWhisperer (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)SharkWhisperer[reply]

This is about Draft:Tsontcho (Sean) Ianchulev.

The draft does not strike me as unacceptably promotional. But it does fail to demonstrate that Ianchulev is notable. It does not cite any reliable independent published sources that discuss him. That's not to say that he isn't notable, but the draft totally fails to demonstrate his notability. His employer's web site does not help, it's not independent. Papers which he wrote or co-authored don't help, they're not independent. Articles that don't mention him, or mention but don't discuss him, don't help; in-depth dicussion is needed. Maproom (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove every reference that is a journal article with Ianchulev as a co-author. And the text those references supported. Wikipedia is not a CV. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to Dr. Ianchulev? Personal? Paid? David notMD (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial category

Need someone to create Category:7th-century BC Indian philosophers (since Category:6th-century BC Indian philosophers and Category:8th-century BC Indian philosophers exists).

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.179.149 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my post was removed

Choorakkodi kalari sangam is one of the old kalari sangam in kadathanadu Kerala origin of kalaripayattu even the legend of boxing Muhammed ali visited there https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/When-butterfly-of-boxing-got-awed-by-speed-of-Kalari/articleshow/52594021.cms Aaquibmkk (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is so inappropriate that my edit and the whole section was removed why as of I know choorakkody kalari sangam is an school of kalari more than 30 years as of I know and center for marma treatment

This section should re published I put this link as reference

Even the great boxer muhammed Ali visited the center also

http://choorakkodykalari.com/index.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaquibmkk (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is about Kalaripayattu? Maproom (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aaquibmkk. I don't know why Aranya reverted your edit: it seems reasonable to me, and you provided a source (though a formatted citation would be better, see referencing for beginners, and an independent source would be better still). You did the right thing by posting at Talk:Kalaripayattu: it is up to you and Aranya (and any other editors who have a view) to reach consensus. Perhaps if you had pinged Aranya, they would have continued the discussion - I have pinged them here, so they should see this item here. --ColinFine (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ColinFine, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I think the revert was a mistake and I apologize for that. The entire section containing the list to which the addition was made was removed by another editor in a consequent edit, however, so I am not sure how the edit can be restored. I have replied to the talk page discussion that Aaquibmkk had started earlier this week, so we can continue the correspondence with them there. Cheers! :-) – Aranya (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude my User page and my private Sandbox from the User contributions list?

When I look at my User contributions, all edits that I've done both on my User page and in my private Sandbox are included.
I don't want that.
I know that I can work around it by changing my Preferences and selecting >"Recent changes" >"Show only likely problem edits", but that's not an actual solution if I want to also see 'probably good edits'.
Is there a way to simply exclude my User page and my private Sandbox from the User contributions list?
zwaa 07:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

zwaa, on Special:Watchlist there should be a 'watchlist options' section where you can check a box to hide 'my edits'—which hides all edits you've made from your watchlist. Eman 235/talk 07:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealzwaa: If, on your Special:Contributions page, you click the "v Search for Contributions", you'll see that you can select the namespace you want to search. Choose "User" from the dropdown. Click the "Invert selection" checkbox. Then click the search button. This tells it to show you all your contributions that are not to User namespace (pages that do not start with User:). Since you don't edit other users' User: pages (only perhaps their User talk: pages), this has the effect of excluding only your User: pages. Alternatively, you can click on this link, which is the resulting search URL. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealzwaa: Also, if you're going to customize your signature, that's fine, but it's courteous (and actually required per WP:SIGLINK) to include at least a link to your user page (i.e. with this: [[User:Therealzwaa|Therealzwaa]]). Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealzwaa: Better still, adding the following code to your User:Therealzwaa/common.js file will change the Contributions link at the top of the page to do this. (Note that it breaks the ability to mouse over that link and get a history popup if you have popups enabled.)

$(document).ready(function() {
  $('#pt-mycontris a')[0].href += '?namespace=2&wpfilters%5B%5D=nsInvert';
});

Technical note: If there is already a "$(document).ready()" in that file with other code in it, just insert the second line above into it. Note that editing a .js file is an advanced area of Wikipedia customization, and you can break your account by doing things wrong in it. If that happens, you can log out (or use a private browser session) and come here or the Help desk to get someone to revert the changes. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help! How would I know if my submission is approved or if there's editing needed?

Need help! How would I know if my submission is approved or if there's editing needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohjesabee (talk • contribs) 08:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohjesabee Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not actually submitted your draft for review yet; I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so. Once submitted, it will most likely take many weeks to be reviewed, as there are thousands of drafts waiting for review at any given time, and reviews are done by volunteers in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is approved, or if it needs work, you will be told. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submit draft article

Hi everyone, i set up an article in my draft space recently and i'm afraid i cannot (at least i don't know how) move the article into the article space. Can someone explain to me how i should proceed in order to get the article reviewed? My account is fairly new so i'm guessing i don't have the permission to do so... Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beermonk34 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Solved it myself with the {Submit} template Beermonk34 (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beermonk34 and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not yet autoconfirmed and so cannot move pages. You will be autoconfirmed after your acount is 4days old and you have at least 10 edits.

The draft you created, Draft:Canary Connect Inc. is submitted for review, There is a pool of over 3,000 drafts waiting for review, and it may be several weeks before the one you created is reviewed. Volunteers take drafts in whatever order they please, it is a pool, not a line.

You may work on improving the draft further while you wait, or edit existing articles,or start other drafts, or whatever you choose within the rules here while you wait.

Please be sure that there are several Independent professionally published reliable sources cited in the draft, each of which covers the topic in some detail. Adding large number of poor sources will not help, indeed it may hurt things as a reviewer may miss the good sources and decline. Please read our guideline on corporate notability.

Please remember the sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert that into your signature (default or custom) and a timestamp.

Happy editing and feel free to ask further questions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning via Twinkle

Hello, when warning an IP or a user who vandalized an article, is there a way I can link all the pages he/she vandalized?

Twinkle is only letting me do one article. Sub |_HMU 09:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Subwaymuncher, and welcome. to the Teahouse. You can add links to additional articles or pages in the "optional message" field if you wish. Or you can edit the warning manually after twinkle hs placed it, or just add test after the warning. The linked article box only supports one page name to link to. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. Can I ask another question? Is Twinkle supported on mobile wiki? It seems I do not have the option but to switch to desktop view. Sub |_HMU 10:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point in mentioning more than a couple of articles, since they're not going to fix them, and any admin action will look at the contribs list directly, and be based on repeated or serious actions. Sadly, even well-meaning editors do not often enough go back and fix a pattern of mistakes once made aware of it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create a collaboratively multilingual wikipedia page with "Instruction Guide for Adding a Drinking Water Fountain in the Open Data Space"

Hello,

It is not clear that this request fits the editorial standards of Wikipedia, but the wikimedia medium fits our needs perfectly.

We are a small recently created Geneva based NGO named European Water Project with a mission to promote the sustainable use of water resources and to participate in the reduction of plastic waste, especially single-use plastic. We are developing a free open data driven app for users to find a nearby water fountain to fill their non single-use bottle with drinking water.

We would like to collaboratively develop a generic multilingual how to guide for adding a Water Fountain to the Wikidata and Open Street Map open data databases. Our prototype website https://www.europeanwaterproject.org (apologize for the incomplete site with a mediocre graphic chart) already captures 270,000 drinking fountains globally from OSM and wikidata. We want to build support for adding more drinking fountain entries and to get people to use them instead of polluting ...

Thanks for your help,

Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2rapoport (talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC) S2rapoport (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@S2rapoport: You're right – I don't think it fits here. I think the OSM wiki is the place for it. It may be appropriate in the Wikidata: namespace at Wikidata – I suggest raising the question at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMANUAL is the relevant policy, since it's about maintaining Wikidata, a separate project from Wikipedia, and OSM. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query about TITLE change

Hello Team @ Teahouse! I wanted to know 2 things-

one, how do I change the TITLE of the article and

two, why is it that someone else cant read my article or see it on wikipedia search? I have just published it.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon! Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ashish Singh (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ashish Singh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space and not indexed by search engines. It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is also not a place to promote yourself or what you do, nor is Wikipedia for that in general. Please read WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Dr Ashish Singh. You're making a common mistake that many new editors make in that you're confusing a Wikipedia article with a Wikipedia user page; what you created was a user page, not an article. Moreover, your user page is not really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in particular, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNO); so, it has been tagged for speedy deletion. Before you try and create any articles, it might be a good idea for you to carefully read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to get a better feel as to what types of things are generally considered OK to have Wikipedia articles written about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Dr Ashish Singh. To change the title of an article, you have to move it. You can find 'Move' under 'More', to the right of 'View history'. However, you haven't published an article so far. What you've done is written on your own user page. Because what you've written looks like advertising and has no references, it's likely to be deleted. Writing an article from scratch is very difficult, but you can find help at Help:Your first article. Be especially careful editing in an area where you have a conflict of interest and in general, don't write about yourself. It would be better to try editing some existing articles on other topics first. If you have questions about how to do that, you're always welcome to ask here at the Teahouse. I hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 11:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts at creating content about yourself on your User page have been deleted twice. Please do not repeat this error. Wikipedia welcomes your contributions to articles, but it is not a place to create content about yourself or your medical practice. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talland Church

Hello I do all the online profiles for Talland Church including the website and find the wikipedia page for our church is a little misleading. There are 2 sites Talland Parish Church redirected to St Tallanus' Church Talland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Tallanus'_Church%2C_Talland

Talland Church is known simply as Talland Church.

There is no history of a Saint Tallan or the latinised version Tallanus and believe he/she to be a fictional character although this is the dedication to the Church. We believe the name Tallan came from the Cornish language which means, The Holy Place (Tal) on The Brow of the Hill (Lan).

It is thought that St Catherine was a dedication prior to 1204 when we have documentation of a Saint Tallan.

I am currently researching the history of the Church and would like to add some of my findings to Wikipedia and I would like to merge and rename these pages to use consistency in our online profile.

What I would like to do is rename the St Tallanus' Church, Talland page to Talland Church keeping the information intact if this was possible.

Thankyou Viv Tregellas Talland Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivtregellas (talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivtregellas, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can suggest a move on Talk:St Tallanus' Church, Talland. You may want to follow the procedures at requested moves. If you can cite independent sources to show how the church is commonly known in english as opposed to its official name, that will help. See WP:COMMONNAME. It would be well to have sources for the history you mention if it is to go into the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivtregellas. I would add to what DES has said that original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. If your researches have found reliably published sources, you are welcome to add material that is strictly based on those sources; but you must not include any argumentation or conclusions that are not found in a single source. In particular, if reliable sources talk of Saint Tallan the article should say so; and only if a reliably published source has argued for a different origin should the article mention such a theory. Wikipedia works on WP:verifiability, not truth, however frustrating that may sometimes be.

Secondly, if you look after the Church's online profiles, then you possibly have a conflict of interest, and should take note of what this means for editing Wikipedia.

Finally, Wikipedia is not interested in being consistent with your profile. It is only interested in what reliably published sources say - and mostly, sources independent of the subject. Your church's website is of course regarded as reliable, but not independent; in other words, it is a primary source, and can only be used in limited ways for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DES ^(talk) ColinFine (talk)

Thankyou for your reply and I take note of your comments Our reliable sources come from archived documents held at the Cornwall Archive, Talland Church and books/articles written by local notaries generally in the 1800's. These articles and documents are used for the purpose of researching the history of the 13th century building and publishing a book in due course. If I find any documentation that can be verified it would be nice to include this in Wikipedia but it's not necessary to do so. I do not wish to fall foul of the rules. With your comments in mind I still consider it best to change the title of the page to Talland Church and I cite the comment on the Wikipedia page St Tallanus' Church, Talland

"However, St Tallanus's existence is disputed and ley lines cannot be proved to exist either"

I will continue to update current information such as present incumbent and website details, it is secured and is now prefixed https, as I have in the past. Talland Church is now within a Benefice and therefore "Talland Parish Church" is not really relevant either. Thankyou both for your time and I have taken on board the information presented in the editing and use of Wikipedia. Vivtregellas (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating New Page

Hello Team @ Teahouse! I work for a company whose wiki page doesnt exist. so i tried to create it, but some admin deleted it. Can i know a proper way to create new pages?

scrapjaw 12:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrapjaw (talk • contribs)

Reasons were given on your Talk page. Briefly, you have to declare paid (see WP:PAID) on your User page, not copy/paste copyrighted material, and so on. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Scrapjaw: It seems you attempted to create EisnerAmper in June. It was moved to Draft:EisnerAmper because it was undersourced, i.e., it did not have sufficient independent reliable sources to corroborate the information or demonstrate the company's notability. The draft was deleted in September because of "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.imn.org/real-estate/conference/New-York-Real-Estate-Private-Equity-Capital-Markets/Sponsors.html".

Later in September, EisnerAmper was again created, and again deleted, this time for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

This has all been documented and discussed at User talk:Scrapjaw and User talk:Athaenara, along with links to the various policies involved. To re-iterate, see WP:NOT for the things that Wikipedia is not (especially WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY), WP:NCORP for the notability guideline for companies that editors must demonstrate in order to create an article here, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for what you must do in order to be able to edit such an article. This seems like a lot, I know, but it is required.

To answer your question to Athaenara, Google and Microsoft have articles because they are mentioned thousands of times a day in articles around the globe by writers and organizations who are considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources, and are completely independent of the subject companies. This establishes their notability to Wikipedia, and gives Wikipedia editors unconnected to the subject companies unbiased, reliable information with which to write an article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted - why?

why does my draft keep being deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOMAMA2019 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for profane name and vandalism-only contributions. If you want to remain a Wikipedia editor you can appeal your block by promising to change name and stop the types of edits you have done to date. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on a place.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Hello. I need to begin a new article on a particular place: Birava, which is a town in Kabare Territory,Eastern DRC. Can you please help me with the beginning so that I can work on it the next weekend....? Thank you . Malik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik.jano (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malik.jano, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, not for technical reasons, but because most people find it difficult to research and summarise the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows): it is only interested in what has been published in reliable places, and any article should be 100% based on published sources. I always advise new editors to spend a while editing existing articles before they try it. Nonetheless, you are welcome to give it a go if you wish. I suggest starting by reading your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik.jano: Some points:

Please sign your posts to "talk pages" (those with "talk:" in the prefix, including "Talk:", "User talk:", and "Wikipedia talk:") by adding at the end of your post a space followed by four tildes ( ~~~~). This will insert your linked username and timestamp for the convenience of those reading.
Please don't mark most edits as "minor". See WP:MINOR for when to mark an edit as minor – most of your recent edits should not have been marked minor.
Try looking at other similar pages (like Minova) to get an idea of how the article should be structured. If you edit the source of such an article, copy and paste what you need from it to your new article in another window, taking care not to save any accidental changes to the original article (i.e., Minova); then modify the copied code to be appropriate for Birava.
Take what ColinFine said to heart – it's all about the sources. Without adequate sources (even if they're in French), the article will not stand.

Bonne chance! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused Wiki user!

Hi, I wish to add my sandbox draft to Wikipedia subject "Naked Ambition(2020)" page. How do I do that?

Also I think that I have requested for my Sandbox to be published, but I cannot change the title "Draft:Sandbox" How do I do this? Or will the editor reviewing the page do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candiceem (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candiceem, You have to be autoconfirmed to move pages. I'll do it for you, one moment. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I can't move it either (odd). However, Wikipedia is not your soapbox, and please do not use it as such. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I failed to realise it was a sandbox sandbox.

Self-trout MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sandbox is for testing. Anyone can use it. If you would like to work on a draft article where other editors are less likely interfere, you can create at page in your own user space such as User:Candiceem/draft and work on it there. For technical reasons, Draft:Sandbox has too much of a history to move. You can find an edit you made to that page (such as this one) and cut-and-paste the text to your own draft page. But just a word of warning, based on the current text that you've written, I think it is unlikely that the topic is sufficiently notable to be accepted as an article (see Wikipedia:Notability for details). -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Candiceem. The place you have been editing is Draft:Sandbox. This is a different kind of sandbox from what you thought: it is a place for short-term experiments in editing, but it gets cleared regularly. I think you meant to work in a user sandbox, such as User:Candiceem/sandbox. But please read your first article and WP:NYF before you try. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Diaphragm Pump page

I work with a pump company that would like to add a Double Diaphragm Pump page to Wikipedia. However, we already see that there is a Diaphragm Pump page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragm_pump.

How does Wikipedia make the determination when to add a secondary, more focused page on a product technology?

Double diaphragm pumps are widely recognized in the pump world...by the Hydraulic Institute, for example.

Please let us know if we should try to add a Double Diaphragm Pump page, or simply edit the existing Diaphragm Pump page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.120.195 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss this would be on the talk page Talk:Diaphragm pump. Note that, whether you add a section or try for a new article, if you work for a pump company, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A new way to understand

Couldn't we get a way to help everybody by making this a place for learning. Why don't we allow Wikipedia lectures. I am sure they will change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep Kumar Kandi (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandeep Kumar Kandi. I think you might be looking for Wikiversity. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my Feedback input to Teahouse was deleted?

Yesterday I wrote in Teahouse section my "Feedback" input describing my experience with the editing of the Article and mentioned names about not qualified editors.

Today I can see my input was deleted by the same editor I mentioned there (Theroadislong), so again, it was using the editor's power to delete this input as it was deleted the Article by the same editor(s). My question now: Is it the way to improve the Wikipedia? How come the editor I described in Teahouse and even in the Talk page can just jump and delete the input by using the editor's power behind of any reason of deleting the input? How you can improve the Wikipedia if it is permitted to do so? How the "voice" of contributor can be heard? Do you have Moderator(s) or another person who can verify and restrict unqualified editor to edit the specific Article(s)? Who can verify what is behind of that editor who is following the contributor and trying to destroy any contribution of that person? Is it personal problem, or unacknowledged of the Content, so it is easy to delete than just to help in editing? If you really ask "Help us to help you", than why my input was permitted to be deleted, so no one can see or hear it? Ideally, my "Feedback" input to Teahouse and my article "Natalia Toreeva" should be restored from deletion by unqualified editor(s) and qualified editor(s) can be participated to improve the process of discussion and helping with the Article. Is it possible to do so without writing the same course of deletion as "promotional", "not reliable sources", etc, that can be easy to use by any person to just destroy the input? Than it is a wrong approach for helping in editing. Thanks for your time, Toreeva (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have spent more than 5 years on Wikipedia attempting to promote yourself, the article Natalia Toreeva has been deleted 8 times, twice by WP:AFD please understand that articles require multiple reliable sources that cover you in-depth, you have failed to provide a single reliable source in all that time, and have attacked many editors who have tried to help you. PleaseWP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-install my "Feedback" input in Teahouse, so everyone can see and hear my opinion. As I told before, because unqualified editor(s) can delete the information from Wikipedia using "promotional", "not reliable sources", etc, used by bias editor(s), the information about event(s) can be deleted from Wikipedia, but not from the HISTORY. Is it raising the question - if Wikipedia itself is "reliable source", if this kind of bias approach by unqualified editor(s) is used in the editing of the article(s)? Should it be independent, not bias, and with good faith approach be used for any editing of any article, and trying to help with the Article but not to destroy it by any course? Thank you, Toreeva (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to get answers to their questions. It is not a venue for rants against Wikipedia's policies, or attacks against editors who uphold them. The post was appropriately removed. I would have removed it if Theroadislong had not got there just before me (I edit conflicted with them, in fact). Now drop the stick. --bonadea contributions talk 18:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question Is it raising the question - if Wikipedia itself is "reliable source", if this kind of bias approach by unqualified editor(s) is used in the editing of the article(s)? is no. As explained in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) are not considered to be reliable sources for any reason except when they are possibly cited as such per WP:SELFSOURCE. So, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable for the most part and citations to other Wikipedia articles added by editors are almost always removed as soon as they are discovered. This applies to citation to other language Wikipedias as well.

If you're unsatisfied about certain things about Wikipedia or want to make some general comments or proposals about it, then perhaps one of the Wikipedia:Village pumps would be a better place to do so instead of the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing; it's not really a place to discuss the concept or purpose of Wikipedia. Moreover, if you would like to contact someone via email about such things, then perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Contact us. On the other hand, if you'd like to know why a particular article you created was deleted, then you should ask the administrator who deleted it. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva (2nd nomination), that would be an administrator named Malcolmxl5. You can post a message at User talk:Malcolmxl5 and ask them to clarify their WP:CLOSE and what options you have if you'd like to try and recreate the article (yet again) or at least have their decision to delete it this last time reviewed by others.

At some point though, you might want to consider one of ways other than Wikipedia given in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets to let others know about you and your activities since many other websites place way less restrictions on what content they accept and offer way more control to creator over the content they create. Many also use similar software to what Wikipedia uses, so editing them is technically not too different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good lesson. Thank you, Toreeva (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image change

Hi,

I am a relitavely new editor with a question:

On the Marshmello page, the image shows him in 2016, but his helmet and dress have changed since. This is quite a big edit. Firstly, should I do this and secondly, if so, do I need to put anything on the talkpage or anything?

Thanks in advance, Muffington (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muffington, welcome to the Teahouse. Having more up-to-date images is certainly a good thing. The challenge will be finding a more recent image that is suitably licensed. The image needs to be freely licensed for reuse including modification, or there needs to be a good fair-use rationale (there almost never is for living people). If you can find a free image, that's great. There's lots of help and guidelines linked to from Wikipedia:Images and you can always ask more questions here. Hope this helps › Mortee _talk 18:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Will do. Best, Muffington (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About talk page content removal

Yesterday I deleted an old question that I myself had asked on an article talk page (see the article here, if you think a review is needed that is). I don't think it was very important and I frankly don't care about it anymore, it was never answered anyway. But am I allowed to remove my own content on public article talk pages if it doesn't provide a prominent use to the article?Prana1111 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prana1111, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think that's fine. There are some guidelines here. If no-one's responded, removing your own talk page comment does no harm to the record and if you're no longer interested in a response or the comment/question no longer applies to the current article then it might be a good thing. › Mortee _talk 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution, especially if it was live for hours or more, is to just strike out the text by surrounding it with <s>...</s> and then maybe a short comment like Resolved ~~~~. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I request help on working on an article?

I am currently working on Blonded Radio and would greatly appreciate any help that is provided. Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 19:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatoneweirdwikier I think WP:WikiProject Radio is probably the best place to find other topic specialist editors who might be interested. Simply post a request on the project's talk page, just like you did here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations on Party Ideologies

Hello, I know how to do citations when it comes to citing paragraphs on articles but when I try to put a citation on an Ideology on a Wikipedia Article about a Political Party, it never seems to work for me. When I try to do it, there is no ref name, just the website, title of the of that section on the website and the date, that is it but it never seems to work. How can I properly do it?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymeonHellas (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SymeonHellas, welcome to the Teahouse. The issue, at least on New Democracy (Greece), was that your {{cite web}} template was missing the closing }} at the end, just before </ref>. I've fixed that example in this edit. I haven't looked through your contributions to see if there are others that need tidying up. You also don't need to include the full reference definition if you're using the same source twice (not that it breaks the page if you do). For example, you defined a reference called "History". When you use it a second time, you just have to write <ref name="History" />, without any of the other detail. I hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 19:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SymeonHellas and welcome to the Teahouse. In this edit to New Democracy (Greece), the citation tool you were using put in a cite with a ref name of "History with no closing quote. It also added two citations with identical ref names. This doesn't work properly. Mortee later fixed this. If such a thing happens again, you may need to use the source editor to correct the issue. The citation tools can be very useful, but one must always double check their output, it is not always correct. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My most favourite singers are Bing Crosby and Elvis.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE

Closing this non question from a now indeff'd user. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

They are my most favourite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvis1888 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elvis1888. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That is the purpose of the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meteorologists

Is there a page/area for weather related topics to discuss articles with other weather lovers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of use Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radically different Talk and Article pages

(1) Why do the Article and Talk pages differ radically?

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems

Should I assume that the Article content is current and that I should edit it? Or did someone propose the changes on the Talk page and I should edit them?

(2) Should I go ahead and edit on the Article's Edit Source page--or should I do it on the Talk page so I can explain my reasons?

Thanks,

Biff :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleve51 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bleve51: Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Here on the English Wikipedia you are encouraged to be bold and just edit the article directly. But, if other editors object to your edit (by undoing it) then you should turn to the talk page to discuss the issue. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bleve51, Talk pages are for discussion. They do not mirror the article at all. This article seems to be a unusual exception, which has been rectified. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There was commentary below it. I have collapsed the copy for readability. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming a Facebook page set up by Wikipedia

Can someone help me to claim a Facebook page that was set up by Wikipedia. I am admin for a school Facebook page and one has been set up by Wikipedia that people are posting to as if it is our official page. According to Facebook, sites set up by Wikipedia cannot be claimed through their system. Obviously this could cause an issue if anything untoward is posted on the Wikipedia version of school Facebook page and as a school we are trying to control our social networking presence on the web — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcscschool (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcscschool: Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Can you explain more? Its unclear what you are referring to. Is there a specific wikipedia page involved? DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook page was probably not set up by Wikipedia but just copied material from us. Facebook has done that with thousands of pages and we get many complaints about it. Please link the page so we can see what you talk about. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry regarding a User Box

Greetings,

I would like to know, How do you change the content on the user box that appears on the bottom of the page when you click to see the changes made to a page.

To clarify, In the user box you can see the Users Name, Number of Edits, and some have blue links of the names of the User Groups (Users, Autoconfirmed Users, Page Movers, Extended Confirmed Users, Reviewers) they belong to.

Where are the settings that edit this box and How can I apply them to my user box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renginiering (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renginiering. The term "userbox" has a special meaning on Wikipedia as described in Wikipedia:Userboxes. Is that what you're asking about? It sounds like what you're asking about is called "User info", but I'm not sure you can change that and think it's automatically added by the system. Perhaps asking about something like this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) will get you a more definite answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Renginiering: Most editors use the desktop version of Wikipedia. I guess you refer to a feature of the mobile version seen at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926057944. The example currently says "EDIT FILTER MANAGERS, CHECKUSERS, ADMINISTRATORS 120,586 EDITS". The box is made automatically by the software. You cannot edit what it says for you. The English Wikipedia could change some of the words for all users, e.g. by changing "edits" to something else at MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-diffview-editcount. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my Wikipedia page

Hi

I need help with removing the edit button from someone who see my page on Wikipedia, please i need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostlyBangkok666 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GhostlyBangkok666, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a medium for telling the world about yourself, or anything else: it is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what reliable published sources have already said about a subject. The page you have been editing is your user page: this is not a Wikipedia article, but a place where you may share information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. A small amount of biographical information about you is acceptable there, but not the wholesale promotion you have currently put on there.

If Wikipedia ever has an article about you, it will not be your article, you will be strongly discouraged from directly editing it yourself, and you will not be able to stop anybody else editing it (which I think is what your question is about). Please have a look at WP:42 and WP:autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other misunderstanding here, I think, is about removing the edit button from others. A core foundation of how Wikipedia, and all wikis, work, is that articles can be freely edited by anyone (with exceptions under the protection policy to prevent abuse). If Wikipedia had an article about Angelo Smith, for example, there would certainly be an edit button on it and people would be free to click it. There's no question of removing that. › Mortee _talk 00:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User page deleted per U5. John from Idegon (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading content to Wikimedia Commons as a representative of an organization, but not having the signature of the original author or a link to a page showing the license

Hello,

Last year I uploaded a graphic of a document and also created a Wikipedia page for it. That wikipedia page was challenged and deleted back in Dec 2018. The graphic remained though. The only evidence of it can currently be found at this link (it is called the M1 voucher): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissindo_World_Trust_International_Orbit#/media/File:M1_Voucher_provides_a_monthly_lifetime_basic_income_guaranteed_by_Swissindo_World_Trust_International_Orbit.jpg

The graphic itself was marked for speedy deletion a couple days ago. I am attempting to learn what can be done to keep it. (please note that my profile has a disclaimer, that I am a volunteer for Swissindo).

Thank you. Penichette (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penichette. Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are both Wikimedia Foundation projects, but they each have their own specific rules and guidelines; so, if a file you uploaded to Commons has been tagged or nominated for deletion, you're really going to need to resolve the matter on Commons. In the case of File:M1 Voucher provides a monthly lifetime basic income guaranteed by Swissindo World Trust International Orbit.jpg, the file has been tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5; a source, etc. has been provided for the file, but there's no evidence that the original copyright holder has given their consent for the file to be uploaded to Commons under a free license. So, please read c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? and c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and follow the instructions depending on which case applies to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions about guidelines

I have noticed that on some pages awards and honors are included for individuals and same with publications. What is the Wikipedia editor consensus on what should be there and what shouldn't be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Missing Meadow (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a clear guideline, thought another editor may be able to. However, I would suggest that one key different might be whether the fact that the person or business has received an award can be attributed to a reliable, independent, secondary source. If it can, I would be surprised if any editor objected to it being included.

Another reason is simply that there is not always a clear consensus on what should or shouldn't be included in a given article as they are created and edited at different times, by different editors. Hug^syrup 13:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

draft for review.

hello, how do you change the draft name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olimbek zayniddinov. Please explain what you mean by "change the name". Are you asking about Draft:Samarkand economy and service institute? Is there a spelling error or something which needs to be corrected? What would you like the new name to be? You seem to have previously asked about this particular draft above at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How to translate a draft into an article and its currently awaiting an WP:AFC review; so, if there's a problem with that draft's name, then you can ask the AFC reviewer who ends up reviewing the draft to change its name when they finish their review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be at Samarkand Institute of Economics and Service. It's still not appropriately referenced, though. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement: Custom signature instruction

Hi! My custom signature failed to link to my user page or user talk page. That's fixed now, but I have issues with the instruction (it's bad!), where do I turn to report the following?

In Preferences, under "Signature", there's a checkbox that says (colors is for my emphasis and comments only, not for exact copy):

"Treat the above as wiki markup. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page.
If checked, signing with ~~~ or ~~~~ will insert the above markup in place of your username, including any wikicode or formatting. Custom signatures should link to your user page or your user talk page. Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline. Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not opart of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; otherwise, it may cause templates to fail. Comments on talk pages should be signed with "~~~~", which will be converted into your signature and a timestamp."

That instruction is really confusing: as a novice editor (which I was back when I checked the checkbox) I didn't even understand it! Why are there no simple examples to save time? Why is one forced to read a lot of redundant information just to find the most basic and simple custom signature?? I fully intended to find out how it works, but then I forgot all about it until I fixed it today.
The key phrase in the instruction is this:
" Custom signatures should link to your user page or your user talk page"
but that's obviously wrong since custom signatures must link, not "should". And the instruction fails to mention that if you check the checkbox your signature is by definition "custom" even if it contains nothing but plain text!

Anyway, the instruction that applies to when the checkbox is checked should lead with those facts (though perhaps not in so many words), and provide an example, and not be so generic (for clarity, "Custom signatures" should be "your custom signature"), and stress, not that you "should" but indeed, must link the signature.

That [you must link the signature] is also contained in the statement "Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline", among other things, but failing to mention that the link requirement can actually be found in that guideline is a big flaw, and BTW, in that short statement, all of a sudden it's "your custom signature" and not "custom signatures", so the generic language isn't even consistent.

I humbly suggest, that:

If the checkbox is checked, the code on the page checks the signature box for wiki markup, and if none is found, it will automatically change it to [[User talk: the username | the signature]]
The instruction for when the checkbox is checked should in stead lead with something closer to this:
" […] If checked, the markup text in the signature box above must link to your user page or your user talk page, as per this description.
Simple examples:
[[User: your username | your signature]]
or
[[User talk: your username | your signature]]"
Somewhere after (2), the entire guideline (not just the links part) can be referenced:
" […] Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline."

zwaa 06:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Therealzwaa. The best place for you to propose such a change might be at Help talk:Preferences or at Wikipedia talk:Help Project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for fixing your signature. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political apathy

What is political apathy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.38.64 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 105.112.38.64. Wikipedia has an article titled "Political apathy" where you might find some information, or you try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. You can also simply try searching online for such information. Anyway, the Wikipedia Teahouse is really only intended to be a place to ask questions about Wikipedia editing; so, if you've got any of those, feel free to ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. The mischievious reply would have been simply to say "Who cares?" Nick Moyes (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a draft

Hi everyone, dear fellow Wikipedians,

I've saved my first article as draft, waiting to be reviewed, since four days. I'm a bit insecure what's next. Do you have any advice?

Best Jafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafa Fass (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't yet submitted it for review, but there would be no point in doing so yet as you have no inline citations to published reliable sources independent of the subject. You'll find further useful advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove Third party template message

Hello!

Yesterday I wanted to update this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Consulting, after reading the new book of this company CEO I Googled some information previous publications and found some, which I as well added to page. I guess I should be doing it in Sandbox first, right? But as I am a new user, I did everything really spontaneously. I was really upset, when user without talking before, just removed all my updates and worst of all put the template message, which I think is inappropriate, because he removed all my updates, because he thought that I am some kind of paid editor. How would you suggest to handle this situation, so maybe just clear everything from history (including my updates)? I just feel sorry, that without knowing a have messed up really nice Wikipedia page. I am working on Visual Editor. Thank you! BalluHome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BalluHome, welcome to the Teahouse. I know it's upsetting when you make changes and someone reverts them, especially if they add a template, but please don't take it personally. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and sometimes that means you will make a change and someone else might overwrite it. They don't necessarily have to discuss it first - we have a process called 'bold, revert, discuss'. You did the right thing by making a bold change, but the other editor was within their rights to revert it. The best next step, if you are unhappy, is to discuss' the changes on the article talk page. Hug^syrup 13:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank you for your quick answer, we are already discussing with other user to sort things out. :) BalluHome (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History stays (unless it involves a copyright issue, in which case an administrator deletes). In looking at the history, my opinion is that the tag was added to recognize that User:Gingerjolanta previously made many changes to the article. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk review of proposed content changes

Hi Teahouse community - i'm a new user on Wikipedia :) I entered some proposed content and changes to this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjeev_Gupta Just wanted to know how I attract attention of someone to review and consider proposed content. I read and followed the advice for new users and disclosed by paid COI status - is there anything additional or different i can do? How long generally does it take to get a response or action to changes placed on a subject talk page? look forward to hearing from you --Ben at GFG (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben at GFG:. Welcome to The Teahouse. Thank you for paying attention to and abiding by the guidelines for paid editors - we appreciate that. It can take some time to get a review on pages that don't have a lot of traffic. I would wait a bit as you only posted the changes yesterday, but if you get no responses after a couple of weeks, you could try posting to a relevant Wikiproject (the page is included in Wikiproject Biography, for example, but Wikiproject India might also be interested). However, I would warn you that right now your proposes changes are extremely difficult to read and review. What you need to do is break each specific change down as a bullet point so that a reviewer can see exactly what you want to change, and they can accept or decline each change individually. For example:

In line 3, delete text 'ABC' and add 'DEF' between the words 'X' and 'Y'
Delete everything from 'foo' to 'bar' in section 'blah'.

And so on. Hug^syrup 13:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: Thank you for your advice and response --Ben at GFG (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made a edit, now there is a grey box around the whole section, and the font is different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Knight#Home_media

I've been going through and adding laserdisc releases for various films, and this is the first time I've seen this, help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokefraker (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pokefraker, welcome to the Teahouse. Leading spaces cause special formatting. Just remove the space when you don't want this. Paragraphs are separated by an empty line. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before article submission

Hello I was wondering if anyone would like to look over this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:T23_armored_car page before I submit it to become an article. Thanks for reading this and thanks if you do decide to check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.186 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user will look over it once you submit it, so if you think it is ready you're better off doing that rather than getting feedback here. However, for what it's worth, I think the draft may be declined. The problem you have is that your sources demonstrate that the vehicle exists but they don't really seem to demonstrate that it is notable, because they are mainly primary sources and don't provide detailed coverage of the vehicle. If I were reviewing the article, I think I would probably decline it. Is there another article you could merge your content into for now instead of creating a whole new article? Hug^syrup 15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it? Is that allowed, to merge all the information and infobox into an already existing article? I wouldn't know how to add the new info box w/o it messing the rest of the pages format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.186 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a draft were merged into an existing article, it would almost certainly need to be shortened, and an infobox would not be appropriate. Note that an infobox is a convenience for a reader, not an important part of an article: almost everything in it should be in the text anyway (to quote from WP:Infoboxes: "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored"). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the article's talk page as a draft page

May I know if this is allowed? Shouldn't this be done on the user's sandbox? I think this might cause confusion to some. Sub |_HMU 16:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subwaymuncher, I just made a few BOLD edits. Guess we'll see what happens next. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Much better! Thank you! Sub |_HMU 17:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subwaymuncher, there are actually very strict rules about editing other people's comments. I think my edits are allowed exceptions under the spirit of community guidelines if not strictly the words. But, I'm not really sure. That's why I called it a BOLD edit. So, we'll indeed have to wait and see whether I get in trouble for that. Do read WP:TALK and write what you think. It is an interesting read, if a little too "succinct" for my liking. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, while the guideline says it's purpose is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article, it also says under Share Material that New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article but I'm not sure if that applies here. So yeah, I guess we'll just have to wait. Sub |_HMU 19:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool and Subwaymuncher: If the materiel had been a proposed draft for a new version of the article, or a section to be added to it, it would have been fine and should not have been deleted. It would have been reasonable to archive it rather than just delete it, but it is all available in the history. I added a short note to explain what had been removed and provide a diff showing the removal. In future, this is a good idea in such cases at the time of the initial edit. It lets other editors know wha tis going non, and allows anyone who wants the content, perhaps for a new draft page, to find it more easily. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article

I didn't realize that this would be a controversial title, and that the political situation might bring unwanted attention to common people violating laws. So I must delete this submission so we can continue to use this public space with out scrutiny of the various environmental advocates who do not want dogs on the beach.Rfurnback (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Roert Furnback[reply]

Your draft was deleted yesterday evening as an abandoned draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

breakimg down an article into subheadings

i have a question that i have submitted my article before and it was in subheadings but the editor asked me to make changes and submit it under one heading and now i have submitted it without headings but my article was declined, please help me and tell what changes i should make . it is not an abstract that i have written ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeha Akhtar (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Genome_design_and_construction. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the subject matter of that draft, and I understand the terminology. But I find it almost impossible to extract any meaning from it. It's as if it was written by an AI, with a fair understanding of syntax but none of the meanings of the words it has been asked to use. Maproom (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reverted changes

Hi there, I am a volunteer for a non-profit organization and I recently worked to help them update their Wikipedia page. I went back today to continue my work on the wiki and build out the links and references, and I found that all of my content had been reverted by another user. We received this message: Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Centurion Ministries—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How can I prevent this from happening - we are simply trying to improve the information available about our organization on wiki. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.218.90 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject, and if you are associated with the subject you need to read about conflict of interest and use the article talk page for any suggested changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Serols. I'm afraid that, like many people you (and probably your organisation) have a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is. Centurion Ministries is not "their Wikipedia page": it is Wikipedia's article about them. It does not belong to the organisation, and its content should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have published about them, not on what they say or want to say. This is Wikipedia's policy: it makes no difference how worthy the subject is. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you're referring to edits from LShareefW as well as those from 71.168.218.90? Some of those from the former were reverted because they included misplaced external links. It would also be wise to use meaningful edit summaries to explain your edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, I've bee working on Blonded Radio for quite some time now, and have wanted an "editing buddy" to help since I started. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any definitely-active people from the article's WikiProject. If anyone wants to help out, please let me know. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Sandbox

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § My Sandbox

– -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please how can i name what i created in user:f5pillar/sandbox, and how to published it like other pages F5pillar (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi F5pillar. First of all, I moved your question from the Wikipedia Teahouse talk page to the Wikipedia Teahouse main page. The Teahouse's talk page is mainly for asking questions or making suggestions about the Teahouse itself (e.g. change the formatting, fix a syntax error), whereas the Teahouse main page is for asking questions like yours about Wikipedia and editing.

As for you question, it's not clear what you want to do. Do you want to change the name of your sandbox page to something else? If you want to do that, then you can WP:MOVE the page to a new title yourself.

Do want to know whether it the content you posted in your sandbox is something which can become a Wikipedia article? If that's your question, then the answer is going to be no, at least at this time. For more information on why, please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. If you still have questions after reading that pages I linked to above (the words in blue), feel free to post them below and someone will try and help you out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions before joining.

Hello, I just a question before I join Wikipedia. I have really been paying attention to articles that are being written and then the editor blocked an or banned for almost trivial eidits or comments. Seeing these makes me not want to contribute. I have followed admins and some only set out to destroy editors. Who polices these things. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.99.145.84 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a bit concerned with what you say, because I think you must have gone looking for problems to see that. Nobody should get blocked or banned for "trivial edits", unless those trivial edits are obvious vandalism, and they carry on doing it after being warned. Anybody who edits in good faith, and who takes note if somebody points out that they are doing something wrong, should be fine. I would be very concerned - and so would the whole community - if any editor, and specially an administrator "set out to destroy editors". Everything works by consensus here: there are no police. And you don't need to "join": you can edit as an anonymous editor (as you did here) - there are a few things you can't then do; or you can create an account and edit from there. --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello! We have very strict policies on Wikipedia for a reason: to prevent trolling and to build an encyclopedia. We don't tolerate nonsense. But we are actually quite lenient with many vandals, giving them multiple chances to stop their behavior. And any editor that makes a good faith attempt to explain the circumstances they were blocked under may be unblocked. If you have a concern with a particular admin, or wish to see an explanation for why a particular user was blocked, you may ask and will usually receive a response. Generally users are not blocked for trivial things: they are blocked because they are actively vandalizing, not following our policies, and the biggest one: not engaging or changing their behavior after being told it is wrong. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I was just looking around at some pretty good articles but it was crazy how many I saw that were being deleted. Then as I followed links it just seemed to be the same admins. A few comments just seemed pretty personal. I followed one admin to their Talk page and it had hundreds of blocks, bans, puppets? Anyway I will sign up and write the best I can and trust the process. Again I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.99.145.84 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some admins who deal with more vandalism than others, as unfortunately a lot of people don't want to contribute constructively. But I'm glad you would like to help out! If you have any more questions on how to use Wikipedia, please add them here, we're always glad to be of assistance! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Some admins specialize in finding and deleting improper content, and some in finding and blocking vandals and other people who violate our policies. Editos who edit normally and are willing to listen to advice on how things are done on Wikipedia will not usually be the subject of this sort of action. If you follow a cop around you will see many more criminal arrested than you would just walking the streets. (you may also annoy the cop.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for an editor that is coming back?

Ive recently returned to editing on Wikipedia, what should I know(anything changed significantly?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriGagrin12 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YuriGagrin12: it rather depends how long you've been away. Many people now edit using the visual editor or from mobile devices (I do neither). The Draft space was introduced as the preferred place to develop draft articles, and we're stricter than we used to be about accepting substandard articles into article space. Is that the sort of thing you meant? --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colinfine Thank you for the info! How do I get to the digital editor from my computer? So the draft space replaced the sandbox basically? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriGagrin12 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YuriGagrin12, Howdy hello! We're glad to have you back! I see that you've been away for about 2 years, and ColinFines recommendations below are really only the main changes. Otherwise, Wikipedia is the same 'ol platform its always been, and is in constant need of good folks like yourself to help improve it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek Thank you! I came back because I notice a lot of people hostile to younger users because they sometimes vandalise pages, so I am slowly trying to reverse that stigma haha.

YuriGagrin12, Read Wikipedia:VisualEditor for instructions on how to enable the visual editor, always or as a choice, and for information on how it works. It does not require an editor to use or learn wiki-markup, and many think it easier to use. There are some things, however, which it still does not handle easily, although it is much improved over its first version, in my view. But if you are comfortable editing in wiki-markup, there is no requirement that you ever use the visual editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i am a man of many names but i am evan

one man that is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.102.162 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello! This is a Wikipedia help forum, a place to ask for assistance regarding Wikipedia. It is not a general forum to ask any question or make any statement. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP block help!

Some kids have vandalized Wikipedia At my school, resulting in an IP ban, and for some reason, because I live near my school, the ban has taken effect at my house, why is this? Gumshoe97 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe97 Are you editing from a different location at this time?(as you couldn't have made the above post if subject to an IP block) Do you use the same ISP or computer network as your school? 331dot (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gumshoe97 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe97 I will take that to mean 'yes' to both questions. If you are using the same computer network as the school when at home, then you will be affected by a block on the school's IP. You could try to request unblock and explain your situation, though there are no guarantees as we only know which network you are using, not where you physically are located. I'm not sure if you could get an IP block exemption or not. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking requests on your talk page

If I create a new section on my talk page then write a request, will somebody see it and reply?Prana1111 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, User:Prana1111. If you use {{Help me}} in your request, then someone should see it and respond. If not, than quite possibly no one will respond, unless someone is watching your talk page. Alternatively you could WP:PING one or more active editors. Such editors would be likely to see the notification, but there is no guarantee that any would respond. Or you could post about the issue here, where many experienced users are pretty much certain to see it. If the issue concerns article content you could post on the article talk page, possibly attracting editors interested in that article. You can use {{Help me}} on an article talk page also, thus having two chances of attracting help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prana1111: Your talk page is generally a place for other people to initiate contact with you. To contact others, where to go depends on the subject, for which DES gave some examples. Also available are the Help desk (kind of like the Teahouse), Village pump for general discussions, WP:VPT for technical issues, and WP:ANI to reach admins (use sparingly!), to mention a few more. There are others listed at Help:Menu/Asking questions, too. It's always a good idea to read the page first to get an idea if you're in the right place. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ComicbookDB.com shutting down

There are about 4,500 articles which include links to comicbookdb.com (mostly using the "comicbookdb" template). This site has announced that it is shutting down as of 16 December 2019.

What is the best approach to mitigate the effect of this?

A few points:

Most of these pages are probably available on the Wayback machine.
I presume that IAbot won't be smart enough to work on pages where link is done using comicbookdb template.
Some pages on comicbookdb.com are restricted, meaning you have to get a login, which is currently done easily, but these pages will not be available on the Wayback machine.

Fabrickator (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it shuts down, there may be a bot or automated process (i.e. AWB user) that will add the URL links as dead and provide an archived version. It has not shut down yet, so you should probably archive a version of it (most efficiently on archive.org) and wait from there. If the link still displays as active after the 16th of December, the best thing would probably be to contact a bot owner, AWB user, or manually do them yourself. In a nutshell, you should wait until December 16 until you classify the links as dead. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, Fabrickator, |archive-url= and |archive-date= can be added starting right away, which will reduce the effort and delay when and if the site shuts down, and make it easier to verify that the archived content matches the current valid content. Would you agree, Dibbydib?

Template link: {{comicbookdb}} DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrickator: WP:URLREQ is the best place to post about this. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There is a fraudulent reference that looks genuine but links to inappropriate content. I deleted one reference and did a search and found five similar links. Can someone give me assistance. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anthony Staunton. Is this on William Napier (VC) ? It always helps to provide a link to the article of interest. I will take a look. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Staunton: Is it vandalism or just WP:LINKROT where a previous good link was taken over? Also, we can't help you unless you tell us what problem you found and on which articles. RudolfRed (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed it looks like link rot, or more precisely link usurpation, to me. See my recent edits to both William Napier (VC) and Talk:William Napier (VC). Anthony Staunton, did that deal with the issue that you found? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'link usurpation' is the best description. I will delete the five other examples. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not simply delete usurped links, Anthony Staunton, instead replace them with archived versions if these can be found, as I did in this case. I only deleted the one in the External links because it duplicated a site that was cited as a source. Se WP:DEADLINK for more on this topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can i add a background of Nolan Hilard aka starflashdude if it won't let me?

my article got deleted because I added advertisement to my background by telling what is instagram is. I didn't mean it to advertise, I meant it to say it so people can see who he really is if people didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageBoyBack (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC) \[reply]

Hello, SavageBoyBack. I suppsoe this is about User:SavageBoyBack which was deleted as promotional. There are several issues here:

your user page is to introduce you as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a place to tell the story of your life, nor to draft an article.
Wikipediua strongly discourages posting autobiographies that is articles or other pages about oneself.
If an article is to be written about a person (or any other topic) that person must be Notable that means the person must have had multiple independent professional published (not blogs or fan sites) reliable sources that disscuss the person in some detail. Without this, there just cannot be a valid Wikipedia article.
All articles must be factual in content and neutral in tone, neither promoting mnot attacking anyone or anything.
Oh and there is no "it" here, an expriened human editor determined that the page you created should be deleted.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

uploading historic photos owned by me

Greetings, I was hoping to upload some photos to C-5 (blimp) that were taken by my grandfather of this airship in 1919 but it will not allow it as it seems to think I don't have copyright. How can these be uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerdoog (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Diggerdoog and welcome to the Teahouse. You may have copyright, if you are your grandfather's sole heir. But there is no way for Wikipedia (or commons) to know that this is true. What you should be able to do is upload, selecting one fo the CC (creative commons license tags or possibly the PD-old tag. and then send email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org mentioning the file name and explaining the situation, including the text from Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, images are not uploaded to an article. They are uploaded as files, and then used (linked to) in an article, see Help:Pictures and Wikipedia:Uploading images for more details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that only autoconfirmed users may upload to the english-language Wikipedia, and you are not yet autoconfiremd. However this restriction does not apply at the Wikimeda commons (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing addition

Hi, I recently added the name Zachary Sim to the list of Australian child actors, as he is my friend, but he recently passed away in November 2019 and now I can't find his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunterGetsHunted (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HunterGetsHunted Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry for the loss of your friend. According to the article edit history, your addition was removed because the subject does not yet have a Wikipedia article. List articles are not for listing every possible member of the list, only those that merit Wikipedia articles(this ensures that everyone in the list meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability). If your friend meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable actor and you have independent reliable sources to support it, you are welcome to create one; you can use the Article Wizard to help. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who writes the articles about politicians and government officials?

Hi, I want to know Who writes the articles about politicians and government officials? or do Politicians ask their PR team to it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashvaa (talk • contribs) 10:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akashvaa: - these articles, like all articles on Wikipedia, are written by various volunteers most of whom are anonymous. Some editors may particularly focus on writing about the politicians of a particular country or region, but there is no set person or team who writes all the articles. Broadly speaking, anyone can write and contribute to articles about politicians although as they are often the subject of vandalism, some may have restrictions on. It is possible that politicians also ask their PR teams to write/edit their articles and no doubt this has happened in the past, but it is a serious conflict of interest and strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. Generally other editors will spot when an article is being written in a promotional way, and will edit it to be balanced. Hug^syrup 10:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Question

Hi all! Is it wrong for us to ask for an article to be reviewed? Diogo Silvado (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about an article or about a draft? If you mean Draft:Aethel Partners it has already been submitted for review. As it says in the box on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,624 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank for your answer. I know that but would it be 'unethical' to ask a reviewer for a review? I'm new at this and still didn't wrap all the rules and conventions. Diogo Silvado (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Silvado, I don't think the ethics of it has been nailed down yet, but many editors will refuse to review on request, yet some might do so. Making too many requests all around could be seen as disruptive though, if unwelcome. Usually, my observation is that, if an article is a clear pass or fail upon only a brief perusal, it's more likely to get reviewed on request, if it needs detailed investigation, it will almost certainly, always be declined (not the draft, the request to review). How your request is received might also depend on whether you are writing about something you are connected to, as opposed to solely to add to the sum of human knowledge. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diogo Silvado I'd agree with Usedtobecool above. As a reviewer I'm usually happy enough to take a look at draft articles on request if they are either a quick fail (which frankly most are) or an easy pass. One of the issues you may have with yours is that a number of the sources are not English and one is paywalled. None of that is against the rules or makes the sources invalid, but it does make it harder for many reviewers to conduct a quick review. There may be no way to avoid this - if these are the only sources you have, there's not much you can do except wait for someone who has the time, the language ability, and the WSJ subscription. However, if you want to increase the likelihood of a quick pass, you'd be better off with three or four high quality sources, in English, that are not paywalled. The other sources can then be added back in once the article is approved. Hug^syrup 12:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Half of your references are to an attempt by Athel to but a company, which in the end did not take place. This adds nothing to the notability of Athel, and should be deleted. Often, when people attempt an article about a company it is because they are in the employ or are otherwise compensated. Is that your situation? If so, you must comply with WP:PAID. This involves posting a declaration of paid on your User page. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diogo Silvado: Who is “we” in your question, where you ask “Is it wrong for us to ask for...”? Are you a group of people?
The Wikipedia:Username policy explicitly states that Your username must represent you as an individual person – see the policy section Wikipedia:Username policy#Guidance for new users.
Please also see the section on WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. --CiaPan (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want any contributor

I want anyone to write an article about my constituencies MLA Jalandhar North Assembly Constituency [3] Avtar Singh Junior (Bawa Henry) as He is the first time MLA and no one has created an article for him! I could have written but I'm not that experienced in writing a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashvaa (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akashvaa, there are many subjects that deserve an article but haven't got one because noone has gotten around to it. This is especially true of countries like India. If you can not write it yourself, you'll just have to wait for someone who can to get to it. You can also add a request for the article at WP:Requested articles. But that's about all, since this is a volunteer project. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akashvaa, if you'd like to give it a try yourself, you can try your personal sandbox (link is at the very top, probably in red) or you can start a WP:Draft. There are tutorials and editors to help you with it. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make a disambiguation

Hey everyone! Recently I tried to make one of the requested articles and since it has the same name as a German surname, I moved it to this page. So I was thinking to make the old page a disambiguation page and list these two pages (surname and clothing) there, but I'm not sure how to do it? I'll be thankful for any help. Best wishes, thesecondcoal

[1] ttp://www.californiaaviation.org/syma-x20-drone-review/>

[1]