Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Edit History Statistics

Hi! I just had a little question about statistics. Was wondering if there is a way to find page statistics from a past version of a page - for example, the statistics of a page, say, from a year ago, using Edit Counter or a similar resource. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec

Thanks! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sturgeontransformer - welcome. Yes, you can get page visit stats as far back as July 2015 for any article, say Environmental racism in Europe which I see you've been editing recently. Open the View History tab at the top of the page and then, about four lines down from the top below the title you'll see a line of links. One of them is Page View Statistics. This takes you to the wmf tool which displays hits for the last week or so. (see here)

At the top right of that page you can change the start/end date for analysis, going right back to 2015,which yields this result. Major peaks in traffic can be caused from anything like media news coverage of a topic,to a submission to "Did You Know...?". You can put your mouse on a single day and see the count - though you will need to select a shorter date period for this function to work than 2015-2018. Unfortunately what this tool doesn't supply is the functionality of things like Google Analytics which shows traffic in and out, time on site, and depth of travel. With 5.5 million pages here that'd probably be too much to hope for.Nick Moyes (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! One thing I was also curious about: on the Edit Counter tool, they have really great info on content contributions, aka what percentage of text was contributed by each editor. I was curious if this can also be set back in time--for example, if it's possible to see what the text contributions by percentage and edit count for each user on a specific article were, say, a year ago. This might be asking too much of the system, but I'm curious!

Once again, I appreciate the assistance! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure of the answer to that. Maybe others do? There are quite a few tools at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ that I've not really explored, and for lovers of other stats there's also a host of useful links at Wikipedia:Statistics. Regarding your specific question:

Using an example I mentioned in another post today, I did a lot of work some while back on this article: Mont Blanc massif.

• This tool shows you a summary of that article, and all the editors who've worked on it, and various reports showing when it was worked on the most.
• This tool shows you one editor's contribution early on in the history of that page.
• This tool shows you just my own contrbutions to that same article over time. (See if you can determine when I was working flat out to try get it from List status up to Featured Article standard. (it hasn't quite made it there yet, though))

It is then easy to copy each person's table of contributions to that article and drop them into a spreadsheet, put an identiying name against each person's contributions and then sort them either chronologically, or by size of contribution (plus or minus). So you would then be able to sum up the contributions of just the people you'd selected, either in total or over a set time frame. I'm sure you could play around and plot that data more visually within the spreadsheet if you wished. Maybe there is a tool that does this all more elegantly, but it's the nearest I can get to answering your question. I certainly don't think I've a great need for it myself though! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, sounds good! I appreciate the recommendation for tallying up the statistics - that sounds like the best option! And nice work with the Mont Blanc massif article - looks great! :) Regards, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

But take note, Sturgeontransformer and Nick Moyes, that the character-change figure, plus or minus, is a net figure. If someone replaces the text of a 5000-character section with 4980 characters of totally different text, the history page will only show "-20". You can't safely evaluate an edit without looking at the diff. --Thnidu (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - in that case, for long-term archival purposes of documenting authorship, I then figure taking large numbers of screenshots of diffs after major edits would be good practice. Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And further to this, I figure that better than screenshots would be to "Save Page As" from one's browser to download copies of the diffs, which (if archived using an independent backup like iDrive or similar software) would save the diff pages offline. I know...I've just been really interesting in the subject of archiving recently! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something here, why would you bother to do that? Yes, you could save any article's history page as a single .MHT file in Internet Explorer for later reference offline. But why, when you have the article history avialble to you here on Wikipedia. (it will never go away). If you want more than the maximum 500 edits shown in View History, just go to the url in the browser and change 500 to, say, 5000 like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&offset=&limit=5000&action=history

But your way would certainly work. Personally, I despise anyone interested in archiving - these people really get my backup! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"You've got mail"

I've received this message, and seen the mail, but I don't know how to answer it. How do you send mail to a Wikipedian? I tried WP:Mail and Help:Mail, but neither page exists.

The user gafiated 3½ years ago, leaving a large angry announcement on their user page and a fierce insistence that the username not be allowed for anyone else to use. Their talk page has more recent exchanges, though, and apparently they are back after a block, then an unblock about a year ago.

I left a message pinging them on my own talk page. But what's with the mail business? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thnidu, on the user's talk page, mid-way in the left-hand column under "Tools" there is the facility to "Email this user". There is no guarantee that the e-mail link will still be valid, or a message read, but you can try it. I assume that they used this facility to contact you. Dbfirs 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If the user has e-mailed you, Thnidu, then that message will be in the inbox of the e-mail associated with your account. You can answer by replying if you want, but note that that will reveal your e-mail address to the other user. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Dbfirs: Thank you, comrades. I think I'll continue correspondence with User:Acagastya, if at all, via my own Talk page. --Thnidu (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the standard practice. Apologies for misunderstanding. When Wikipedia says "You've got mail" they actually mean "someone has left a message on your talk page". (Confusing, like when "publish" just means "save".) Dbfirs 22:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

can someone create a page for me?

looking for someone to start a page for me that i can then add to and edit . My name is Justin Scheman I was on season 27 of the amazing race ..thanks for the help 21:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinClassic1 (talk • contribs)

@JustinClassic1: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read our policy on autobiographies at WP:AUTO.In short, it is highly discouraged for users to create or edit pages about themselves, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Article subjects must be shown to be notable (please read WP:N) with independent reliable sources (WP:RS). I'm not certain that a reality show contestant would qualify, as there is likely not extensive in depth coverage of you that is independent of you. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I know .. thats why i asked someone else to start/write one for me .... a simple good search for Justin Scheman or Justin and Diana will show thousands of results. I was on one of the most dominant teams in the history of the most awarded reality show on TV The Amazing Race. I also had my proposal video go viral and was on a few TV shows because of it like rachael ray and right this minute ....I was on MTV's "The Grind" for two years featured in over 50 music videos and been on morning radio for 15 years ... there are wiki pages for people with much less "accomplishments" JustinClassic1 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@JustinClassic1: Please read WP:OSE; each article is judged on its own merits. If you see pages that do not meet the notability guidelines (WP:BIO) feel free to propose their deletion. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate pages get through, sometimes for years.

Millions of Google hits would not necessarily equate to notability. Quality sources matter much more than quantity. The sources need to be independent and give in depth coverage of you. If you truly feel that you meet the notability guidelines, you can post to Requested Articles to request an article be written, but it is severely backlogged and it may be some time before it is written. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

JustinClassic1 - I, of course, echo what 331dot said. That said, on a cursory search it does appear there are a number of quality WP:RS spanning a period of time; enough, anyway, for a short and concise article. The only thing to keep in mind is that nothing could be put in it that wasn't included in those sources so, depending on what appears on a closer examination, you might be setting yourself up for disappointment. The other thing to remember is that, once created, a WP article is pretty much forever. Finally, biographies include the good and the bad. I'm not sure if there's any "bad" out there but if there is (and if it's not something you want a centralized archive of), you may want to rethink this idea! If this all seems fine, though, please post to my Talk page and I'd be happy to try and provide some one-on-one assistance to see if something that met the AfC criteria could be put together. Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

are one of you going to actually help me make the article? JustinClassic1 (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I, for one have, no interest, seeing as how you ask. Maybe other volunteer Teahouse hosts might like that kind of stuff. Were you a mollusc, an obscure vascular plant or an overlooked female scientist, I might have been motivated. Creating vanity pages aren't for me, I'm afraid. But you have had a very generous offer from Chetsford, so why are you still coming across so darned pushy? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is state level newspapers a good reference?

Recently, My article on Mr. Amod Mardolkar was rejected due to unreliable sources! His movie and fitness related articles have come in many local newspapers! If that can make a change in my article status please get back to me so, I can furnish the proofs!Jeevan Ravi (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jeevan Ravi. I just looked at your draft, and have a couple comments. First off, you should look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners, which will give you good tips on how to proceed. Among other things, references to Google Drive or photos.google.com are never acceptable on Wikipedia, because those are user-submitted. We can only accept reliable, third-party, independent sources, which in this context usually are quality media sources. You state that these sources exist, but you present only one. More need to be added.

Secondly, you present a number of quite personal documents about Mr. Mardolkar. I've deleted the reference (and I strongly urge any admin seeing this to revdel them), because it's not permitted to reveal that sort of information on Wikipedia. But that being said, how did you obtain those documents? If you know Mr. Mardolkar personally (or are him), you should also review WP:COI, which governs working on an article where you may have a personal interest. Ravenswing 05:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

can i tow an XC90 AWD on a tow dolly?

can I tow an XC90 2005 model AWD on a tow dolly behind my motorhome?69.40.17.104 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Volvo doesn't recommend towing their AWD (all wheel drive) vehicles, including the XC90. It is not possible to disengage the AWD rear wheel drive system on these vehicles. See http://volvo.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9802/~/towing-your-volvo-behind-another-vehicle. General Ization ^Talk 05:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

... and for the future it is worth noting that the Teahouse is intended for questions about editing Wikipedia. For more general questions, try the Reference desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced from Times Now and I have explained in Talk got no reply

Times Now was launched in 2006 in partnership with Reuters is clearly sourced and this sourced by the Business Standard and by a book. It the most popular channel with highest viewership in India as per the Financial Times ,The Hindu and this book Supreme Court has not awarded Rs 100 Crores to P B Sawant it has only refused the interim order of the Pune District court Times Now had to deposit Rs 20 crores and 80 Crores guarantee with the court not even a single rupee has been given to the Judge. The case is pending in the Bombay High Court and the source is India Today and the Telegraph Earlier I removed an error Press Trust of India have not fined Times Now.Grebeenos (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Further Wire accused Times Now of airing an doctored Video which Times Now denied if someone is adding it back you need source other than Wire and Times Now. Wire is a party to this dispute Grebeenos (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This page is not the place for content disputes, Grebeenos. Please follow the steps in dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Should an article created by size split have history merge?

Should an article created by moving content out of one article into a new one have history added to the new page?

The article Timeline of second-wave feminism was recently created by pasting half the content of Second-wave feminism into the new article, and cutting it from the old one. The new article appears to have been born yesterday, but in fact most of its content is much older. The edit summary on the creation credits the original page. Is that enough, or should I request that the history of the source article be patched into the new one? Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The process is described at WP:Splitting. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, your edit summary provides the necessary attribution. I don't think there'd be any way to split the history, as that section presumably evolved in parallel with the rest of the Second-wave feminism article. It is good practice – but not obligatory – to add a {{Copied}} template to the talk-page of both the source and the target article. Ask here or ping me if you don't know how that should be deployed (it's not hard!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers, I had just done so! Great minds... Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

search

Hi I want to search a movie but i don't know the title of the movie is the a way to kind of write what the movie is about to look ay it Whistle toe llll (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Whistle toe llll. The search function looks for words or strings so you would have to guess words mentioned in the article, e.g "film". At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment you can ask whether users can guess the film from a description. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I get an infobox for eSports "athletes"?

Hi, The Teahouse members. I'm creating an article for Bjergsen, a pro eSports "athlete", or whatever you want to call them, over at the Danish wikipedia. But I'm having a problem; I don't know what infobox to use... The person who made the {{Infobox on the English "Bjergsen" article wrote {{Infobox Pro Gaming player, but when I do that, it doesn't work. Could someone please explain, or even better, help me with this? Thanks. - Hi im gosu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi im gosu (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. From wikidata:Q8840891 it looks as if there isn't a Danish equivalent, but the place to ask is at the Danish Wikipedia, rather than here. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Hi im gosu (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Harv citation showing odd numbers

I noticed at this article here that the Harv citations seem to show some odd number after the parenthesis, I don't remember seeing this before. What is this, and should I do something about it?★Trekker (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It might or might not be coincidental that Module:Footnotes has been changed today. @Trappist the monk:? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all coincidental, fixed. I had forgotten that result:gsub ('%s+', ' ') not only returns result with all instances of one-or-more spaces replaced with a single space, but it also returns the number of replacements. So, 'Hart, Bret 2007, p. 3' rendered as (Hart, Bret 2007, p. 3)3 (the space between 'p.' and '3' is a non-breaking space so isn't included in the replacement).

I would also point out that use of Hart's forename in the {{harv}} templates is inconsistent with other uses in that article. The intended use is surnames only. Written as it is, implies two authors: Hart and Bret. The correct form would be {{harv|Hart|2007|p=3}} and for the 2000 citation {{harv|Hart|Lefko|2000}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is that he has several family members who have also written book which are cited in the article. How do you differentiate between them unless you use forenames?★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He may do but, those are in-line citations. And if they weren't, for example, this one, you would write {{harv|Hart|McLellan|2001|p=<whatever>}}, right?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't help in the cases when there is no co-writer, whatever none of this is the main point why I came here for help. Why are there numbers after the citations and how do we do away with them becuse they look confusing.★Trekker (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Seems like it has been fixed now.★Trekker (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I did say that it was fixed in my first post here. The {{harv}} family of templates disambiguate by author surnames and by year. If there is only one author with the same surname as another author and they both publish in the same year, then the date can take a lower-alpha suffix so {{harv|Hart|2007b}} (Bret) may be distinguished from {{harv|Hart|2007d}} (Diana).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect problem

Topic A is a redirect page to Topic B. In the Topic B page, I want to call attention to the need for an article on Topic A. But I cannot create a red link. How is this handled? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey deisenbe. When you get redirected to a page, there should be a little text in the upper left hand corner that says "redirected from X". If you click that link it will take you to the redirect itself, rather than redirecting you, and you can edit the page from there. GMG^talk 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That I knew, but thanks. The question is if it's an article that for whatever reason I'm not going to write but think someone else should. deisenbe (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is to list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: You could (and should) tag the redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. If you have a few ideas about what the article would contain, I would also add a note on the talk page to help whoever eventually gets down to creating it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

New article on local history topic, twice rejected, seeking input before 3rd submission

Hello The Teahouse members. (and thank you to person ahead of me for using that address, cool!) I have been exploring the process of creating new articles for a few months. One of the ones I was most interested in doing is the one I've now completed the draft of, but it's been rejected twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rondo_Neighborhood, Since that 2nd rejection on 1/13, I've removed some text and done some re-wording and so on, so right now I feel like I've addressed the issues. This one has been difficult for me since the topic itself is an emotional one for the community. I know emotion needs to not be part of the text, and with these recent changes I feel like that's been removed (had felt like I needed to construct the accurate document, then after that remove what was necessary to comply with policy). I have added a great deal of references since the first rejection. If possible, it would be enormously helpful if anyone was willing to look at it and let me know particular areas that need further work, or if you think it's good to go at this point. I am familiar with encyclopedia's, and I'm a long-time reader of Wikipedia, and this process of attempting to join in to the editing-wikipedia process is fascinating! Hoping to continue to accelerate my process of improving my skills, with your help. Thanks very much in advance! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As a technical point, your draft was at Draft:Rondo Neighborhood, (notice the comma). When you gave the url as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rondo_Neighborhood, the parsing of the link asumed that the comma was part of the punctuation of the sentence and linked to Draft:Rondo Neighborhood which didn't exist. I have now moved the draft from the title with the comma to the title without, as I assume that the former was an error. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case (I wasn't the one who moved it, but I'm assuming it was not intentional). Thanks very much for fixing that! ClarityKTMpls (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've spent a few minutes looking over the draft. You have inline citations supporting some of the content. However you are including details that are not supported by your sources. Perhaps from local general knowledge you have or published sources you haven't cited. I've added one {{failed verification}} to the draft as an example. Keep in mind that all of the content needs to be verifiable through published sources. Gab4gab (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Also a few minutes. I see no references for the list of businesses nor the list of organizations. If true, either reference or delete. Recommend the latter. Naming businesses and organizations - unless independently notable - adds no value to your article. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback.

Yes, the one failed verification citation you added - that is the case, it was due to text I moved around. I was mainly focused on the rejection comments, which were about the tone of the article not being encyclopedic. It was my understanding that facts mentioned in the article need to be verifiable, not necessarily each one independently cited. Each of those facts regarding the workplaces can be backed up with an appropriate source. The list of businesses and organizations can be backed up, in the short-term by first person narratives, which I know are not the type of source allowable. With more time in the library etc.. could absolutely come up with official city records etc.. for each one. In the meantime, I can delete those lists. The value that I saw them adding to the article is in 'showing, not telling' information to the reader about the neighborhood that existed. In any case, I've removed all the lists, and also that first line in the community section about the major employers. Thank you for the feedback!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

fyi, looks like it's pretty close to me but keep in mind that it is not required for an article to be NPOV to exist - existence requires only notability and verifiability. When you get comments about NPOV, hopefully the crew at Articles for Creation is being clear that they're helping you to create a high-quality article, not an article that meets the minimum standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia (AfC is a bit controversial lately about that - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&oldid=820422591#AFC_discussion_summaries_and_moving_forward). Also, it's easier to create a small article limited to the most important citations and a summary of how it's important which demonstrate notability - that helps avoid the essay feel. Unnecessary words don't really help. II | (t - c) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That is very helpful! I had been thinking the opposite, that it was important to try and do justice to the subject initially and then the nth degree of references could be added (by me or other editors of course) (along with content changes etc..) once that was in place.

Your comments really help me understand the challenges I've been up against, much appreciated!

I'll re-read it once more and tighten it up a bit again, and then will submit! Gratefully ClarityKTMpls (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@ClarityKTMpls, ImperfectlyInformed, David notMD, David Biddulph, and Gab4gab: I'm going through the draft now doing basic-level copyediting: comma splices, dead urls, citation information, etc. Some global changes I'm notating with a link to the relevant MOS documentation, e.g., changing curly quotes to straight. I couldn't find documentation for not putting quotes around title and work values, but I linked to the examples in Template:Cite. --Thnidu (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ClarityKTMpls, I'm having trouble with this sentence:

Bridges over I-94 include Lexington at the western boundary of Rondo, Victoria Avenue and Dale Avene and then Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary of Rondo.

• Lexington evidently is a bridge; is it a part of Lexington Avenue?
• Victoria Avenue and Dale Avenue: Are these also bridges, or are they part of the location of Lexington, along with the western boundary of Rondo?

"X includes Y and Z" means that Y and Z are in X, along with W and maybe others that aren't mentioned. If you're giving the whole set, you can use

• X comprises Y and Z.
• X consists of Y and Z.
• The parts [or whatever word fits the case] of X are Y and Z.
• Y and Z make up X.
• and so on.

So if the sentence means what I think it means, it would also be clearer to separate the bridges with semicolons:

Bridges over I-94 include: Lexington Avenue, at the western boundary of Rondo; Victoria Avenue; Dale Avenue; and Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary.

I hope this helps. --Thnidu (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great suggestion! I spent a lot of time on all of this, at some points unfortunately it - my tiredness - shows. You are understanding exactly, I'll change the text per your suggestion. Also thanks for your other changes, all much appreciated!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)wording edit ClarityKTMpls (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@ClarityKTMpls: On rereading this after a break, I realized

1. that I had kept the word "include" in my recommendation after saying it was inappropriate
2. but that it probably is quite correct!

I was so closely focused on Rondo as you described it that it didn't occur to me that there are certainly other bridges over I-94. How about:?

Rondo has four bridges over I-94: Lexington Avenue, at the western boundary of Rondo; Victoria Avenue; Dale Avenue; and Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary.

("Western Avenue, close to the eastern boundary" — ooh, that's strange! but I assume its name relates to some part of St. Paul that was more central, or considered more important, or something like that. Anyway, that's just my punster reaction, and there's nothing wrong with the phrase.)

Would it make sense to have or link to a map of St. Paul showing where Rondo is/was?

Regards, Thnidu (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And another round...

@ClarityKTMpls: One more thing, and I hope it's the last I notice: There are a lot of red author links in the References section, and I think most of them are unnecessary. Please see WP:Red link. --Thnidu (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but as you are working on the bridge topic, I realize it isn't clear to someone perhaps who isn't from the area that I'm talking about the bridges that cross what had been Rondo only! But that's why I mentioned the two borders of Rondo. There are other bridges outside of those 4, but those 4 are the ones within Rondo.

I'll work on the redlinks.. thank you!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what do you think about this:

Four bridges over I-94 connect the two halves of what had been Rondo neighborhood: Lexington Avenue, at the western boundary of Rondo; Victoria Avenue; Dale Avenue; and Western Avenue, close to its eastern boundary.

That's what I ended up with. Open to your suggestions! And yes, I'm actually working on a map as well - great idea! Thank you!ClarityKTMpls (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of British newspapers as sources

Good afternoon. I have read in an AFD that the British Daily Mail is prohibited by Wikipedia as an unreliable source. If this is so, then I wholeheartedly agree. Can you please confirm that it is banned as a source and is the same true of any other British newspapers? The Sun and the Daily Express are both unreliable too, to say the least, in my opinion.

I may have reason to use two regional newspapers, the Liverpool Echo and the Southport Visiter for sourcing but I really cannot see any reason why they should be prohibited. Ziggy (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not answering your question regarding other papers, but the discussion regarding the Daily Mail was at WP:DAILYMAIL. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed reading that. I must completely agree with the verdict. It looks as if it was singled out and so I'll assume that all other British papers are allowed, unless someone tells me otherwise. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My guess would be that the Liverpool Echo and the Southport Visiter (it really is spelled like that) are regarded as reliable. But they're local papers; they don't have the authority of a credible national. Maproom (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely agree, but I would only use them for sourcing matters of local interest as they provide information that doesn't make the nationals. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you sourcing? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can not comprehend

Hello and good morning: I don't understand why the page has been deleted there were only facts of the artist. Would you please be so kind to teach me what I am doing wrong.

Thank you very much, Tita for Jorge LeanzaJorgeleanza (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jorgeleanza, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you had created a user page here: User:Jorgeleanza. User pages are not there for you to write facts about other people. They are there so that you could tell other Wikipedia editors what do you want to do on Wikipedia as a volunteer editor: what topics interest you, what editing skills you have, what languages you speak so that you can help with sources, etc.

You probably wanted to write a Wikipedia article about someone instead. That should be done in the article space. Even there, it's not enough that you "only [write] facts" about the topic. There are a whole lot considerations, beginning with the question: is this topic suitable for Wikipedia to begin with?. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am most appreciated of your kindness Finnusertop, Best Regards, Jorgeleanza (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Chloe Castro - Wiki Notability

Hi there, I submitted an article a couple of months back about a local celebrity who I believe qualifies as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. She already features in one article on wikipedia about "The Voice" Season 5 but I feel she now needs her own page. The page has been reviewed and the person reviewing it rejected it on the grounds she is not notable enough. However I've read the guidelines again and I cannot see the issue. Would you be able to help me please?

The Page is Chloe Castro. I have included articles about her in the Telegraph, The Chronicle and The Northern Echo. There are more I can include if necessary, I just chose the most relevant citations.

Thank you very much.

Rose

RosePouton (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, RosePouton, but in my view the draft Draft:Chloe Castro is not at present acceptable as an article; and if those are the best references you can find, then she is not at present notable. The Telegraph article says one thing about her; and the other two sources are both clearly based on an interview or press release. Please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subject says about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them; that the notability criterion really boils down to "is there enough material independently published about this topic to serve as the basis for an article?" and if the answer is no, then no acceptable article is possible; and that nobody in the world "needs their own page", because nobody in the world has or can have their own page. The fact that you have used that phrase suggests to me that you have the (very common) misapprehension that Wikipedia is, or can be, anything whatever to do with somebody's PR. Wikipedia forbids promotion in any form. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Table Information - Sorting

I have seen tables in Wikipedia with information in them containing dates and other forms of information, but do not know if they should go in descending or ascending order. I want to edit consistently, but cannot find if there is a best practice for this. Can you help? FULBERT (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. It varies. Alphabetical is always ascending. Dates are usually ascending. Something sorted by size is usually descending. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Does this mean if it includes information over a number of years, it would be oldest year on the first row, and then the next one, etc., like 2014, 2015, 2016, etc? FULBERT (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@FULBERT: Yes, that is the most common. I'm guessing more than 90% do it like that. There may be topics with another practice. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Many thanks! Will make at least my own editing more consistent FULBERT (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@FULBERT: It might be worth mentioning that you can allow tables to be user-sortable on one or more columns, just like a spreadsheet. You can even start offf by putting the data in a non-alphanumeric order (for example, in taxonomic order for a list of species) but then allow the user to sort by one or more columns in that table. By starting off in a non-alphanumeric order, a user can return to that original arrangement simply by refreshing the page. See this exampe I built: List of species and habitats of principal importance in England, and for guidance, seee Help:Table#Sortable_tables. For detailed style and accessibility guidance, see MOS:TABLES and MOS:DTT, respectively. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page AND accused of being sock puppet

Hello,

I've been retained to create a Wikipedia page--which I disclosed on my "talk" page--per Wikipedia guidelines. I thought disclosure would meet the guidelines--is that not the case? Also, I have just been accused of being a "sock puppet" for another person who is a chronic editor for hire, and I most certainly am not. I am not sure how to defend that.

Moreover, I'm flummoxed about why the page was taken down. It is not promotional: it describes the company and its products, and it adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)). It does not cite any self-promotional material and reflects notable third-party input from Gartner, Deloitte, Inc., the Wall Street Journal, and the like. It seems that the page is being punished because of the acts of the prior disreputable author, particularly when its peers in e-discovery and software aren't being removed from the site (e.g., Conduent, Recommind, Acquia (which includes some of the same links to Deloitte, for example, as the Zapproved article), Kentico, and the like).

My first foray into Wikipedia-land is certainly not turning out as I hoped! Any advice or help would be much appreciated.Kwalinsk (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwalinsk (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kwalinsk: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While I can't view the deleted page (an administrator can) merely telling about a business is considered promotional on Wikipedia. You seem to be aware of the notability guidelines, you must show that this business meets the guidelines with independent reliable sources that have in depth coverage of the business(not interviews, press releases, basic announcements. or primary sources). You have dived right in to article creation, one of the most difficult things to successfully do here. You may want to read Your First Article to learn more.

Frankly you might want to give your client their money back as it will be difficult for you to simultaneously create a page they might want and that complies with Wikipedia guidelines. You cannot prevent others from editing it or lock it to the text you or your client might prefer. Having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing for any person or business, as any information, good and bad can be in it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Kwalinsk, I echo this statement. I am an admin, I have reviewed the deleted history and the multiple blocked accounts. Years ago I wrote this: User:JzG/And the band played on.... The same applies here, basically. Give them their money back. Also, your business model is unethical, but that's a side-issue. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy, I don't know why you think a freelance writing business is unethical. I'm a lawyer, and I write all kinds of copy for all types of businesses, and I pride myself on my ethics. I disclosed my affiliation, as per Wikipedia policy. I'm trying to do the right thing here. I've written one iteration of this page (not the prior ones), and I'm not sure why I'm being maligned here.Kwalinsk (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy, and to clarify, I've never written a Wikipedia page before. I read all the rules carefully before I started writing this one. I think I adhered to them. I think the history of the page is causing an issue, and that seems a bit unfair.Kwalinsk (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing

Can you be paid to edit Wikipdia? Thegooduser talk 02:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser:Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is possible, but if you are a paid editor you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to declare who is paying you. Please read WP:PAID, the paid editing policy, to learn more. Reading WP:COI about conflict of interest is good for you to do as well. You also should be aware that it will be difficult for you to guarantee anything to a client about the content of the page, as anyone can edit it. You should probably use Articles for Creation to create any article for a client. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: How do you get paid for editing?Thegooduser talk 02:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the expert on that. I only know that paid editors must comply with the policies that I mentioned. 331dot (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser:, Wikipedia itself does not pay any Editors – we're nearly all volunteers helping to build an Encyclopaedia in our own time merely because we want to. You yourself will have to find somebody in the Real World who is willing to pay you to write an article, usually about themself or their Company/Band/Charity/Whatever. This usually does not end well, because

(a) Someone like you who evidently knows little about Wikipedia's policies and workings (or you wouldn't need to ask in the first place) will find it very difficult to write any article in acceptable form – it's one of the hardest things to do here. (FWIW, I myself used to be a professional editor of secondary-level (printed) textbooks, and I don't consider myself to be up to the task yet.)

(b) Such people and/or their companies are usually not Notable in the Wikipedia sense, so any attempted article about them is bound to fail the criteria and be deleted.

(c) Such a client usually wants the article to contain only what they want to be said about them, but this is not possible: anyone else will also be able to edit it and can insert anything that can be found in Reliable Sources, bad as well as good (or indifferent) – read up on the Streisand Effect.

(d) The subject of an article has no control over the contents, and is strongly discouraged from editing it themself, although they are allowed to make suggestions on its Talk page, which unconnected editors may or may not choose to include.

(e) Except for completely uncontrovertial facts, only information found in Reliable Sources completely unconnected to them (which excludes their blogs, their websites, statements in interviews, press releases, etc.) can be included; anything that they or others know, or that they tell you, that has not been published in a Reliable Source cannot be included.

Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's an interesting discussion (winding down now after a week or more) about paid editing blowing up (figuratively speaking) in an editor's face: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management. – Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thegooduser: You ask can one be paid to edit Wikipedia, and the answers above tell you that under certain conditions at this time, yes you can. But think about this: Can one be paid to sing? The answer is of course yes. But the applicable question really is, "Can one market their singing?" That is much more difficult to accomplish, requiring native talent, much hard work, years of practice and a considerable amount of lucky breaks. However, unfortunately for one enquiring, a more on point analogy might be, "Can one be paid to have sex?" Again, the answer is yes. But then there are those pesky moral and legal issues to deal with, aren't there? These two analogies illustrate what one embarking on a path of editing Wikipedia for pay is really looking at. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Is an Independent Research Group worthy of mention?

Good morning Mr. Cullen,

My name is Diego Antolini and I am writing about an article I would like to create and submit for review by the Wiki administrators. The article relates to an Independent Research Group based in Italy but active at an international level since 2003. Their researches pertain to Unexplained Phenomena as well as Hidden History and Esoteric lore. The group has been mentioned in Italian newspapers and in some articles online. Would it be appropriate to write about this group without promoting people or business, but just as a way to let Wiki readers know about their research and their purpose to help humanity know what official sources usually don't disclose? Thank you for your attention Best Regards Diego AntoliniDiego Antolini (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Diego Antolini and welcome to the TeaHouse. Cullen is one of many volunteers here; I will try to answer your question and other people might chip in as well. The question of which organisations are suitable for a Wikipedia article is called "Notability" here, and it is determined by the extent of independent coverage (media, etc.) about the subject. The essentials are covered in this article - the subject must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." There are also more specific criteria for organizations at Notability. So start by collecting your source material, then confirm whether they rise to this standard: that will be your answer. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Diego Antolini: please note that "to let Wiki readers know about" something is specifically not part of the purpose of Wikipedia, and indeed will usually be construed as promotion. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which somebody unconnected with the subject has already chosen to tell the world about. --ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Diego Antolini. One man's research group on fringe theories is another man's bunch of nutcases. Either way, that group would only be notable in Wikipedia terms if it has been written about, in depth, by independent sources, be it in favourable or unfavourable terms. Be aware: your use of the phrase ...let Wiki readers know about their research and their purpose to help humanity know what official sources usually don't disclose is of concern to me. This sounds like you are dangerously close to assuming you can use Wikipedia to push a personal agenda and promote conspiracy theories. You can't. That must be left to the books you already write and the websites you contribute to. Please see this policy on the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your useful comments. I will do my homeworks in preparing the article before submitting it for review. Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Antolini (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Inline Citation Help

Good morning! I have a question further regarding the rejection of a reviewed article due to inline citations. My article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramon_Ruiz_Cestero , was said to "[include] material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations". Does this mean that some of my key sentences are not cited, even though they require it? I do not believe that my article includes any quotations or contentious material, and it is a biography about a deceased person. My only supposition is that I did cite a book written by the subject; it was used mainly for reference as to the publishing date and content description. If this is the case, would the fact that the book was published by the Puerto Rican government not make a difference as to source reliability? Thank you! Mackenzie I Page (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mackenzie I Page, welcome to our Teahouse. Because you've used references that aren't online, I can't really comment on how well they support your article. But to my eye the only problem is that you have included some fairly minor detais which aren't supported at all by inline sources, which could be challenged.e.g. the paragraph on his burial. One trick I've used is to print out the page and, with a highlighter pen, mark every separate factual statement. Then look carefully to see if each one does indeed have a supporting reference. Fix these small issues and you should be good to resubmit. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cirque du Soleil (continuation of discussion)

[User Estebanpirazo is continuing the discussion at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 706#Volta (Cirque du Soleil) article issues.]

First, Estebanpirazo, please do not edit an archived discussion. The notice at the top of the archive says "Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page."

I'm sorry you are having a frustrating time. You are having an ongoing disagreement with Justlettersandnumbers, who has explained why they do not think the information you are adding is encyclopaedic. I disagree with them about reliability of the source (which was what you quoted me for (please realise that what you quoted was the informed opinion of one editor - me - and I'm a little concerned that you quoted it as though it were a pronouncement from authority), but I think Wikipedia articles about shows often have entirely too much trivial information about dates. IN any case, what you should do is attempt to reach a consensus with Justlettersandnumbers, and if you cannot, follow the steps in dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, ColinFine. Estebanpirazo is clearly puzzled that other articles contain unreferenced lists of tour dates, and has made a real effort to engage in discussion (for which my thanks, Estebanpirazo!). As for the reliability of the source, no source for those dates has been cited, either at Volta (Cirque du Soleil) or at Crystal (Cirque du Soleil),so I'm a little puzzled to hear that ColinFine thinks it might be reliable. I'd really appreciate some wider input on this. I've repeatedly encouraged Estebanpirazo to ask for advice here, and he didn't receive much when he last brought it here. Oh, and if I'm wrong, do please feel free to say so. Thanks, everyone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies ColinFine and Justlettersandnumbers; it looks like we are finally trying to understand the issue here. The factual data on the articles that has been deleted are show dates and Creative Team. My question has always been: why is it being deleted from the article?, I agree with ColinFine's initial reply that this is information that could not be obtained from any other source than the official webpage, and it should be allowed to be referenced from an official source. Also, the other question that arises from this issue is if this content is deleted, should it also be deleted from the articles of all of the other Cirque du Soleil's shows, plus several musical concerts, touring Broadway shows articles, etc? (usually, all of those articles contain show dates, and a creative team list). I haven't received a satisfactory reply that answers both of these questions. Estebanpirazo (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the articles, Justlettersandnumbers: I was just going on where Estebanpirazo said they came from. If no sources are cited, that is a different matter. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

ColinFine, I remember I added a reference to their original website for the Creative Team list, and I don't remember if I added the same for the show dates schedule... but back to my question: will the show dates and Creative Team members be deleted from all of the other shows by Cirque du Soleil, due to this? (such as Luzia, Toruk, Kurios, Amaluna, Totem, Ovo, Koozå, Delirium, Corteo, Varekai, Dralion, Quidam... and many others?), and will it be done also to other touring shows in general? Estebanpirazo (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, Estebanpirazo. This is a volunteer project, and people work on what interests them. There certainly are editors who value consistency enough that they will go back and make changes to bring existing article into line with newer consensus; but there are others who are more interested in finding new things to do. If Justlettersandnumbers, or another editor, feels that a consensus has been reached that they should be removed, then they might go and remove them; but they might not. As to your earlier question: I have expressed my view that things like dates are the kind of information that could come from non-independent sources: and I have said that in my opinion, many articles about shows contain too much detail about productions and dates. But I haven't expressed any opinion about these particular articles: I haven't looked at the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Publishing a first-time article - next step and communication and feedback

Hi. I'm trying to post my first Wiki article which is currently sitting in my sandbox. In fact, it's been sitting there for more than four days and I was just wondering about the simplest way to post it and what else I need to do. Is there someone to submit it to or get feedback from? Seems there are a lot of rules and hurdles standing in my wa.

Thanks,

Octopus69Octopus69 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Octopus69: The article is promotional since it is essentially a CV. If moved to mainspace, it would be deleted. Articles should cite reliable sources and stick to only facts verified by the sources. If substantial amounts of good source material don't exist on this individual, it would not be appropriate for an article to be written about them. If it does, you'll need to cite those and make the article neutral in tone and content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, I'd note that starting a new article is one of the more challenging things we do. I always recommend new editors start with editing existing articles, and get some experience under their belt so they understand how things are done here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I add a comma to a title page?

Having created a page for St Wilfrid's School in Exeter I realise is should have put St Wilfrid's School, Exeter but didn't include the comma. Is there a way I can correct the title at this stage? Thank you.Mynicol (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You will need to Move the page to a new title. ~ GB fan 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I assume I need to ask for this to be done. Is it something you can do for me?Mynicol (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I have moved the page correctly. Am I right that it will show up twice, under the old title and the corrected one and is if so is there a way to delete the wrong one?Mynicol (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The page for the old title exists merely as a redirect to the new title, and it ought to remain (as a redirect from a credible alternative). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Getting around "<char> character in |<param>= at position n"

One of the references in my draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Positive_displacement_pipette) contains an error. Under reference #4, it says, "line feed character in |title= at position 44." The help section says that I can fix the error by changing the problem character. But if I change the character, this will break the link in the reference. Is there a way to remove this error and keep the link as is?

Thank you. Cglife.bmarcus (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing the line feed from the title parameter does not break the reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Having removed the line feed from the title, I also replaced a number of non-breaking space characters from your draft, to comply with MOS:NBSP. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability - Draft:Killer_Networking

Hello all,

New Wikipedia creator here. I currently work for an agency and have been asked to create a Wikipedia page for one of our clients. Now, that being said, I perfectly understand the risks of biases in this situation but have been asked to try nonetheless. I have developed and submitted a Wikipedia page for review but (to no surprise on my end) was rejected for approval.

What I believe to be the biggest reason for my rejection (correct me if I'm wrong), would be due to the lack of what Wikipedia refers to as "High Quality Content" in relation to the subject (Killer Networking).

Barring the standard "Why did my article get rejected?" question, is Killer Networking "notable" enough to even write a Wikipedia article about? The majority of content is either product reviews or very high level company history.

Any advice or suggestions that you all can provide would be greatly helpful as this is quite the daunting task. If you think, given my relationship to the client, that there is little to no chance of approval, I will seek a different route.

Mullenoverit (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's dicey at the level best. The key element to notability is WP:GNG, which holds that a subject needs to have "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources: this being extensive coverage of the subject (not merely quotes from employees, product reviews, press releases, mentions on blogs or namedrops) in high quality media sources, further affected by WP:ORG, the company-specific guideline. I'm not seeing any news sources that qualify, and doubt that an article about the company would survive a deletion discussion.

Indeed, you being instructed to create an article for the company is a serious drawback per WP:COI (that being said, thank you for your integrity in disclosing this), and such articles receive especial scrutiny, but I don't believe an entirely neutral editor would have any more luck. If you feel you can, please do relay to your supervisors our guidelines, and that establishing the notability of a company under them is a prerequisite to creating an article about it. Ravenswing 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Table Width Editing

Hello,

I'm working on redoing a list using template:alum in my sandbox here, but some entries don't have the table fill the width of the page, such as in the Business and Education sections at the top. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Jmnbqb (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to mess around with my sandbox again, so here is the version in case it gets changed to something else in my editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Jmnbqb/sandbox&oldid=820844979 Jmnbqb (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not a template with which I'm familiar, but it looks as if you can get a consistent width by using the {{AlumniStart}} option, but apparently not if you use {{alum/start}} to include images. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there another way of manually adjusting the table width to fit a full screen? I would like to keep the pictures on the page. Jmnbqb (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Lloyd

I reviewed Draft:Alice Lloyd at Articles for Creation and declined it, saying that it did not establish the notability of Alice Lloyd. I also said that the formatting was inconsistent and needed to be improved, and the article lacked a proper lede sentence. The author, User:Quovadiszero, replied on my talk page , saying that they were having difficulty with the icons for the references, and that they had used a method of formatting the quotes from the newspapers, and that they had information based on correspondence with Lloyd’s granddaughter. I am doubtful about their ability to use the private correspondence, because it isn’t from a reliable source, and said that the way that they had inserted the quotes from the newspapers was distracting and non-standard. Will other experienced editors please look at the draft and advise the author? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Private correspondence may not be reliable, but more relevantly it isn't published, and is therefore not acceptable as a source. Maproom (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Will other editors please comment on the draft in general? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. Based on my search, especially using Google Books, I am reasonably confident that this person is notable, and that this encyclopedia ought to have an article about her. According to several accounts, she was a major star in vaudeville, on Broadway, and also in silent films about 110 years ago. That being said, the current draft is unacceptable, because it is not properly referenced. Quotations require inline references. The style and formatting is terrible, and the quotes look like typographical errors by someone with no understanding of how we structure an encyclopedia article. I suggest you work with this editor to help them understand what is necessary to whip a poorly written draft about a notable topic into shape. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I become a paid editor?Skylie74 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to become a paid contributor for Wikipedia. How do I go about doing this?Skylie74 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please give up this idea, Skylie74.

If you mean, how can I get paid by Wikipedia to edit, the answer is You can't. Period. Wikimedia has a very few paid staff, and some of them may be editors of Wikipedia in their spare time, but nobody is paid by Wikimedia or Wikipedia to edit.

If you mean, how can I find somebody else who will to pay me to edit Wikipedia, there are people who do so, but I neither know nor care how they find their stooges. People who pay other people to edit Wikipedia almost always want it edited to benefit themselves, not to benefit Wikipedia, and so are intending to break the policy on WP:promotion. Paid editing is not forbidden, but it is discouraged and subject to restrictions: please see Paid editing. Personally, I would prefer that it was forbidden, except that I recognise that that would just drive the trade underground, which would be worse. --ColinFine (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the answers to the nearly identical query ten above this one, entitled Editing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Skylie74! As to your question, the truth is that Wikipedia is a non-profit effort maintained by volunteer editors; we do this because we enjoy helping build the world's largest encyclopedia, not for gain. It's true that some people get others to pay them for creating articles, but since Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes, those articles draw a high degree of scrutiny and likewise are more often deleted than otherwise for failing to meet our notability standards, especially since many editors seeking pay for working on Wikipedia are inexperienced. WP:COI is the guideline governing such conflict of interests editing, and I strongly urge you to look it over, as well as the links already posted to your talk page. Ravenswing 00:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator

I reviewed Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator at AFC and advised the author to request a review at WP:WikiProject Computing or WP:WikiProject Mathematics. User:Carvalhol1998 has asked me what the details of the procedure are for requesting a review at either of these projects. I don’t see any specific way to request an AFC review other than by posting a note to the talk page (which is the usual way to request anything in Wikipedia). Can other experienced editors please look at the draft and offer advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon it's probably the simplest if you, as the last AFC reviewer would post such requests for WikiProject assistance/evaluation. Expecting the newbie draft author to do so is imho a bit unreasonable. As a semi-regular AFC reviewer myself I've quite often posted such requests to WikiProjects. BTW I usually find Mathematics replies quite quickly, while Computing is not as responsive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

creating new article when old sandbox exists

Sorry everyone but I can't find the answer to my question anywhere. Simply put, I'm looking for a fresh sandbox page. I created and published an article successfully. Would like to begin work on another, in my sandbox so that I can edit as needed. However when I go to my sandbox my first article appears. I am afraid to delete the content in fear of affecting the published page, and even if I did I can't figure out how to re-title it. Further, I no longer have a "save" button, instead all I get is a "publish" button. I need time to edit before I even think of publishing. Any advice will be much appreciated. Thanks! Butch

UnlikelySailor (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, UnlikelySailor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have the answers to both of your concerns.

1. Your sandbox is here. It only redirects to the article because it was moved there. Simply delete the redirect (remove all text in your sandbox page) and start fresh.
2. WMF recently changed the "Save" button to the "Publish" button. Do not worry; this has caused confusion among many editors, but they are the same thing.
I hope I helped. if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me or the Teahouse. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify the answer above. You need to make sure that you are actually on your sandbox page where the redirect is, rather than on the page to which you are redirected. If you go to User:UnlikelySailor/sandbox you will get redirected to Reese Palley, but at the top it says "(Redirected from User:UnlikelySailor/sandbox)", and clicking on the blue link there will take you to the link that NotTheFakeJTP gave you. That is the page where you can delete the redirect & (if you like) start with a new draft. You can, of course,have as many userspace drafts as you like, rather than just one named "/sandbox". You can create User:UnlikelySailor/WhateverArticleTitleYouLike. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• UnlikelySailor, I fixed that for you: User:UnlikelySailor/sandbox is ready to go as before. 50.0.136.78 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Antonio Serravalle professional racing driver

Antonio Serravalle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio serrravalle (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What was your question about editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reason of rejected article review

CrimsonTR (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Hi, I just created a draft page and submitted to review.

A user called David.moreno72 rejected my submission.

I would like to know the real reason about this rejection.

I gave a notable reference for this content but he said it's not notable. Can you explain the situation to me?

Murat CrimsonTR (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, CrimsonTR, and welcome to the Teahouse. I just looked over your draft, and you *were* given the real reason. The reference you gave (and you need to give multiple references) did not meet our standards, because it's not independent of the subject; the website of his own company can't be used to support his notability. Several links to various pertinent policies and guidelines were posted both to your talk page and the draft page, and I strongly urge you review them before proceeding. Good fortune! Ravenswing 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Module programming

Is a page here or on phabricator where to ask or discuss modules programming. I'm am interested on getting from a template the protection status of a page--Pierpao (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What do the green and red numbers mean?

What do the green and red numbers mean that are next to your contributions? EmberPro (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome; those numbers are somewhat helpful when we scan the many changes to our many articles. Red, with a - minus sign, means you made the article smaller by removing something. Green, with a + plus sign, means you made it bigger. Obviously these are not the same as making it better or worse, since the numbers are applied by a robot who doesn't know what good writing is. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi EmberPro, welcome to the Teahouse. The numbers specifically show how much the page size changed in bytes. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Citations = External Links?

Good Morning!

My new article was rejected this morning for have 6 external links in the body that violate guidelines. I would love to fix this issue, however, all of my external links found in citations - the links in the body go to Wikipedia pages. I have updated those links to include the w: (I was missing the "w" before). Is this the only thing I need to fix or am I missing something?

It is possible that they were flagged because I simply have too many. Any insight would be helpful.

My draft is Draft:Leighton School of Nursing

Thank you!

NurseEducator (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the inclusion of the w: prefix, as that wasn't needed. I find it surprising that User:Chetsford declined the submission in the same edit where he/she changed the Wikipedia URLs to WP:wikilinks. Having done that change, it seemed strange to decline the submission on grounds that no longer existed. I have removed one reference to Wikipedia, for reasons which are explained at WP:CIRCULAR. I notice that you have tried to do the formatting using HTML tags rather than wiki markup, so that could do with tidying up, see Help:HTML in wikitext and Help:Wikitext. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

David Biddulph - to the best of my knowledge all I did was hit the "decline" button on the nomination, however, on looking at the edit you are correct that all the external links were then fixed in the same edit [1]. Unless the AfC script is set-up to do that, I'm not sure what happened as I definitely didn't go through and manually fix all those. I'll check some of the other articles I've declined for EXT. (Either way, I guess it's great they got fixed?!) Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@NurseEducator: the concern I have with this draft is the almost complete lack of sources from external, reliable sources. Using internal (primary) sources to verify factual information is fine but what is needed is the secondary sources that discuss the school. Nthep (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

NurseEducator, my concern is whether an independent article for this school that is part of a university is even needed. Why not just include the information at Marian University? John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Newbie editor looking for resources to improve editing skills

Hi, I am very new to editing on wikipedia. Just curious if there is any online resource that could help me better my skills at editing on wikipedia. ThanksMouneshwar (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, if you haven't already seen them, then WP:PRIMER and Wikipedia:Introduction would be a good place to start for some basic information. You could also take The Wikipedia Adventure for a more practical learning experience. Kosack (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

heading

How to change the heading of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm assuming you mean the title of the article. If so, this can't be edited in the same way that the rest of the page can but must be done by performing a page move. See WP:Moving a page for a guide to this. Kosack (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

They may also be referring to the lede section. If that is the case, Noname479, click the main "edit" tab on top and this will allow you to edit the lede (along with everything else in the article). -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

As the user is not Autoconfirmed they cannot move pages, so if that is what they want, they need to apply at Wikipedia:Requested moves - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

How to add or change pictures in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Noname479: Welcome to the Teahouse. To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

An additional note – Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: , but do not sign in articles.

Hope this helps, feel free to stop by if you have any other questions. Happy editing! –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

If I am questioning the notability of an article and an editor adds a source in another language, is that acceptable? Or should I suggest the article be merged to the foreign-language wiki? Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll find the relevant advice at WP:NOENG. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Just wasn't sure exactly where to look. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Procedure for asking neutral evaluation of an RfC result?

I'm not sure if there's a more appropriate forum for this question, so I thought I'd ask here. I've recently been involved in a (somewhat impassioned) RfC which was recently closed as stale. (I can be more specific if anyone wants, but I'm trying to keep the description general for the sake of my question). When I tried to reopen the RfC, another editor reverted it and suggested that there was no need to reopen it. However, given that there have been multiple RfCs and arguments about the matter before, I feel like it would be best if a neutral third party of some kind (an admin, maybe?) were to take a look and evaluate the consensus so that the matter can be laid to rest.

Is there some kind of procedure for going about asking this? Some kind of forum? Gimubrc (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Gimubrc: I have not looked through your contributions to understand the exact situation, but in your hypothetical scenario, you should have started by asking whoever closed it as "stale" to explain the closure and/or revert it. If you still think afterwards that the closure was done out of process (which is not the same as wrong on the content), you can escalate it to user conduct forums such as WP:ANI, but there is no way that I know to "appeal" an RfC result based purely on content.

Most likely though, the RfC was actually stale (i.e. no participation and no clear consensus). In this case, you can open a new one (not reopen a closed one); but of course you should make the options more clear, the statement less polemic, or whatever else, to ensure it does not fail the same way. (Just to be perfectly clear: this applies to stale RfCs; you don't get to open a new RfC immediately after one that did not end the way you wished; if the closer marked it as "stale" but the closing statement points to a partial consensus, that partial consensus is established.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tigraan:The RfC was closed by a bot, and when I undid it, another user reverted my revert as I mentioned in the original post. Regarding evaluation: while it's true that I voted on the RfC in question, I simply wanted some kind of third party to give an official word on the matter so it could be definitively laid to rest (whether or not I agreed with the finding). At any rate, another involved user has apparently opened a request at WP:ANRFC, so I'll just wait for it to be resolve there. Thank you for taking the time to provide an explanation to me. Gimubrc (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Centering of text in a column

Hi, may I ask ye if there is any way of centering the text in one column the whole way down on Wikipedia, without the need of having to insert the "text-align:center" text on each row? --SportsAficionado (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​Put <div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;"> at the start of the text to be centered, and </div> at the end of it. Be aware that outside of some specialist cases like table cells, centered text is rarely going to be appropriate on Wikipedia; also be aware that it will mess up the formatting of any other elements within the piece to be formatted that rely on alignment (such as templates or images) so make sure you preview before you save. ‑ Iridescent 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The simpler <center> center this </center> works. 173.228.123.83 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft similar to existing article (different content) rejected - why?

Hi there,

I've recently submitted a draft article that was rejected, and the feedback from the kind reviewer Robert McClenon was: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Ryerson University. This draft doesn't make the case for a separate article on the faculty or department. The references are not independent, but, even if they were, there is already an article on the university."

This is my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faculty_of_Communication_and_Design_(FCAD)

I am wondering if someone could help me understand how to make the draft worthy of being its own article. I took a look at an article for another Ryerson faculty and it doesn't appear horribly dissimilar to mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rogers_School_of_Management), and also uses non-independent sources, so I suppose I'm struggling to understand why that page's content is article-worthy while my draft is not. I could add a list of notable alumni of the faculty, would that help?

Any assistance is hugely appreciated - thanks in advance! And apologies if I'm missing something obvious, I'm new to Wiki. ThomasEng (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@ThomasEng: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.

"What about article x?" is rarely useful in arguing against the deletion or rejection of an article. Each article must stand on its own merits. The article you are comparing your draft to might be equally unsuitable for Wikipedia and eligible for deletion.

The sources you give do not adequately demonstrate that this body is notable enough. The links to Ryerson websites are primary sources and won't count to establishing notability. The other links contain only brief, passing mentions and do not have the required depth of coverage to be satisfactory.

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a subsection of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, says "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Separate articles on law schools and medical schools are being kept."

Unless you can provide multiple independent sources that discuss FCAD in depth, then unfortunately it's not worthy of a standalone article. Sorry. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird AFD interactions

Okay so, long story. It goes without saying that I'm fairly new. A while ago I voted "Keep" on an AFD for an article a friend told me had been targeted by trolls. The very next day, I noticed that another article I had recently done some work on was targeted for AFD and at the same time, it came under heavy vandal attack (to the point to where it was locked). One person even edited in the AFD from the *first* page to second. Nearly every account that voted "Keep" was flagged as an SPA. Including accounts that had long and varied edit histories, going back as far as 2005. Someone had also hidden the comments I made about the one page being targeted because of the other under an "extended content" tag. Articles for deletion/Brenton Lengel (2nd nomination)

This morning the page was deleted and I got a nasty comment on my talk page from someone involved. Is there something I'm missing here? like maybe the page didn't have the sourcing it needed, maybe it did (I've seen similar pages with way less that are fine) and if I put my foot in my mouth, fine I'm a noob, but I don't think I was ever inappropriate...and the whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. What did I do wrong and is there someone I can/should report this to? Joseph dejacque (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joseph dejacque. I'm sorry to hear that your experiences with Wikipedia so far have been negative (and confusing). Looking at it, I think the problems began with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Maupin (2nd nomination), which was heavily disrupted by editors canvassed from outside Wikipedia, and that perhaps gave you a distorted impression of how we usually conduct these discussions. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Lengel (2nd nomination) was started by Galobtter, who is an experienced editor and certainly not a troll. I doubt that they didn't do so out of any sort of "retaliation"; it was just an article on a related topic that you happened to have edited before. The vandalism was probably related to the off-wiki activity that is clearly associated with both these AfDs.

In the second AfD, there are a few points of AfD etiquette that you tripped up on:

• Whilst AfDs are discussions, repeatedly arguing your case and responding to others' comments is generally frowned upon. It's better to let other editors read the arguments and make their own minds up.
• It's expected that participants keep their comments concise and focused only on the issue of deletion. Long comments, repetition and general discussion about the page make it more difficult for other editors to participate and for administrators to assess the consensus. That is the reason some of your comments were 'collapsed'.
• We never edit other users' comments.
• It's not a good idea to remove SPA tags that other editors have placed. These are purely meant as information for the benefit of the closing admin (who is free to disregard them if misapplied). It's not any sort of slight on the user who was tagged.
• Consistently using indentation and bullet points helps keep the discussion readable.

Some of these are unwritten rules that you as a new editor really had no way of knowing about. Others I think show a battleground mentality on your part, perhaps coming from the previous AfD and the feeling that you were being 'trolled', which is never productive. I do agree that Guy's note on your talk page comes across as rather abrupt, but AfDs are amongst Wikipedia's most contentious discussions and tempers do get frayed. If I were you I'd take a break from them for the time being. Working on writing articles is usually a much more pleasant and rewarding experience. – Joe (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, you're being trolled. This user made seven edits to Wikipedia over 18 months before !voting on the Maupin AfD and then filling the AfD on a now-deleted vanity article - one previously kept only because of a pile-on by suspiciously inexperienced editors - with endless commentary responding to pretty much every delete !vote. If that was not the result of off-wiki solicitation then it is a really perverse coincidence. More than half of all his edits since registering in June 2016, and the great majority of all his contributions by character count, are to that one AfD. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I started it on the behalf of a IP editor so that IP editor could be a troll :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

So it WAS a troll from Caleb's page. I knew I wasn't crazy. Thanks Galobtter that clears things up. Sorry I thought you were one. Like I said, I'm new at this. Joseph dejacque (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was a troll.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thank you Joe. I didn't know. It seemed like the two things were related because of the vandalism and the timeline. Maybe it was just a coincidence. I just felt really guilty which was why I was a little combative. And yes, I haven't made many edits Guy but again - I made a few edits (mostly anarchist stuff) then became active when my friend told me about Caleb's page...and I guess I sorta over-reacted. I just hope I didn't hurt things on the other page. That would be really ironic. Joseph dejacque (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Education section on Lytton Springs, Texas

Hello! In the article of Lytton Springs, Texas, I want to add to the education section of that article information about a school that was opened there recently. This is what I want to add to the section:

"In fall 2016, a new elementary school, Alma Brewer Strawn Elementary School, was opened in Lytton Springs. It was named for a respected staff member named Alma Brewer Strawn, who was a teacher in the district. It is the first campus to be built outside of the Lockhart, Texas city limits. It teaches grades PK-5. After it opened, a student attendance zone map was created, and the four elementary schools in Lockhart teach grades K-5."

I will not add this info to the article until I find sources to cite them. I cannot find the sources for them. Can someone please find the news reports showing this info? I will be looking at other articles to find out how to properly cite news reports. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I can't wait to hear from someone. Thanks! Colman2000 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Colman2000. I find it odd that you know what you want to say, but don't know where to find the source to support you saying it. This seems the total opposite of how anyone should be creating content. That said, put your search words between double quotes in a Google search. viz. "Alma Brewer Strawn". That yields the school website url which you could put in External links, plus this press release from a manufacturer of playground equipment, and this about zone maps. Personally, I'd keep your first two sentences and cut the rest as possibly being too detailed. For referencing news sources, you can use the dropdown template selector to access the Cite News template in either editor. I often switch over to using VisualEditor when adding books or news sources as it does a fair job in automatically creating them from the url, with just a quick check to see if its worth adding anything else manually. Hoping this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you! I just added this info to the article, and after a few tweaks with it, I finally fixed it. Cheers! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you allow me to post my article on Wikipedia for a limited time?

Me and my friend have classwork to do by a teacher which will go great on our C.Vs and we were hoping that we could review each other's Wiki page and then improve to review again to take it down afterwards.

We aren't infringing any rights and therefore would love to just use this site for our coursework for I.T.

Thank you for taking this into consideration, I hope to hear from you soon,

MariaMaria567 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maria567: I don't think this is possible. If you have been assigned this from your instructor, has your instructor followed the guidance at WP:ASSIGN ? RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not free webspace for assignments, but if you read WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners, perhaps you could work on a genuine article that would remain here and benefit the encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 21:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maria567. Wikipedia never accepts an article on a pre-planned temporary basis. High quality articles are kept forever. Low quality articles are either improved, or if that is not possible, deleted. You have been working on a draft article about a topic that already has a Wikipedia article, Online community. We never accept a new article about a topic when we have an existing article about the same topic. One topic, one article. Instead, any editor interested in a topic should work to improve the existing article rather than trying to write a new article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page was deleted

I am affiliated with a company called Revcontent... the page was recently deleted. I am looking for help in getting it set up, but want to follow all the rules and guidelines to ensure it won't be deleted for improper usage. I can provide media coverage about company from unaffiliated third party news orgs.

C.terenzi (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@C.terenzi: The usual advice is don't do this. It is difficult for new editors to create an article and doubly so to create a neutral article when you are affiliated. If you want to proceed, read WP:YFA on what is required for an article (particularly what it means to be notable) and then use the wizard there to create an article for review. You also need to disclose that you have a conflict of interest and if you are being paid. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. I would suggest instead you edit articles that where you don't have the conflict of interest. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there someone who would help us create a new page? C.terenzi (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, C.terenzi. The problem you face is that articles are only deleted from Wikipedia because the consensus at the time was that the subject wasn't notable enough, as per our definition, which you can read here: WP:NORG. Has something suddenly changed to make you think its notability will be viewed any differently now? If so, you might stand a chance, but if not you will just find the article being proposed for deletion once again. I'm not able to see what the deleted article said, but if it contains substantially the same content it will probably be deleted again very quickly indeed. Sorry. (Oh, and the answer to your last question is "No", I'm, afraid.) Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello C.terenzi. Here is the discussion that led to deletion of the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revcontent. An earlier version of the article was deleted several years previously. Please be aware that my search for coverage in reliable sources revealed harsh criticism of your company for peddling salacious and misleading clickbait advertising. Please be aware that any future article must include well-referenced criticism and your company will have no right to remove it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Just so it is clear they are also talking about Draft:Revcontent (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Revcontent). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Social Justice Topic

Hello,

My name is Katie Neu and I am in the Master's of Higher Education program at Central Michigan University. I am editing as a part of my Social Justice class and was wondering if there were any topics that are understudied that would be under the umbrella of social justice umbrella. I am not married to any sort of topic, but would like to do research on one that is understudied.

Thank you for your assistance!

Katie (Katieneu0929 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​Starting a new article from scratch is probably the single most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia, so I'd recommend finding an existing article that needs improvement rather than trying to write a new one. I would suggest looking through Category:Social inequality and its subcategories (click the little blue triangles to expand them) and reading the articles there until you find one that you feel should be improved and on which you're able to find appropriate sources to improve it. ‑ Iridescent 22:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't add to this answer, but may I ask a question which might help the poster, and which I don't know the answer to: Is there a way to combine a search of pages that match two or more categories. e.g. a search for all articles in Category:Social inequality which also match those flagged for, say, Category:All stub articles. All I can find is an exciting proposal here: WP:Category intersection, but no answers. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There is PetScan. https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ Mduvekot (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, Mduvekot -that's the best new thing I've learnt on Wikipedia this year! Thank you. So, searching on the category of 'Social inequality' and the (normally) hidden category of 'All stub articles' we get five articles well worth addressing by someone interested in that topic: Distinction (sociology); Horizontal inequality; Equality of autonomy; Equality of autonomy; A Guerra não Declarada na Visão de um Favelado and Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. Looks like it might need a careful read the documentation to use to best effect, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. PetScan is incredibly useful. I love it. Mduvekot (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Katieneu0929, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd like to add something to the valuable replies from Nick Moyes and Mduvekot. I see that you are a new editor, and I wanted to point out a pitfall that academics sometimes hit when they edit Wikipedia: writing a Wikipedia article is not like most academic writing. It is most like the "literature review" section of a dissertation, where the major sources are discussed and summarised. But a Wikipedia article must not go beyond that: it should not contain any argumentation or conclusions of its own (though of course it can summarise the argument or conclusions of a single source, as long as it clearly attributes them. It should not contain any evaluation, either of the subject or of the sources: if the sources disagree, it may report their different stance, but should not attempt to resolve them. And it should not bring together material from different sources to present a conclusion or argument which is not in any of the sources. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS for more information on these topics. I apologise if I'm stating the obvious. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a very useful observation - thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

denial for "notability and coverage"

My question is this. I have just submitted a Biography Article. It is very short with a few sentences and was rejected for lack of "notability and coverage". The fact is that Bill Eager has authored 10 books and most notably the very first book ever written about the Internet called Using the Internet in 1993. That would feel to be notable. Second is "coverage" and with articles and quotes in Forbes, USA Today and the Denver Business Journal that also feels like "coverage". Can you tell me a next step? Williameager (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Williameager. The articles and things you are talking about sound reliable. You will just have to reference them in your draft to prove Eager is notable. If you do that it's likely the draft will be much longer than a few sentences anyway. By the way, if you are Eager like your username suggests, you should either disclose that and/or work with another editor to make sure you write neutrally, because Wikipedia articles can't promote somebody. People often have a hard time writing neutrally about themselves. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just adding to what White Arabian Filly has said, I fear you have answered your own question. You say you've written a few short sentences. Your task is to find really good sources (not brief mentions) that are independent of the subject that talk about that person in depth in a way that meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability of people. None of what you've written gets anywhere near that, I'm afraid. Perhaps reading this would help you a bit Wikipedia:Your first article. And if you're trying to create an article about yourself, please follow our requirements for declaring a conflict of interest, which you can read here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Having just taken a look, I'm pessimistic that Bill Eager is notable by Wikipedia standards as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search turns up a flood of self-referential sites: his website, his LinkedIn page, his YouTube videos, Amazon links to his books, various self-promotional lecturer links, and name search sites like Spokeo and Intelius ... generally a hallmark of non-notability. I only found a couple of news links, and none that weren't press releases, name drops or quotes from Eager in articles about something else. To pass our notability standards, he must receive "substantial coverage" in multiple high quality independent sources. Ravenswing 23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, autobiographies are a bad idea. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add a Definition and examples of Transitional Art.

Transitional Art is the result of an invasion and the invading images are taken up within the local handicrafts. With examples from 1066 and all that ! Can you help me as last time I put it up...it was taken down..with no reasons given? Graham Francis Bacon (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Graham Francis Bacon, welcome to the Teahouse. Judging by your talkpage, Transitional art was proposed for deletion back in 2009 for the following reasons: Unremarkable unreferenced essay, no encyclopaedic content. If you can find reliable independent sources that talk about this topic in detail, you might well have some success in creating it again. But. judging by your rather esoteric remark about it above, I'm not sure you have the right approach to writing a neutral, encyclopaedic article about this subject (whatever it actually is). Probably this article might be of most help to you: WP:NOTABILITY and Creating your first article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Graham Francis Bacon. Since I am an administrator, I was able to read the article you wrote, which was deleted in December, 2009. I found it somewhat interesting but completely unsuitable for this encyclopedia for several reasons. An acceptable article must summarize what reliable sources say about "Transitional art". Your article began with "When cultures clash and images exchange, communicated and expressed within indigenous arts and handicrafts." That is not a complete sentence and does not define the topic. You mentioned a variety of art forms such as Native American art showing railroads and Afghan art showing AK47s. You included a lengthy quote from yourself. Although you included some URLs, you did not include any references that discussed transitional art as a topic or notable art genre. Much of your attempt at an article appeared to be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. My quick Google Books search did not find any coverage of the concept you were describing, but rather found that the word "transitional" and the word "art" appear together in a wide variety of contexts with no unifying theme emerging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I format an image to the left side of an article?

How do I format an image to the left side of an article? I've been improving an article, Neuburg Air Base, and I pulled an image of a ME-262 being built and it looks too far down on the page. How do I put it on the left side? Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lord David, Duke of Glencoe, after |thumb add |left to move it across. For more on working with images, see MOS:IMAGES. NZFC^(talk) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whilst DJ-Joker16 could use this to reposition the image:  [[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 141-2738, Unterirdische Produktion von Me 262.jpg|thumb|left|Underground manufacture of Me 262s]], this Manual of Styleguideline urges images to be kept to the right undermost circumstances. Personally,I don't think the article in question is long enough to warrant the image being moved away from its default right placement. Only when an article gets much longer need this be considered. (here's where I've used that tactic myself). We really should avoid trying to make layout changes that just make the page look nice in our own browsers unless it really helps enhance the article. In this instance I'd advise against it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all! Lord David, Duke of Glencoe (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Im trying to create a page on wikipedia for a park. It keeps getting rejected.

Im trying to create a page on wikipedia for a park. It keeps getting rejected.

I have all the info, but Im not good with this sort of stuff.

All I want is for a factually correct page to exisit to replace one that is in a forgiegn language and has inforrect information.

Link to the page Im trying to create below.

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

Im also struggling with the format of editing wikipedia.

Can someone please help?

Thanks! Thedesignerguy (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thedesignerguy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have dived right in to article creation, which is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles got that way by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, in order to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. I might suggest that before continuing to edit your draft that you edit some existing articles, perhaps starting with small changes like spelling or grammar fixes, and working your way up to more substantive additions. Then when you at ready you can go back to article creation. You may also want to use The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial of sorts for using Wikipedia, as well as reading Your First Article.

Regarding the draft itself, it has been rejected mostly because you initially copied the content from elsewhere. I think then you did make some changes, but the content that is there now doesn't seem to have sufficient citations to warrant an article of its own. Content like "the park has become a favorite for locals" or "It's also well known for its purple Jacaranda Tre" needs to be cited from an independent reliable source like a news story, review, etc. It's that apparent lack of in depth coverage in sources that led to the more recent rejection, suggesting you simply add some information about this park to the existing article about the neighborhood/area it is located in. I would have to agree that the park seems too small to warrant a separate article. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that existence in one language Wikipedia does not guarantee inclusion here: English Wikipedia has different, and higher, standards for sourcing and notability than many other language projects. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on how to make your references into proper in-text citations, so that it is clear which source supports each part of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to i put an editorial question on an article to the general membership of WP?

On the article Mexico National Football Team there is use of the phrase Mexican national football team as the title instead of the approved translation from the original of Mexico national football team. I would like for others at WP to weigh in on the importance of maintaining the integrity of what is translated and put into use at WP in order that it does not appear that English users are imposing their grammar on the Spanish language users. How do i do this?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I see that you are already discussing the matter at Talk:Mexico national football team, which is the proper place for the discussion. If that discussion does not come to a satisfactory conclusion, then there are various forms of dispute resolution available. I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right. However, as a general principle, the English Wikipedia will render translations the same way that the preponderance of reliable English language sources do. We reflect published English language sources instead of trying to correct or improve them. We do not "impose" on Spanish language speakers because there is an entire Spanish language Wikipedia for speakers of that language, written and administrated by Spanish speakers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You asked your question in the right place, at Talk:Mexico national football team. Interested editors will reply there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting because not only did I ask the question but then was rebiuffed and insulted for my English language skills and basically asked to go edit the Spanish WP? Now the person has me up for a warring advisory discussion. Is this what WP is all all about. If you feel challenged you start to go after people?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cullen--you do impose on Spanish language WP users because if you say something is so in English then the English use world thinks that it is so. That is tantamount to WP endorsing it. The fact of the matter remains that the original title of the Mexico National Football Team was grammatically incorrectly translated probably based on some wrong assumption by an English speaking person. Now we have a situation where someone continues to use the old style and incorrect title translation. And for questioning that then i am called on the carpet for warring? beciae some English use senior editor here is being obstinate possibly about being challeneged? Again, this is the WP way?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you repeatedly revert other editors' contributions to a talk page discussion (other than in the circumstances permitted by WP:TPO) you are likely to be warned about it and then reported to WP:AN3 if you continue. That is the WP way. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to English language usage, we reflect what the preponderance of published English language sources say. In exactly the same way, the Spanish Wikipedia reflects Spanish language usage based on the preponderance of Spanish language sources. We call Germany "Germany" here as English language sources do, not "Deutschland" as the Germans do. To state the obvious, the German language Wikipedia describes American and British and Australian topics using common German words and phrases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but we don't then turn around and say the German national football team we say Germany national football team. Now you have someone saying that it is perfectly presentable to vary a title from what has been established by article title name of Mexic and change it to Mexican? Your Deuthcland did not help your position very much. At least i know amongst the English WP users i am welcomed at the Spanish language WP?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Was there something about "I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right." that you did not understand, or are you deliberately ignoring what I wrote above? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I really cannot understand how some of you WP people function. So now you are going to fault me for your faulty example? You may think that Mexico and Mexican are interchangeable but they are not especially in a situation where the translation is literal. Mexico in Spanish is Mexico and Mexican in Spanish is Mexicano/a. The host country title for the Mexico National Football Team is not Mexicano/a but Mexico. If anyone outside the US just dilly fdally changed the names of our institutions we would probably think they ignorant or insulting. Why should we treat other countries the same way i WP is to reach its full internation impact? So it seams to me that WP is more concerned about authority being followed than publishing in the correct manner? Especially if i am being welcomed to go elsewhere such as the Spanish language WP to edit. That certainly makes me feel welcomed.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is tedious to have to repeat "I have no opinion on the specific dispute. You may well be right." for a third time, but you have forced me to do so. Please drop your tendentious editing. It is unhelpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about translation. We all understand what the subject of the article is: the national football team that plays for Mexico. The issue (if you think there is an issue) is what name is usually used for it in English-language publications. Maproom (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Article removal

Hello! How can I remove the articles of Cronin, Texas and Greens Bluff, Texas? I can't find any information on these communities in the Handbook of Texas and I feel like they don't belong. How can I request them to be deleted or removed? Thanks for reading, and I can't wait to hear from someone! Colman2000 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines on notability of places are at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). The 2 articles to which you refer have references to the U.S. Geological Survey, which is rather more authoritative on geographical matters than the Handbook of Texas. If you wanted to nominate the articles for deletion, the 3 possible processes are at Wikipedia:Deletion process, but I wouldn't expect any such proposal to be successful as they have each been defined by USGS as a "Populated Place". --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Colman2000. I agree with David Biddulph. I consider it highly unlikely that any attempt to delete an article about a populated place referenced to the Geographic Names Information System would be successful. I suggest that you either ignore these articles or try to improve them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I can understand your concern about these two articles in particular. Their suitability to have published WP articles is based more on the source credibility than the significance to the locality, state, country, etc. The real question is at what point does something warrant a separate article instead of being part of another larger overall article that until a sufficient amount of information about it calls for it to be published separately. It almost seems to beg the question of why do we have a standard for living persons or a company so that the publicity aspect of articles is not abused? But if the powers that be say that it should not be a concern then so let it be and have someone go through the source and establish a batch of articles that had best be started as a topic article instead of a specific locale with very little available to substantiate it. The only way for some of these "communities" to have their wordage increased is to look at primary sources which is not the intent of WP. And that information that may be collected and published about localities may be so unsourced as to make it as useless as it not ever having existed. What is the difference of lisitng and explaningthe local communities of a large r area in one article than estavblishing countless articles that really amount to nothing except WP announcing to the world that they exist?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I suggest that you read the Five Pillars, which describes the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, as described in the very first sentence. That is a somewhat archaic term for a comprehensive geographical directory, which ought to include every single verifiable current or past occupied place. And the Geographic Names Information System is the "gold standard" for geographic place names in the United States. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):IP, the answer to that is simple. When Wikipedia was established, one of its goals was to serve as a gazetteer. Having an article on every community that is or ever was fits that goal. Another one of the foundation principles is WP:NOT. We are not here to promote anything. A virtually non-existent community has nothing to promote (and if an article on one contains material promoting some portion of the community, like a non-notable business, that should be removed). NOT is why we have much higher standards for articles on people and organizations than for places on a map. John from Idegon (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you endorse it or not and the very manner that WP has developed show that it is not carved in stone including its founding principles otherwise it would have died long ago trapped within its own skin. What has to be recognized that even publications can be sources of politicization--those that have the power to include and champion for it can have its significance enhanced or made-up. If you are excluded from the process then so can be your significance in the world.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

IP user: you are right that the policies and practices of Wikipedia do vary a little over time. It works on consensus, and anybody may suggest changes and try to change the consensus. If you wish to do so, the place dedicated to this kind of activity is the Village pump, rather than the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! I will not remove these articles, but I will try to find information to expand those articles. Cheers to all of you! Colman2000 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to start

I want to write for a person who us not there on Wikipedia, how do i create or startSuthar Vidhi (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone else can advise you on that but i assume that by your name you might be writing about Asia? I enjoy very much reading about non-European places since we get so much inundation about that part of the world to begin with.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Suthar Vidhi wants to write about Dr. Shailesh Thaker. I haven't properly investigated whether this person is notable in the Wikipedia sense but Google finds only self-published sources for me. There is guidance at WP:Biographies of living persons. Dbfirs 08:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Think? why speculate looking into something if that is not what she intends? Just who do you want to write about?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We are not speculating. We have been told at User talk:Suthar Vidhi/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FIRST 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Dowery System in India

Why have you ReEdited the the wikipedia page "Dowery System in India" as it is particularly biased against the muslim Community at large as it shows the the Dowery System to be connected with ony Islam while the ground reality is completely different?43.231.59.221 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you have some difficulty understanding English. The first two sentences of the paragraph which you were trying to edit (Dowry system in India#Religious factors) say "Dowry in India is not limited to any specific religion. It is widespread among Hindus and other religions.", so certainly not saying that it connected only with Islam. If you wish to find a Wikipedia in a language which you do understand, a list of Wikipedias is available at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I get the Canada Day page to reflect that fact that Canada Day will be on July 2nd in 2018?

Hi. I am very new to trying to edit Wikipedia, but I have enjoyed it very much as a reference for many years.

Someone edited my change, but then corrected it after I reached out to them on their talk page, after I had undone it? This was fixed, and now someone has edited it again! Also, I started to reference the Federal Holidays Act, and then realized that it had already been referenced, and now I have left a citation error on the page.

I am sorry to be a pest, but I have been fighting the legislation that has Canada Day fall on July 2nd if July 1st is a Sunday since 2012, and I would very much like Wikipedia to reflect the truth. Thank you. CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You can cite the legislation like this: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/H-5/page-1.html#h-2 |title=Holidays Act |publisher=[[Government of Canada]] |date=1985 |accessdate=2018-01-18}}</ref>

However it sounds like you aren't a disinterested third party with this topic, and potentially have a conflict of interest. Editors may rightly question whether you are capable of writing from the required neutral point of view. I would advise you to use the talk page and leave {{request edit}} tag there explaining what changes you want and why, then let a uninvolved editor review the request. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ask for opinion about draft of the new article "User:CD17/sandbox/Water-filtered infrared-A"

Do you think the draft of the new article "User:CD17/sandbox/Water-filtered infrared-A" in this form appropriate for Wikipedia? How shall I improve the draft before sending it officially to a review? Thank you in advance for your help. CD17 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Two comments:

• The draft is about a range of wavelengths of electromagnetic wavelength. It would be nice to have a diagram that shows how it compares with other wavebands – I guess it falls within what is often called "infra-red"? But that's just my opinion.
• More seriously: the use of this waveband, at least as described in the draft, is medical. An article on a medical subject should comply with WP:MEDRS, which discourages the use of primary sources. The draft relies almost entirely on research papers, which are primary sources. Also, the use of five or more references to support a single statement will suggest to cynical readers that the statement is in fact contentious. I strongly recommend removing as many as possible of the primary sources. A citation of a single good secondary source will be preferable to citations of multiple (12, in one case) primary sources. Maproom (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello @CD17:, and welcome to the Teahouse. 2 quick additional points: 1) With a few exceptions (like direct quotations for example), you shouldn't reference statements in the lead section. The lead section should only provide a succinct summary of the main text, thus such additional lead citations are generally seen as redundant (analogous information must be included and then sourced in the main text of course). You'll find more information about function and content of the lead section at MOS:LEAD. 2) Avoid "cite bombing" simple statements with multiple citations. You should verify such statements with the 1-2 best and most reliable source(s). Additional citations will not increase the statement's accuracy and often make verification more difficult instead. Notable exceptions are controversial or complex claims, where additional citations might be useful for the reader - but that's an editorial case by case judgement to make. Hope these general points help a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help.

Following your advices, I have markedly reduced the citations (28 instead of 59), emphasizing on secondary sources; I have explained the neighboring to visible light; no references in the leading section. Do you have further suggestions for improving the draft of my article? Once again thank you in advance for your help. CD17 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft says that wIRA is "in the range 780-1400 nm". Prove it. Show me a reliable source. Use that as a reference for that fact; if not, remove that fact. Repeat for the rest of the article. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk to user:Doc James or one of the other specialists in WP:MEDRS. Primary sources to original papers are not really acceptable for medical articles, and a lot of the remaining sources fall into that category. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All the primary sources need to be removed. And than I will take another look.

The lack of EN language reviews is a bit of a concern. As is the fact that the concept revolves around a small group.

I am seeing nothing about this by the FDA. Do we have EU government sources that discuss it?

User also needs to disclose their connection to the subject in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

maintenance template

I would like to remove the maintenance template on the article Hal Blumenfeld but I am not sure if the article has been reviewed again since my edits. How can I confirm it has been reviewed again? Should I just remove the maintenance template? Thanks!Rortiz246 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rortiz246, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no formal review process for the flagged problems at Hal Blumenfeld. As the link in the template Learn how and when to remove this template message explains, you can remove the template yourself if you think that you or someone else has fixed the problem. Though in this case, I would say that the problem appears unresolved; there are huge sections of unsourced material in this biography of a living person where citing a reliable source for everything that is stated would be the reasonable thing to do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :The Hal Blumenfeld article still has two major unsourced sections, Biography and Awards, and several unsourced claims - I have added a few extra tags to highlight the most important points that need to be addressed. - Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Note, I've removed the paragraphs that were tagged with inline citation needed templates. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Blumenfeld was born in California" - prove it. Show me a reference to a reliable source, Otherwise, remove that.

Repeat. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page

How to make a page for a personality whose page is still not there on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname479 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:FIRST, if you have further questions, ask here. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page

How to make a page for a personality whose page is still not there on Wikipedia? Noname479 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Noname479. You may want to start by reading through out tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. You should also please note that in the vast majority of cases, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that are taken from online, as you have done repeatedly, as this constitutes a copyright violation. GMG^talk 21:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

if the sources are reliable

Hello! :) I need an advice of more experienced editors whether next sources are enough reliable:

1)https://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local-news/past-times-history-aston-flamville-11731297

2)http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/flamville-sir-william-1325-1396

Best regards, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) ♥ —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Both are fine. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Lidiia Kondratieva welcome to our friendly Teahouse, and thank you for your question. Both the websites you have given links to look pretty reliable. But context is everything. They would be totally unreliable if you were trying to cite evidence that water has been found on the moon. One is written by a 'popular historian' in a local newspaper, but I would be quite happy using that as supporting evidence for most statements. It just depends what they are. The more contentious the claim, the more reliable the sources need to be to support it. I'm sorry if this answer seems a little vague, but I couldn't determine from your edit history which article you might be wanting to edit. If you have concerns, you could always place a note in an article's talk page, stating what information you'd like to add, and the citations you'd like to use to support it, and seek the views of other editors who have interest in working on that article. In summary: be bold and use them! Does this assist? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Perspective

It seems like Wikipedia is intending well with its interactive TWA, but to me, unless I am going nuts, feel undertones of deception, just as they are distracting you, to blindly follow you through jumping through hops of code writing, for whatever reason, to lower copyright issues, pursued by individuals discredited for creation of original information. Which I get it that's cool if we're all ready to become a collective, lets share completely not hold hidden agendas, I guess can someone give me a little hint, stuck in the coincidentally mischief of a perhaps misfortunate mind. Is there a question, not directly, but don't be overly critical of style, you get my drift, anyone want to help my nerves, and perhaps productive impact. -FerventtboundzFerventtboundz (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What is "TWA"? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TWA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ferventtboundz. Doing The Wikipedia Adventure is a good way for some people to learn the basics of editing in small chunks, and in an interactive manner. But it's not for everyone. I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid I did not "get your drift", and am very unclear what you are trying to say. At the end of TWA there is a feedback opportunity to tell the team who run it what you thought. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No Ferventtboundz, I'm afraid I don't get your drift. I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fervent, never mind the establishment. Click 'edit' and go for it. Ignore the 'code' (there's really not that much of it...Help:Cheatsheet) but yeah... If you have any problems, ask for help.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Someone copied and pasted a Wikipedia article on their user talk. Is that allowed? can i get rid of it? (But i think they changed up the article on their talk page)Thegooduser talk 02:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Bio text boxes

Hi,

I'm looking for the format template for what I believe are called "infoboxes." This is the box that contains the factual bio of the person you're writing about - i.e. Name, Born, Occupations, Years Active, Website. I tried formatting it myself using the {{{ keys but I'm not sure I did it correctly. Is there a way to insert this, or am I missing a step or a button?

Thanks,

Octopus69Octopus69 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. They are explained at WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Help

What can I do to help?Eric Backer (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

My company Wiki page entry keeps getting declined

Hi there. My company UiPath is a global company with 550 customers in Robotic Process Automation. We have tried for nearly a year to get a UiPath wiki page up. As you can imagine, we have inquires that ask why we do not have a page. I understand that accuracy and non-advertising style is critical. But, even a basic page with just our office and a few facts gets turn down. Can someone please help. Thanks, Bobby T patrick VA (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)