Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

I can't see my page "Death Wish (2017 film)" which I created starring Bruce Willis

Hi all, the page "Death Wish (2017 film)" that I created which stars Bruce Willis is now move forwards, with the name of the producers the a few casts announced. Can I have the article back, please, I can't see the page. Also, the page "Flatliners (2018 film)" which I also created is in the limbo, that I can't see the page because I predicted the wrong year, when Sony announced that the film will be released in 2017, that's my mistake :(. I don't want to talk about this page but can I received my page "Death Wish (2017 film)" again ? Giangkiefer (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Giangkiefer. According to our notability guideline for films, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."

Do reliable sources report that principal photography is underway on these films? If not, you should wait until then to begin writing the articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Giangkiefer. It can be frustrating to lose track of articles you have worked on. In this instance, it appears your efforts were either deleted or merged with an existing article because they did not meet notability guidelines for films, as Cullen328 advises above. However, you can still see the latest version of Death Wish (2017 film) you edited in your contribution history, here. But there is currently also a redirect to Death Wish (film)#Remake, which has several paragraphs about the remake with much the same information as you wrote. It looks like your version may have been merged with the article on the original film. The Flatliners (2018 film) is also a redirect to Flatliners#Remake, and the latest version you edited is here.

Your choice is either to further develop the "Remake" sections of the existing articles, and/or to discuss on the articles' talk pages whether to split the information to new pages once the remakes have "commenced principal photography". Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with Draft: Pamela Schulz

I wrote an article about an Australian academic called Pamela Schulz. It was rejected twice, on the grounds that the language was too 'salesy' and notability had not been established. I removed the 'salesy' language and engaged one of the reviewers in discussion. During that discussion it became apparent that the reviewer did not know about the Australian Honours System and this lack of knowledge had led to the question mark over notability. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines, an academic is considered to be notable if they are awarded a major national Honour. In Australia, an OAM is such an Honour - it is awarded by the Queen, via the Governor General of Australia, after a rigorous process of nomination and review. I referred the reviewer to Wikipedia's own pages about the OAM and Australian Honours, and the reviewer said he/she would revisit... but nothing. That was several weeks ago now and the draft has still not been reviewed. Can anyone help? It seems strange that Pamela Schulz meets Wikipedia's own guideline regarding academics and notability (due to her OAM) and yet the draft is not progressing.ShazzaMD (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if we ping User:SwisterTwister they'll see this message and respond. Rojomoke (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShazzaMD. According to our notability guideline for academics, a person is presumed notable if they have received a "highly prestigious academic award". The Order of Australia is not an academic award. The order has five classes and the medal (OAM) that Schulz received is the lowest of those five classes. The higher classes have quotas, while the OAM does not. Accordingly, this neither a highly prestigious award nor an academic award by any stretch of the imagination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. When I checked just now, the notability guidelines read 'highly prestigious academic award or national honour'. The OAM is a national honour. Whether it is highly prestigious or not is a matter of opinion. Many Australians would say that it is highly prestigious. Your comment 'by any stretch of the imagination' is your imagination, therefore, and you do not speak for others.ShazzaMD (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I choose the article title for a singer when there is more than one with the same name?

I am in the processing of making an article for the Atlanta-based singer Abra. I was going to name the article Abra (singer), as there is a rapper called Abra (who has an article called Abra (rapper)). However Last.fm informs me that there is also a Polish singer called Abra. A quick Google didn't fetch any information about this singer, which suggests that if I make an article called 'Abra (singer)' it will not cause problems, but I just wanted to check what other people think? Sarahstaniforth (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be completely fine to name the article "Abra (singer)". If we don't have an article about the Polish singer with the same name, they might not be notable anyway, at least for the English Wikipedia. In general, if a title isn't taken, use it. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Adana derby and previous deletions

I reviewed Draft:Adana derby and declined it for notability reasons. I commented that there had already been two deletion discussions. I then received the following snarky comment from User: Abcmaxx: "You didn't review it though did you, you just hashed out the same old stupid argument. I'd like to know which bit of it has no reliable or independent sources because clearly there's a) a lot of them b) they're significant and c) reliable"

I did review it, several times, and was prepared to comment on it and defer it to another reviewer, but the AFCH script then showed me the three previous deletes, two deletion discussions and a WP:G4. As a reviewer, one of the instructions is to consider whether the article will survive a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. Since the deletion discussions have already been held, and the consensus has been Delete, if I were to accept the draft, it would either be tagged for WP:G4 again or get a third deletion nomination. Being sarcastic to a reviewer should not in itself result in a draft being declined, but it does not increase the likelihood of acceptance. I would suggest that, if the author thinks that the deletion discussions missed the mark, rather than just resubmitting, the author should go to WP:WikiProject Football and ask them whether they think that this rivalry (when rivalries are not ipso facto notable and require general notability) is notable.

Do other experienced editors have comments on what either a reviewer or an author should do in this situation, where a topic has already had a deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right about this not having a hope in hell of surviving CSD under WP:G4 as it's the exact same content. In the AFD I think Fenix down has the right response - if this were a game between two clubs under any other circumstance would it be notable. Just because they share the same ground doesn't elevate this above the norm. Admittedly this is closer to meeting the notability threshold than some football rivalries I've seen articles attempted on. Nthep (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw the draft and had it been moved to the mainspace I would have G4d it as essentially the same as the previous version. To be honest I am baffled why this has come through AfC in this state. Fenix down (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what User:Fenix down means by "come through AfC in this state". It is in AfC in this state because User:Abcmaxx submitted it to AfC in this state. I see that User:Nthep says that it is the exact same content as when it was deleted, and I assume that they mean that they have used admin glasses to view the deleted version. If Abcmaxx thinks that it should be accepted, I would suggest that they ask for opinions at WP:WikiProject Football. I will comment that, in the second deletion discussion, at least one editor said that the title should be salted to prevent tendentious re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is salted. Nthep (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Abcmaxx: CSD G4 is a general criterion, meaning it applies to all namespaces (and this draft is not "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement"). Of course, it can be difficult to place G4s with confidence if you can't see the deleted content to compare, but you can always ask an admin to check if it's G4-able – including by using {{db|reason}} containing your explicit query as to whether the deleted content is substantially similar. Here, as Nthep states and I confirm, it is, and so I have deleted. Abcmaxx, you participated in both articles for deletion discussions, and yet created this as a draft and submitted for review knowing you had changed nothing substantive since the second AfD debate was closed as delete on the merits. Your path, if at all, is to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, showing that the deletion debate close was against consensus, or on the basis of significant new coverage of the topic in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic and treat it in substantive detail. Just recreating it again is in my view disruptive behavior.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, but none of you have said any of the above at all before. Been left with just a bunch of warning messages and weird threats instead without much explanation or alternatives Abcmaxx (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Submitting a draft that was the same as a deleted article was an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is underway at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The transition innovation in the classics.

Good day! I am a famous historian, my book ( www.rusocka.ru/irs.pdf ) for two years, downloaded about 35,000 times. I spoke at the Congress of historians in city Rostov- on -Don, held numerous debates, met with authoritative historians in person or corresponded with via the Internet. However, on Wikipedia I remained blocked, since then my book was unusual, as the theory about the roundness of the Earth in the middle ages. However, while I was blocked, some articles in Wikipedia, which I relied, were distorted by hackers. I understand it comes from lack of training on the history of the managers of Wikipedia. Maybe this is a reason to allow me to write the amendment? Can you take me to the managers of history? Rusocka (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rusocka, welcome to the Teahouse. This is your first edit at the English Wikipedia so I guess you refer to your block at the Russian Wikipedia. Each language edition is edited independently with its own policies and administrators. We have no authority over the Russian Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As a new user, if I want to go about making a change to a template, what is the right etiquette?

Hello everyone,

I may want to make a small change to the following template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_India_district.

Looking at the Talk page of this template, it was last edited several years ago. I am not sure whether it is okay for me to make a small change to it. Also, it seems to be a well-used template and thus will impact a lot of pages, and therefore I am even less sure about changing it.

Any input will be helpful.

Thanks. Amiwikieditor (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Amiwikieditor!

I would like to suggest you that Yes!, you can do change the contents in the Article as you said that it has not been changed so it might be a very good thought to edit it so that it is updated. If you have ample knowledge about it then go ahead!

Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Careful, Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003. While in general your advice is good, for a template that is used in 378 pages a little more caution might be required. Amiwikieditor, it depends a bit on what is the nature of the change you want to make: does it have the possibility of breaking any pages? Is it likely to be at all controversial? Unless it really is minor, I suggest that you make your suggestion on the talk page, and also notify WT:WikiProject India. If there has been no comment after a few days, then go ahead and make your change. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Amiwikieditor, it would help us answer your question if you described the change you want to make. Joe Roe (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Tye Leigha Hagood

im new to this im trying to create a new page about Publicist Tye Leigha Hagood shes a very well known publicist but never had a wiki page, she does have a few articles but unfortunately as it is in the public relations industry alot are well known internally but not alot of articles but she does also have a imdb that list alot pf her clients... ive created and posted the page is there anyone that csn help me with editing im so lost please feel free to search the page and give comments i also included a lot of references but not sure if i did it right Tlhpr (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to its own section, Tlhpr, as it was likely to get missed where you had placed it, in the section for another editor's question. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tlhpr. As I'm not an administrator, I can't see the article which was deleted. But here's the thing that probably explains what's going on: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody (or their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or publicists) say about themselves. None. It is only interested in what poeople who have no connection with them have published about them. It follows that nothing published by Hagood, or her clients or associates, will contribute in any way to her notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and that unless there is substantial material which has been published about her by people unconnected to her, there will be literally nothing that can be put in an article about her.

I also observe that your username suggests that you are connected with Hagood: if you are, you need to read our policy on conflict of interest carefully.

If you can find some substantial independent published sources about Hagood, and decide to go ahead with writing an article, I suggest you read Your first article carefully, and use the Article wizard to prepare your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

i need help getting my bio published

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User blocked for self-promotion

---

i am frustrated because i made a bio page and it was marked for deletion and cant get anyone to repsond. i fixed it and it still says the same thing(06:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FULLCIRCLE (talk • contribs)

Note: user has been blocked for self-promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Listing press references, pre-Internet

Hi, I've been working on a draft of a musician's biography, which has been rejected. The message is as follows: "This would still need all additional amounts of in-depth third-party news and especially list URLs if they are available please." My question is, how to provide links to music press articles from the 1970s an 1980s? (Dates and issue references have already been included). There are a number of valid links also included in the article relating to other aspects of the biography, but the majority of the press articles are pre-Internet. Thanks in advance for any advice on this subject. Newamordia (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Newamordia and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to provide links if you have consulted paper sources. If you have consulted digitized sources, then providing a link is a good thing to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Newamordia. I will add a bit to the advice given above. When you include a reference to an article not available online, please provide the most complete bibliographic information possible, including author(s), article title and subtitle, name of publication, city of publication, date, page number and so on. You can also include a one or two sentence direct quote from the source, in quotation marks. All of this adds to the credibility of your reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Viewing a more detailed TOC

Some pages that I visit and edit regularly have very long sections that are quite reasonably subdivided for several levels down; e.g., Ingress (video game) has two levels of subsections, down to h4 (==== ====). Also quite reasonably, the TOC on such pages tends to be limited to displaying top-level (==h2==) sections only. But often when I go to such a page I want to get to a particular sub(-sub(-sub))section. If I know its exact name I can add it to the browser bar after a #, but I'm not always certain.

Is there any way for an editor to view a TOC in more detail without editing the page?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Thnidu. While it does involve editing, this method will only take but a moment. Click edit → search for TOC → remove the TOC limiting template such as {{TOC limit|2}} → click show preview → voilà. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: D'ohh! Thanks. Of course! Using Preview, getting the link or URL, then cancelling, will get me to the § I want without changing the TOC and messing up others' experience. Thanks again. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

images and copyright issues

My question is: How do I add an image of a fictional character to an existing Wikipedia page? Examples would be Barbie, Spider-Man, Scooby-Doo, etc. I see them on Wiki pages all the time, but am not certain if those images come from copyrighted sources, are approved because they're for reference, etc. Would that then be uploaded through Wikimedia Commons or another Wizard? Thanks! Catalyststyle (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catalyststyle. Images of copyrighted characters are used in a very limited way to identify the topic of an article and for critical commentary. Please read our policy on use of non-free images #5 for details. Such images must be uploaded here on English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), and must have an acceptable rationale. Take a look at Scooby-Doo (character) as an example. If you click on the image, you will see that the file name is "File:Scooby-Doo.png". Now, click on the blue bar for more information, and you can see the formal legal rationale. Any similar image upload should be handled in the same way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Linking to an external image

I feel I ought to understand this after ten years, but...

{{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing includes the sentence

The largest control field formed had points between Germany, Greece and Ukraine, and took four months of planning and 200 players to create.

That sentence cites this article on Gamespot, where it is immediately followed by a map image, a webpage screenshot credited to Tim Hale. The shot is of a map from the Ingress app showing this field, a very impressive sight as you can imagine from the description.

Of course I couldn't include the image in the article without getting permission from Tim Hale, as well as possibly from Gamespot and Ingress.com, which would be extremely tedious and more than it's worth to me in time and effort; but I'd like to link directly to it. However, this

You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. (Wikipedia:Verifiability § Copyright and plagiarism)

and this

Do not use this template to cite material that violates copyright law.
Citations to such material must either be replaced with a non-copyvio source or removed immediately. (Template:Cite_AV_media/doc)

just aren't clear to me in this case, since I wouldn't be including the image, just referencing (pointing to) it. Does that count as "citing" it?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu: it is not possible to include an image in a Wikipedia article except from Wikipedia itself or from Commons. You can only link to one, and the comment about copyvio applies to all external links, whether in citations or in an external link. As long as the image is not a copyvio on the site where it is hosted, it is OK to link to it; but I think it would be rare that a map itself would be a source for a statement; in particular, I can't see that it would be one in this case.

If you are meaning that you want to upload the map to Commons and use it in the article as an illustration, that would be fine, provided the copyright holder agreed to explicitly release it under a suitable licence (which would allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose): permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thanks for your informative and helpful (and prompt!) reply. I have gone ahead and linked the map with Template:Cite web. I agree that it's not much as a source, but "The largest control field [ever] formed" is a pretty impressive superlative, and imho it deserves to be seen.

I may, after all, pursue permission from the copyright owner, Tim Hale. Do you foresee any possible difficulties because of the connections to GameSpot and the Ingress app? --Thnidu (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Having looked at it, the map (as opposed to the article) is clearly inappropriate as a reference. Which statement is it supposed to support? Any information deduced from that map would be original research, and so inadmissible. In any case, any claim about anything being "the largest" anything (or any other superlative) should only appear if it is supported by an independent reliable source which explicitly says that it is the largest. I think the map would be a welcome addition to the article as an illustration if it is suitably licensed, but I can see no way it can validly be linked to externally. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How to propose a redirect for removal

Hello, I would like to ask how to propose a redirect for removal. The page in question is Dhammakaya ordination, and the redirect to Upasampada doesn't make much sense. I'd like to address this, and have done so, by indicating the reason on the talk page and using the g6 template. Some other editor grumpily said it is the wrong template and removed it, but hasn't informed me which template to use or which procedure to address this issue. Could you advise me? S Khemadhammo (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S Khemadhammo. The proper venue for resolving this issue is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find it.S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

According to my watchlist, Dhammakaya ordination has been marked as reviewed. On Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, it says "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" next to the entry. What is next? According to what I have read about this procedure, it should be deleted automatically, but right now, Dhammakaya ordination hasn't been deleted yet.S Khemadhammo (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It won't be deleted automatically. You list a page on redirects for discussion so that other editors can discuss it. If there is a consensus that it should be deleted, then an administrator will close the discussion and perform that action (this is what the [ closure: ] links are for). However, there hasn't been any discussion in your entry yet. You don't have to do anything at this point, just wait for others to chime in. It usually takes a least a week for a discussion to run its course and be closed.

The entry on your watchlist saying it has been reviewed has nothing to do with the RfD you initiated, it refers to the new page patrol and simply means somebody has checked to make sure the page doesn't violate Wikipedia's basic policies. Joe Roe (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe Roe. S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Recover a pitcure

Hi there. I need help with recover a picture. Here is the link of the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hongchi_Xiao. The picture was "deleted" and the copyright issue was resolved via email. I was told from email that I did not need to re-upload the picture, but I could not get it to show up right. The original file name is: Hongci_Xiao_at_Central_Park,_New_York_in_2008.jpg. I have asked in the email that the file name be changed to Hongchi_Xiao_at_Central_Park,_New_York_in_2008.jpg because I made a mistake spelling Xiao's first name (wrong spelling being Hongci, and the right spelling being Hongchi). I'm not sure if the file name was changed. I have tried both ways. It would not work. Thank you for any help you can give me. I appreciate it. jdxzhu 15:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jdxzhu. Your image was deleted on Wikimedia Commons in November, 2015. A notice was placed on your Commons talk page by a Commons administrator called Mys_721tx, who edits only occasionally here on English Wikipedia. I suggest you ask for further information on their Commons user talk page. We can't help with Commons image issues here at the Teahouse. Commons has completely separate administration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jdxzhu: the file File:Hongci Xiao at Central Park, New York in 2008.jpg was deleted from Commons on 10 Nov 2015 for being a copyright violation. You would need to ask for it to be restored at Commons:Undeletion requests referring to VRTS ticket # 2015111210002462. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have sent a request to Mys_721tx a while back, never heard from him. I will try asking for help from Commons again. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. I appreciate it. jdxzhu 15:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests page does not exit any more. :( jdxzhu 15:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talk • contribs)

Jdxzhu c:Commons:Undeletion requests is the full name of the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your signature isn't working properly, Jdxzhu. You might want to check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your preferences isn't ticked. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, StarryGrandma (talk) , and Cordless Larry (talk) for your help! I found the right place to ask for help with recovering the picture. I think I also got my signature working properly. Fingers crossed! :) I appreciate all your help! jdxzhu (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your signature works fine now, Jdxzhu. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it for confirming it! :) jdxzhu (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

list References in a scrolling box vertically

I want to make the References list smaller when I visit wikipedia. I'm trying to edit vector.css as I found it was the way to do it, I added :

@media screen {
  div.reflist {
  	
    overflow-x: auto;
    overflow-y: auto;
    padding-right: 0.5em;
    max-height: 300px;
  }
}

to it, but the box is scrolling horizontally instead of the very common vertical way, and its scrollbar is on x at the bottom. I want to make it vertical. Account245424 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of that isn't doing what you want it to. Try this:

@media screen {
	.reflist {
		max-height: 300px;
		overflow-y: scroll;
		-moz-column-width: initial !important;
		-webkit-column-width: initial !important;
		column-width: initial !important;
		-moz-column-count: initial !important; 
		-webkit-column-count: initial !important; 
		column-count: initial !important;
	}	
}

You can set max-height as you prefer. You have to disable columns to stop it from overflowing horizontally, but since they're used to save space that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

By the way, you're better off asking questions like this at WP:VP/T. The Teahouse is for beginner editing queries. Joe Roe (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Account245424 (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How to create a page about Company

i want to create a page for company carlton leisure which is in existence from last more then 20 years.

i tried to create to don't know what guidelines i am not following. Please help me in creating page. Disclamer: i am directly associated with carlton Leiaure. Shivcarlton (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shivcarlton: Just to confirm, are we talking about this company? -- Gestrid (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes..

We are talking about this company Shivcarlton (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

its a travel company based in Uk

Shivcarlton (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shivcarlton. You should not create a page about Carlton Leisure as I'm afraid it is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.

Note that unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. Wikipedia does not have pages "for" companies, it has encyclopaedia articles about companies. The key difference being that while a company might use other websites to post information about themselves directly, for promotion or other reasons, Wikipedia only aggregates information about notable companies that have already been written about extensively elsewhere, and always does so from a neutral point of view. If Carlton is a notable company, a volunteer editor should create an article about it in time. Joe Roe (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A person who has a conflict of interest may create a draft article via Articles for Creation and submit it for review. There are a few points that they should consider. First, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and material that is copied from the company web site will be deleted. Second, promotional or peacock language is not permitted. Wikipedia presents its articles from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a medium for advertising. Third, you are required to disclose your association via the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing policy. You did disclose here, but there are specific rules about where to make the disclosure. Fourth, if your draft either doesn't both pass corporate notability or is promotional, it will be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How to improve “Capsim3.2 quick start manual”

Hi teahouse!

I'm a fresh user of wiki and I just created a wiki page with name "Capsim3.2 quick start manual". But I was told the page is proposed to be deleted because of "Per WP:NOTMANUAL or WP:NOTWEBHOST, or WP:NOTHOWTO, or take your pick of WP:NOT." Could you please give me some specific advises on how to improve this page and prevent it from being deleted? Many thanks. XinXinZhang2014 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You've obviously misunderstood the purpose of an encyclopedia. In your question I have turned the various shortcuts into wikilinks so that you can follow them. This page doesn't belong on Wikipedia; I suggest that you upload it to an appropriate website, such as the university site from which the software download is available. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello XinZhang2014. It is very difficult to see how a software manual is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article when we do not even have an article about the software itself. Why would independent reliable sources write about a software manual but not the software itself? And the content seems to be the manual itself rather than a description of the manual. A question has been asked about whether this content has been published elsewhere previously, or whether it is original writing for Wikipedia. This raises significant concerns about copyright, which Wikipedia takes very seriously. I do not see how this article can survive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have figured out that we don't need to put such manual on wikipedia and I have already removed the manual. Thx all! Since this software is half-open right now, It's appropriate to show it at this time. Thus I will delete this section later on. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XinZhang2014 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) It seems that I can not clear this text by myself. Could the administrator help me do this? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XinZhang2014 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

XinZhang2014, I've requested speedy deletion under criteria G7 because you've asked for Capsim3.2 quick start manual to be deleted. PROD and {{copyviocore}} (which are both on the page at the moment) both would've likely resulted in deletion, anyway, but in a slightly slower way. An administrator will review the request for speedy deletion within (likely) the next day or so. After that, the page will either be retained (which is always a possibility, albeit an unlikely one in this case) or deleted. I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete pages.

In the future, if you want a page that you created and that no one else has substantially edited, you can request speedy deletion of the page by putting {{db-self}} (including the curly brackets) at the top of the page.

-- Gestrid (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Committted identity use

Hello everyone, I was setting up a Committted identity for myself using SHA-512.

I was wondering about it's effectiveness, If someone compromises your account, can't they simply delete the template from your userpage or even change the hash of it.

It even states the weakness on the template page: "An attacker with access to the account could overwrite the hash with their own one. They could then say that the previous owner of the account was an attacker who claimed their identity and generated his own hash. An attacker without access to the account could claim that the current account's owner stole their identity. The attacker could state that they did not publish a hash when they used to own the account, or that they did not register an account and that someone else is using their name."

It seems quite pointless to me to have this committed identity unless you actually have to register it with Wikipedia. Leaving a template on your userpage doesn't seem like it would work. NikolaiHo 19:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would think, that if you add a committed identity and nothing happens for years, when it does, you have already established that the one who put it there is the account's proper owner. If it was only there for a few short days however, I believe that with it, one can raise enough concern that a checkuser can be run to determine the account's owner. Should the owner not be able to recover their account, they may create a new one, and using the committed identity, recover their privileges, and even the account name, should they ask. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

publish draft

I'm ready to submit a draft for publication review (Stonestreet Farm) but can no longer see an option to submit. What am I doing wrong here? AnnualGeneral (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC) My apologies, I asked too soon and have found the answer AnnualGeneral (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Adding images to a page

Hello teahouse!

I'm new and am trying to start out editing some pages on topics I'm interested in. I noticed that the Nancy Drew page is in need of some images, especially that of iconic Nancy Drew imagery of her sleuthing adventures. I went to Wikicommons to find some pictures but also had a hard time finding it there. If I don't get the images from WikiCommons am I still able to upload? Znrodrig (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Znrodrig. I'm afraid the answer is probably no. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images in Wikimedia Commons are required to be free to reuse, which means that they are either in the public domain (either by explicit decision, or by reason of age) or have been explicitly released under a suitable licence, such as CC-BY-SA. It is possible that some of the earlier Nancy Drew covers are now out of copyright (I'm looking at the justification for PD status in File:Charles Halton in Nancy Drew... Reporter.jpg), but to upload any particular one to commons would require specific justification that it was in the public domain. So most images you can find are probably not PD or free-licensed, and so cannot be uploaded to Commons. It is possible to use non-free images in a limited way, as is done in the Nancy Drew article; but you would need to justify using another one according to the criteria in non free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability

I am trying to improve my patrolling skills. I've read the wp:Notability section and believe I understand it. Another editor has declined A7 nomination because "(declined speedy deletion - Being a CEO is a credible claim of significance)". I disagree, every corporation has a CEO. It's the references and search results that make it credible to me. Wrong? Cotton2 (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cotton2. If you take a look at WP:A7 again, you'll see that it says that it applies to articles that do not indicate why their subject is important or significant, but that this "is a lower standard than notability". An article can fail our notability requirements but still make a claim of importance or significance. In such cases, an AfD nomination would seem more appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Cordless Larry. I did go back and read A7, and found the guide Common A7 mistakes. On CEO's, it states,

• Business
• Is CEO or another high ranking employee of a notable company
• Founded or otherwise helped start a notable company
• Invented or pioneered a notable product / method

which goes back to my original thought that just because he/she is a CEO doesn't mean they should have an article. Cotton2 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cotton2. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We have three deletion processes, which are speedy deletion, proposed deletion (also called PROD), and Articles for Deletion (called AfD). Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial, unambiguous situations only. If there is any plausible claim of notability, speedy deletion is not appropriate. An article that says a person is a corporate CEO is a plausible claim of notabity. If you have done a good faith search for reliable sources about the person and found none, then nominate it at Articles for Deletion, for discussion by a group of editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Non biographical information in biography section of person article.

Hi there, I would like to ask about Wikipedias policy or opinion about non biographical opinion or claims about a person in the biography section of an article? Please if one of the experienced editors could give an opinion/advice on the second half of a paragraph on the Sri Chinmoy article page in the biography section that starts after reference (53)with the sentence 'In 2009 Jayanti Tamm published....perceptions'. I feel the information there although cited is not actually about Sri Chinmoy's life and not appropriately placed for a biography section. Any suggestions would be very welcome and thank you in advance. Spinach444 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The half-paragraph you refer to gives relevant information about Sri Chinmoy and his teaching, while making it clear that the source is not impartial. I think it should be retained. However, the best place to discuss this is the talk page of the article. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Paid Editing and Business profiles?

How we can do paid editing safely and create business profiles without any fear? Son of Khaldun (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The rules regarding paid editing are at WP:PAID, see also conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not have "business profiles"; it is an encyclopedia, and is not for promotion or advertising or other spam. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Son of Khaldun. "Profiles" are for LinkedIn and other social media websites. Abandon the concept of "profile" if you want to succeed as an editor here. Instead, read and study the neutral point of view, and ponder it, and study it some more. You must disclose your paying clients. You need to use the Articles for Creation process, and once any article is in the encyclopedia, you should use the talk page to suggest edits, and let editors without COI implement the edits. Please be aware that many experienced volunteer editors are highly skeptical of paid editors. Your best defense is to follow our policies and guidelines to the letter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That is really great and helpful, right now I am not paid for anything, all the edits made by me are volunteer action based because I love history, politics, literature and entertainment industry. So I did made the edits that I found necessary to make. In future if I make any paid edit I would fully comply Wiki paid policies and disclose. I was just wondering that if I could make a living out of my passion, that is writing for Wikipedia. And I completely understand the neutral point of view and business profile concept, the "profile" word was wrongly used by me. I just wanted to ask what we need to create a page for a business or a company? Because I have seen a lot of such pages already successful part of Wikipedia. Son of Khaldun (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi ibn Khaldun, if you actually read WP:PAY, it is not just a matter of disclosing: if you accept money to promote a company on Wikipedia, you should not edit related articles at all. You can only ask others to make changes on your behalf. Of course, you would then be expecting volunteers to do work for which you would then be paid – one of reasons that lots of Wikipedians think poorly of paid editors. You should be prepared for a negative reaction if you go down that path. Paid and/or COI editing is something we are forced to accept and try to limit, definitely not something we encourage. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, it's not something you should ever expect to make a living from. Joe Roe (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As for 'what we need to create a page for a business or a company' – please note there are no pages 'for' businesses or companies on Wikipedia, there are pages 'about' them instead. The difference is the page does not contain what a company wants, needs or likes to publish, but rather what others (WP:SOURCE) published about it. --CiaPan (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you are a new editor, and have made edits in some areas in which you are interested. We welcome you as a new editor to Wikipedia. I hope that your questions about being a paid editor are just idle curiosity and that you quickly drop the idea of making any paid edits. As other editors have said, many experienced editors are hostile to paid editors, and Wikipedia policy is hostile to paid editors. It doesn’t forbid them, but it requires that they be disclosed, and it strongly discourages them. So if you want experienced editors to be friendly to you, we will, as long as you don’t go down the path of paid editing. We try to be civil to paid editors, but we also are not friendly to them. So I hope that your question about paid editing is just an innocent good-faith new editor question that you drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awais Azad --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing renewed publications

I've added to the "key writings" portion for the author Hans Wilhelm Frei. His out of print book is currently in print again. I also added a link to where that book is being sold. I've got a feeling that my COI is in regards to providing a html to a business selling a book. Could that be verified please? I also wish to verify that listing the current key writings is acceptable. I know of many authors whose writings are not listed and I wish to add them into the key writings section. Is it acceptable to list updated publications? In this case "The Identity of Jesus Christ" is out of print and unavailable from (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). It is in print with (Cascade Books). May I continue to amend author's key writings? Is there a location inside of wikipedia to provide a link to acquiring those key writings?

This is my first posting and I appreciate your instructions and consideration. I would like to post many more references to many more authors.

Thank you for your timeNathanielAlfredStock (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NathanielAlfredStock. Can you clarify why you think you have a conflict of interest? Are you related to the author, or do you own or work for the business selling the book, or something else? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a follow-up discussion here. Please post further questions back here at the Teahouse though, NathanielAlfredStock, because others might have useful inputs to make. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How to help in article improvement

Hi All,

I wants to know how can i search articles which need improvements. I want to work with article improvements on Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambojharsangeet (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kambojharsangeet. There are plenty of these kinds of lists. It would probably be helpful to know what type of areas you're knowledgeable about and interested in. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kambojharsangeet. One way to get started is to go to the Community portal page and pick one of the many small tasks that are on offer. In the process of completing them, you will learn more about how Wikipedia works, which includes making mistakes, asking questions when things don't go the way you expect, and learning by watching what other people have done. Creating a new article from scratch is a daunting task for a new editor; better to get some time in on smaller (and every bit as important) edits in several ways before tackling it.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, What are different areas. Is there a way to check list of area so that i can choose. Kambojharsangeet (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks jmcgnh, I found list of area on Community portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kambojharsangeet (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Autobiography

I would like to create my biography on Wikipedia. Can you help me?Giljonnys (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten the advice you received previously about autobiography? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

How to Creat My New Article

Hello, I have a One Problem... It's I like Creat New Article. But This Article Deleted many more times. What I Doing? I Can Starting.--Sachin66 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sachin66. You have a problem, because you have plunged straight in as a new user and tried to do something which is difficult: creating a new article. Please read and study WP:My first article, and follow its guidance. In particular, I suggest you spend a few weeks improving some of our five million existing articles before trying to create a new one. Look at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya (2016 film) to understand exactly why it is being proposed for deletion. And, to be honest, the level of English competence you show in your question above makes me wonder if you should be editing in the English Wikipedia at all: you might be more successful in siwiki. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

As it turns out, Sachin66 was not a new user, but a sockpuppet of blocked User:Ravindu Navin, and has been blocked accordingly. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this article becoming a fringe article?

I have been monitoring Daniel Obinim and the info is sourced but I think the article might be 'going south'. Whether it's okay or not, how do you bring it to an editor's attention and have someone examine it? Cotton2 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Cotton2: I have removed the "Speedy Delete" tag because I believe the references establish that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Maproom, I think you meant Cotton2. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Undo my changes in witcher 3 wiki page

i added a line about it being the highest rated game on PC,Xbox-one,Ps4 on metacritic but it was removed Why? i know wiki don't allow user-reviews abut metacritic is trust worthy site and i quote "For some high profile games, a flurry of user reviews that strongly counter the general consensus of mainstream reviewers (those listed as reliable sources) may exist." here is the case user reviews are reilable with 10K votes on pc and 9k on PS4 so it must be shown on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmsn8 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dkmsn8, you have evidently seen The1337gamer's edit summary for his reversion of your edit on The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, since you quote from the section he linked to. But you have quoted selectively. I suggest you read the part of WP:VG/USERREVIEW which you have ignored. In any case, this discussion should be taking place at Talk:The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, not here, and the person to ask why it was reverted is the person who reverted it (whom I have pinged above), not random people at the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dkmsn8: Incidentally but not insignificantly, your heading for this question, "Undo my changes in witcher 3 wiki", is confusing. When I saw it, I thought you were asking about changes you made in some other wiki, one devoted to "Witcher 3". There are plenty of wikis on the web, such as Ingress Wiki, Mrs. Berry's Civics & Economics Wiki, the Wiki of the Association for Computational Linguistics, and countless others.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is not a "wiki": it is a page in a wiki, specifically an article page in this wiki, the English Wikipedia. --Thnidu (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

want to add a city article, that's name Nagarukhra.

Dear Friends, I am trying to add a article about my city, where I live in. The name of the city is Nagarukhra, but when I creating this page after few hour later it has been deleted by other users & does not show proper information about the city on Google as well as on Facebook. When I am going to add my hometown as Nagarukhra, it doesn't show any result, even in Wikipedia also. Again & again the article's name/title convert to Nagarukhra to Ukrah, but our city's name is Nagarukhra. So guys, please help me build a article about my city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo500 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)