Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
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 summary errors

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

I'm currently experiencing technical issues regarding my edit summaries. On XTools, there is a pie chart showing a comparison between edits with summaries and edits without summaries. I clearly remember that I had 5 accidental no-summary edits. That number has now grown to 35... that's strange!

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Rebestalic, fancy seeing you here at the Teahouse again.

When I looked, it had grown even larger. In looking over your contribution list, I spotted a few visual edits that lacked edit summaries but for the most part, you have been doing well at including edit summaries. I bet there's probably a tool that you could use to show which edits are considered to not have edit summaries, but I don't know what that tool is. I suggest that you not worry overmuch about the exact statistic and continue as you have been, conscientiously trying to include a useful edit summary for every edit. It's not like you can go back and insert an edit summary if one has been missed (except by doing a dummy edit, but that needs to be very close to the original to serve any purpose). I've not looked into the details, but I wonder what affect having an edit that was REVDELed has on the counts. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

Rebestalic (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Jmcgnh, You can also go to your preferences. On the third tab "editing" the third option is:

Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary

If you check that, and try to save without leaving a summary it will give you a warning. You can proceed and leave a blank edit summary but this may help avoid the accidental ones. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick I've had that option set, like from the first week I was editing, but I still accumulate what edit counter tabulates as edits without summaries. I think that's the discrepancy that Rebestalic was asking about and I don't have a good answer, just that guess about revdel edits. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting an unconstructive edit requires no edit summary. I wonder if the counting software is aware of this?

Help editing page about Utthayan Road to be neutral

Hello,

I need help to suggest editing this article as some of reviewer suggest to make it more 'neutral'  : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Utthayan_Road I have edited twice which I have add some reliable sources but seems to need rewrite some parts again Please help to review and suggest me which particular part need to edit or which tone of word should be changed

Many thanks Locallion (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Locallion: I removed the part that said it was the most beautiful road in Thailand. If someone on a TV show says it is the most beautiful road in Thailand, you could mention that it is so according to that person on that show said that. But from what I could read about the show, I don't think island I'd mention the opinion at all. Just the description, and let people judge by themselves. You did include an image, so people can see what it looks like.

There's also the part that says Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram as the premier: what does "premier" mean in that sentence? Prime Minister of Thailand? If so, I'd change it to Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram was the premier Prime Minister of Thailand. You won't have to link the name of the country, since it's already linked in the lead section (I added it there while writing this message. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC) edited 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: Thank you for your suggestion. I have edited some parts you've suggested. I agree, I just changed the word 'premier' to 'Prime Minister' . Also, the part of some people name, I put the link and direct to their existing articles to make more sense. Are there any other parts need to be edited before publish? – Locallion (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Automated WikiProject tagging

Hi, A group of us are starting a new WikiProject and have been tagging articles with our WikiProject banner for assessment / importance and to help point to articles than need improvement. Tagging is a bit time consuming and we were wondering if there is a way to set up a bot that can tag articles for us (with or without assessment) that fall under the scope of our WikiProject (e.g. articles in a certain category). Thanks, Jayzlimno (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jayzlimno. Welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations on setting up your new wiki project on Limnology and Oceanography. The tool you need for achieving this task is 'auto wiki browser' see WP:AWB. It is an extremely powerful and versatile tool for making multiple edits. It would allow you to create a list of pages from a named category and then to automate edits to those pages. I very much doubt you could add an assessment to each article because this is subjective matter, best done by editors manually, but adding a talk page template should be very straightforward (though I've not done this myself with a AWB). I've taken the liberty of giving each of the participants listed in your project a welcome message from Wikipedia, full of a host of useful links. Might I suggest you urge participants to create a 'user page', and to add a few lines about themselves there? Please encourage them all to seek help from us here at the Teahouse, should they get stuck on anything. Understanding the "dos and don'ts" is never easy for new editors, and transitioning from academic writing (where primary sources are king) to encyclopaedia writing (where reliable secondary sources are far more important) can take some getting used to. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Nick Moyes! Yeah I think we were imagining doing manual assessment still, but just initially tagging w/o assessment via a bot for a many articles. We will check out the AWB bot. I will let participants know that they should create a user page with brief bio. Thanks for all the tips! We'll be sure to come back here if we get stuck on anything else. Jayzlimno (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Dates for spouse (deceased)

Hi, could you please tell me if the dates next to the spouse of notable person are their life dates i.e. 1919-2011 or length married i.e. 1948-2011?

A page I like to take care of has just been changed (back) to the latter, but it seems wrong to me.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gitta_Sereny&diff=next&oldid=846954396 Thanks Mandy Honeyman (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The parameter guidelines for the writer infobox say that the date after the spouse's name is the years married to the writer. Template:Infobox writer#Parameters TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. The guidelines are, arguably, incomplete. Former is not the same as widowed.Mandy Honeyman (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd just extrapolate and say that if they are still married, it's marriage year (XXXX-present). If they aren't, for whatever reason, it's just the dates they were married (XXXX-XXXX). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mandy Honeyman: If it might otherwise be ambiguous, you can put {{abbr|m.|married}} before the date (or date range). A similar convention is used with b. for born, d. for died, and c. (circa) for approximate dates. Stating "present" can be a problematic as it can become outdated. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrator and editor questions

What do you do to become an administrator ? And who is an editor , how d'you become one ? ANUCH6F (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC) , 30 OCTOBER 2018 , 17:02 (IST)

This guy is a sock of User:X027, Govvy (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those are good questions @ANUCH6F:. An editor is any person (like ANY person on earth) that wants to contribute to Wikipedia. Fix a spelling error in an article? You're an editor! Create a new article Wikipedia was missing? You're an editor! Add some important information? You're an editor! See, ANYONE is an editor. That's why Wikipedia's motto is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". An administrator is an editor that has been approved by their fellow editors to have access to a few additional editing tools: primarily the ability to delete entire pages (see WP:DELETE), the ability to protect or "lock down" pages that are being disrupted (see WP:PROT) and the ability to block users who are being disruptive (see WP:BLOCK). I hope that helps! --Jayron32 11:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators can also make life difficult for editors they don't like, and who get in the way of their POV pushing. This, of course, is not how things are supposed to work, but there seems to be a pretty strong code among admins to not do anything about other, badly behaved admins. It's only a tiny minority of admins who misbehave in the way I've described, but it's a majority who don't do much about it. It's a sad and unfortunate feature of this project. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A valid opinion that I respect, because it has happened to me. A very few admins "pull the admin card" to try to get their way, or they try to get other editors to support their POV in ways that are inconsistent with the guideline, or other things like you described. Even has led to wheel warring on occasion. Fortunately, the vast majority of admins remain trusted by the community and worthy of that trust. For me, that's actually the best reason to want to become an admin – to see if the community trusts you enough to give you the mop.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  20:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to trust a group of editors with power who refuse to use that power to reign in miscreants among their own ranks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We're all volunteers after all, and the trust isn't for a "group of editors" as if they are all untrustworthy. I trust and admire or distrust and dislike one admin at a time. Trust is earned, and most admins have earned it.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are certainly some I trust individually, but why is nothing done about the obvious POV pushing bullies among their ranks? HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I would ask the same question, and yet a lot of things happen that we never see or know about. So I just continue to go about doing what I like to do, improve Wikipedia. It's really the only reason I'm here.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is some administrators (and other reverters, such as hugglers) interact so much with rude users, they end up getting rude themselves. WP:Don't feed the trolls also applies as don't feed the reverters. If an uninvolved user redoes something that a reverter has undone, the reverter might let it go. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC), fixed typo 21:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice Before Moving Article to Mainspace

I've been working on a requested article for the evil maid attack, and I was wondering if I could get some advice on how to improve the article before I move it to mainspace. Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gregpete/Evil_maid_attack Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpete (talk • contribs)

A quick look shows you need to learn how to links to other articles. It's one of the most important feature of the project and what keeps it girnomous content interconnected. So you have to link important terms. See WP:LINKDD for the short dos and don'ts and more comprehensive guide at WP:LINKING. I am no expert on the content, so will leave that for another helper. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gregpete. Generally, I would link

• names (TrueCrypt)
• accronyms (CIA)
• words related to the topic of the article/draft (log keystrokes), but avoid words someone unfamiliar with the topic would still understand (victim)
• words that many people couldn't be expected to understand (proximity alarms)
• common words that have an unusual meaning in the context of the article (I'm not aware of any such words in this draft)

but don't link to the same page twice. except once in the text and once in an image caption, but I don't think there's an obvious need for links in the caption of the one image the draft currently contains. And you probably shouldn't link to lots of articles that don't exist unless that non-existing article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Finally, consider bolding the title at the start of the lead section. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems you figured out the bolding here though (or someone else did). You might want to redirect User:Gregpete/Evil maid attack to Evil maid attack to avoid some people making changes to one version and others making changes to the other one. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

double heading on new entry in google search results

hi there I am a new-ish editor and am working on an entry for dancer Ola Skanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ola_Skanks

I noticed that when google generates its search results, Ola's name appears twice in bold in the wiki box. Looking at the code i cannot see why. can anyone advise me or fix it?

i took a screen cap but can't figure out how to attach it, but just google Ola Skanks and you'll see what i mean in the box on top of the search results.

many thanks and sorry for the newb question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleensmith (talk • contribs)

Hi Kathleensmith; What you see in Google search is generated and controlled by Google. Wikipedia has no control on that, so there's nothing you can do here to change that. But at the bottom of the box (in Google search) you'll see a 'feedback' link, you can complain about what is wrong using that link. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks so much. will investigate highhorse (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kathleensmith: Another thing to keep in mind is that, a previous version of the article did something weird. I'm not sure if that is what caused this, but Google might have an old copy of the article, in which case changes might take a while to take effect. But another possible reason is the birth_name field in the infobox. If google displays that in a confusing way, then maybe you should tell them. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pretended leer: thanks. will look into this also

help someone undid all my work and now I can not undo what he did

I am editing my father's wikipedia Carmelo Zito and I provided more information and added media of interest. I was the one who wrote the page and in the middle of me changing it, someone came and until all my work claiming it was unsourced. I am the daughter and I have the woman who wrote on my father from which the article was created. Can someone please undo his undo so I can finish and after I am finished then he can challenge me one on one over the matter.Ty78ejui (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ty78ejui, Welcome to Wikipedia. Any changes you make must be backed by citations. You can read WP:REFB on how to do this. You should not directly edit the article about your father, since it is a conflict of interest. Instead, please suggest changes on the article's talk page to get consensus on it. Also, adding back material that was removed is not done without discussion. See WP:BRD. Sorry you're having a rough start, but you might be better off making improvements in other articles instead. RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixing broken ping: @Ty78ejui: RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not having a rough start. I have written many articles before this article. I was not finished with my article. I wrote the article in the first place, I used a different name. Each time I have to make a new user name, because an issue would prevent me from logging into the past user name. I am repeating myself because you are not listening. I am not starting and it is not rough, the only issue someone removed all my changes before I had finished them. Ty78ejui (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD still applies. Discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits added a lot of unsourced detail, each and every fact you add to an article requires referencing. As you have a conflict of interest it is prudent to suggest any changes together with your sources, on the article’s talk page for others to consider. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That was only because I was not finished with them yet. I was saving as I went along and planned to add more sources. I had upload media and I was citing it, but I was not yet finished before everything was reverted. I would like to have a moderator consider my appeal. Ty78ejui (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ty78ejui. Having your work removed because it does not quite meet with Wikipedia's guidelines can be terribly frustrating, I do appreciate, especially when you are in the middle of reworking something. But do not fear. Nothing has been lost, and every edit you and other editors have made are all available to see when you click the View History tab. There are a number of things you can do to avoid this ever happening again (irrespective of which page you are editing).

• Firstly, only add one factual statement at a time and ensure you include a citation to a reliable, publicly available source at the same time as you publish those changes. Then move on to the next factual statement. If you have no source that others can verify, just don't add it, because we really don't want personal knowledge and experiences added to this encyclopaedia - they should be saved for use in private websites and the like.
• An alternative approach is to temporarily copy the section you want to work on into your sandbox, and hone your edits to it there, before inserting it back into the article.
• The third - and simplest -way is to place an {{In use}} template at the top of the page, make all your edits, and then remove it an hour or so later once you're finished. You would then have the right to be irritated if someone removed innocuous content that wasn't sourced whilst that template was in place.

Now, I should say in answer to your request that we don't have 'moderators' here - we all aim to edit collaboratively, and to discuss any concerns we might have in a polite, constructive manner. In order to help you, I have taken a look myself at the difference between the last version you edited, and the current one which has now fallen under the scrutiny of a number of experience editors here. (see this diff). To be frank, I agree with each of their actions. So, I hope one of the above suggestions will be helpful to you when you edit articles with which you are not directly connected, and that you will take the advice already given, and place an edit request and suggested content/sources on the page for your father, Carmelo Zito, rather than make those changes yourself. It sounds like you may also get assistance from JimD, which should be really helpful, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have already spoken to JimD about this and he said he will look at the article when he has time. I was still in the progress and did not know about an "in use" template. It may have looked it I was finished, but the problem was I stuck with the issue of the links to the socialist party card not working. I felt since I was adding the actually card, and I have taken new and better photos of the card today, then it would not need to have "citation needed." But, maybe I was wrong, and I should not have removed that. It was not in the final forum, as was in the process of explaining for ancestry and Find A Grave why there is no grave for my father, although our family does have an official grave site. I also was looking for a link for the official grave site, and I could only find Find a Grave, which was not the best source. This is just brought to my attention due to me having just joined ancestry and talking with other family members. I was given the name of Carmelo's first wife, which I added. It was not going to be any kind of major edit. It was just to make things a little more precise. If Wikipedia does not want the best information, then I won't put it there. I guess people who don't have extra money to spend on memberships to paid premium websites never will get the full and complete data. I will just add his more complete Bio to the paid sections of Ancestry and the common man will not be to view the information. Which is something my father would have not wanted, as a Sociologist. Ancestry Costs $45 dollars a month for full access. Ty78ejui (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Don't worry if you want to use reliable sources that are behind paywalls - whilst not desirable, it is perfectly ok, especially as nowadays many scientific articles and even many newspaper sources demand payment for access. That said, those websites like Ancestry.com and its contents that can be edited by absolutely anyone are themselves not regarded as 'Reliable', so it's best to include only information that can be substantiated from secondary sources (or primary sources if photos or graves and formal documents are available). User-written content should be avoided at all times, no matter how truthful - or indeed helpful - it may seem to be. It's simply that nobody else in the world has any way of proving whether it's correct or not - and that has been our issue all along, here, I think. For further information, see the brief entry at Wikipedia:ANCESTRY.COM, or using the site in an 'External link' see WP:ANCESTRY.COM-EL. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nick Moyes I do agree with that. If I can find some sources using Newspapers, I will add them. I am glad to know that those sources are still considered valid even if behind a paywall. But, I have to disagree about there is no way to know to know if it is true. I mean one could literally visit the Zito Family Tomb and find my father is not there. There are ways to find things out, but they often take more time and effort then it is worth to find them out. My father's medical records, and I do have a death certificate, say what he died of, and I can also upload that. But, it would seem that kind of detective work is not really what Wikipedia is supposed to be about either. It's about a simply version of the facts, that no one objects to. If I say my father died of X, and someone else can come and say, no he was my father also, and he died of Y, then there is conflict. If no one steps to say that the data is wrong, the data just stays online. There has to some kind of expectation of good faith. How would I benefit from adding false data? I can write a very long and more detailed bio on Ancestry. Like I said, I was not making it into a long bio, I was just making some minor clarifications, to this illness and death. Ty78ejui (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Please don't think for one moment that I am accusing you of not acting in good faith. But the reality is that many people do like to add trivia and misinformation to articles - sometimes minor changes; sometimes major lies. So to ensure that the encyclopaedia is kept free from made-up content, we have to apply that policy across every article. We also can't expect a student in India or Canada to travel across the world to check out some statement or other, so we require reliable sources to be those generally available to everyone with relatively little effort via publicly available media. I personally find this frustrating when one cannot cite museum archival material because these, too, and not easily verifiable without going to that particular museum. But we can cite publications based upon those archives, providing they're reliable published. I fully understand where you're coming from, and I'm pleased you also see why Wikipedia has to apply the policies that it does, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I did not say, that you said, I am acting without good faith. I just was commenting that good faith is part of Wikipedia. I in fact, know a lot about Wikipedia, and I did not think it would be an issue to make minor changes, that are not backed up up by an online article, since I am the daughter. I would like to have that undo undone, so I don't have to start all over again. While it is true, I could copy that I did from the history, and re post it. I have photos of the card with the time date stamp that I took yesterday inside the safe deposit box. I was almost not able to log in this user name and password. I had cleared saved passwords, and I would of had to make a new username again, but by chance I found the user name and password saved. But, in the past, even when I had the username and password saved, after a while the wikipedia would just stop accepting the using name and password forcing me to to create a new user name. I never wanted to give my email because of the hostility, I have encountered on Wikipedia. In fact someone posted my home address to the editing information line, so I could not delete it. I had to go on facebook and find a random wikipedia person to remove that address. After which that decided to never give my email. So, it seems like I can not add an email after the fact. I can't add an email to this user name, and now the user name will likely become unusable, so if this user name were to suddenly disappear and never come back, it only means I had to make a new one. I have bad feelings about Wikipedia and I never contribute any money to Wikipedia. Being on Wikipedia means arguing with random people over a topic they don't know anything about when others are allowed to post complete lies and no one cares or bothers to check on that. It makes Wikipedia too time consuming. If we all spend more time working on building good information, then arguing over abstract concepts it would be a better institution, that people would not mock all the time. Did you know there is even another clone website called Everpedia, that takes all the information and runs it with ads? This is due to the large number of people who go around deleting random stuff, at least that is what the stated purpose of Everpedia was, at the time when I found about it. Ty78ejui (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Declined article.

I submitted an article about composer Marc Rossi and it was declined because it was deemed to not follow the standards. My problem is that I did extensive comparioon to other modern living composers alreay on Wikipedia as a model being sensitive to the requirement that it be "just the facts" and not read like a prom,otion piece. But the article was called out on that basis. What I am confused about is what part(s) were deemed in violation so these coupd be appropiately re-edited for hopefully a sucessful re-submission. Bob Reardon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjreardon (talk • contribs)

Hello Rjreardon. As a sample of the issues with the article, first, the article text contains a bunch of external web links. These should all be removed; article text generally should not contain external links. If the article subject has an official website, one link to that is generally OK, in an "External links" section at the bottom of the article. There's also some problems with tone and language: "...renowned neighborhood music school..." "...Russell's Grammy-nominated..." (omit fluff like "renowned" or any variant on "award-winning"), "lifelong passion for Indian classical music", "life-long practice of Transcendental Meditation" (the article indicates he's still alive, so we don't know if those are "life-long"), and overall looks like a massive listing of everything he's ever done that might make him look good, rather than a distillation of what reliable and independent sources have had to say about him. Most of the items in the articles are unreferenced as well. Encyclopedia articles should generally be rather dry, avoid needless adjectives, and just stick to facts that reliable and independent references have indicated are important by publishing material about them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rjreardon: Some things you could do are:

• Add a lead section: that would be a short summary of the summary section.
• Remove the external links from the text, as suggested by Seraphimblade above. Leave the one in the infobox and format the one in the external links section to something like this [http://www.marcrossi.com Official website] (Official website).
• The as leader section has several problems:
  • When you quote something, you should mention in the text what you're quoting. A footnote can hold the details, the person or organization you're quoting should be mentioned outside the footnote.
  • Instead of two hyphens, use a dash. Here's one: –, and here's another one: –. You can use – directly in wikicode or you can use &ndash.
  • This is somewhat more subjective, but I don't like headings without edit links. Either write them into sentences:

    About We Must Continue (MMC Recordings, 1996), Scott Yanow wrote The chance-taking explorations have plenty of exciting moments"; the compositions are "complex, [but] always contain some catchy melodies

    you might want to check the punctuation in the example as I'm not sure if that is one or two quotations. Is this a case of nested quotations? If it's a quotation with a part skipped, use [...] to indicate where you're skipping something.

    or make real headings with section editing links. You can still hide them from the table of contents by adding {{TOC limit|3}} before the very first heading (that is, right before the Summary heading.
• Don't capitalise every word in every heading. For example, change Early Life and Education to Early life and education.
• Replace curly quotes with straight quotes. The same goes for apostrophes.
• The compositions section has the following problems:
  • The contents don't fit the heading: it's not a list of compositions but a list of performers. Consider changing the heading to something like Performances by others.
  • Bold is not used much on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't use it in this section at all.
  • Finally, Recorded performers of Rossi's compositions include: should probably not be formatted like a list element.

I hope these instructions are clear. Otherwise, just ask what you need clarified or tell us if you prefer that we make the changes. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, as Seraphimblade says, there's also the issue of neutrality. My above answer makes it look like it's all about formatting, but that's because that's what I'm used to check. Since I'm now mentioning the non-neutral language outside the Teahouse, I figured I'd make a brief note here so that people who only look here don't think the neutrality issues mention got buried under a long list of formatting issues. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References for SQL keywords

Hi all,

I'd like to add references to the articles in Category:SQL keywords. The List of relational database management systems is quite huge. Is there a way to find general sources of information for these keywords or do I always have to rely on the specific point of view from one of these systems?

Thanks for the help. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Hundsrose. Category talk:SQL keywords mentions several WikiProjects. I think you're more likely to get an answer if you ask on the talk page of one of those. – Pretended leer {talk} 16:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint with the talk page. It mentions two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing.

As far as I can see, the last answer to a section on the talk page of the first page is already a year old. The second one is maybe a bit too general. Which one would you recommmend? I usually edit in the german wikipedia and just started to familiarize with the english wikipedia so maybe I miss rather obvious ways to solve this. Thanks for the patience. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

where to send image permission

hello there i have uploaded an image to wikimedia commons for the first time [1] and have obtained the copyright holders permission to license it. but i am unclear about where to send that permission (or do i post it somewhere)? many thanks for advice on the most direct route highhorse (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kathleensmith; you should send it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. You may also want to read WP:PERMISSION, the page contains helpful guide in that regard. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The file says that an email has already been sent in accordance with Commons:OTRS; has that not been done? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks Ammarpad. yes, David Biddulph has now been done. highhorse (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

How to get a news headline semi protected

I added the headline on the world’s largest statue in India, and made it brief. An anonymous user keeps on adding unnecessary stuff like brief info on the Bharat Ratna, and I already undid it once and gave my opinion on why his edits should be undone (in the edit summary) but he continues to do that. How do I get an experienced editor to lock that headline (after making it concise)?

URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

dude I have been editing that portal page for eight years and I have never seen you even make ONE edit there - how is it you think you know the proper methods or requirements for form or inclusion there? The first thing you did was start an edit war and then trying to get the page protected is an end around to actual nonconfrontational cooperation.--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:504A:F75F:C9AB:5DDC (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Please sign all talk page comments with four tildes (these things -> ~) so we know who it is. While I can see your view, the IP has a valid point, as yes, context can be useful. There's nothing wrong with explaining where the statue is. You may also wish to read WP:OWN, for I feel that is relevant here. You may wish as well to be cautious in your reverts- 3RR is not to be taken lightly, and you will likely be blocked. You haven't yet broken that, but you may want to keep that in the back of your mind. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As well: you yourself said it, the IP added brief information. It's not disruptive to add relevant information as long as it doesn't read like Moby Dick. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How to send supporting documents to Wikipedia

Hello. Some things I added to the page I'm working on were removed because they needed a reference or to be substantiated. I was not able to find information on the Internet, so how do I send copies of old newspaper or magazine articles to Wikipedia so they can serve as evidence for what I am adding? Do I go to the page I'm working on and "Upload file"? I don't intend for them to actually be put on the page - just used as substantiation. Thank you!Citizen100 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Citizen100 - what you're suggesting actually won't work. There's no central place where they review sourcing - it's all distributed volunteers. Nonetheless, you don't have to have a link in order to use a source - indeed, textbooks are cited all the time. You can use the date, name of the publication and the article title, and extract info that is good, and add the info with a source. There's some more info here Wikipedia:Offline sources. Put a note on the talk page offering to send the pdf to anyone who questions your source, and assume good faith. Cheers! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Citizen100 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Citizen100, let me add a bit to Tim's explanation. Your source must be published and must be available to be accessed somehow. It doesn't have to be simple, but it must be possible. You cannot use unpublished documents such as letters or corporate memos. (If a letter is in a museum or library collection, that may be an exception). If you are using a book it must either be still available for sale (even if only on eBay) or in a library somewhere. You used the term "documents", so I felt this addition was needed. To be a usable source, it must be accessible somehow to anyone interested in seeing it. Even if that means trekking to Abu Dhabi to the only library that has it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What about newspaper articles from two Canadian newspapers - the Ottawa Citizen and Kingston Whig Standard from 1956? We have the exact date. Citizen100 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tim and John both give good information. Your two Canadian papers are good reliable sources, but you should also have a page number in addition to a date for your articles. Also please note: in edit mode, they and I have used the colon (:) to indent our replies. The next reply to this thread would start with four colons, since I have used three. Colons normally increase by one with each reply to a thread, until space on the right of the page becomes scarce.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering if you could help me with something else. I was almost finished updating the page I was working on, which is about my father, Paul David Manson. As of this morning, I have been blocked from editing any further due to conflict of interest. I understand the concern, but I thought anyone could add to a page as long as the information is factual, unbiased, and has proper references. I have included good references for all of the facts I added, using your advice. This morning I received the following message, supposedly from a Wikipedia person (but it sounds more like a vandal to me because it's pretty insulting): "The article has been completely sanitized and turned into a fluff piece. As per WP:COI please cease editing the article and non-COI editors will figure out what to do with it. - Ahunt" The comment just doesn't look legitimate - maybe it was generated by a robot? Are you able to have a look at the page and if you determine that it is okay, could you please remove the template message at the top? I have finished adding the information I wanted to add. Thank you very much. Citizen100 (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of the message on your talk page. You haven't been blocked from editing (otherwise you would not be able to edit any page, even this one). Diannaa, who is a real person and an admin, placed a template message on your userpage warning you about conflict of interest. When you kept editing despite the warning, Ahunt, who is a long-time editor, reminded you what the template message said. Your actions on Paul David Manson have been to remove negative material and add positive material, which violates our neutral point of view policy. You are free to propose neutrally-worded additions to the article at Talk:Paul David Manson. shoy (reactions) 13:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Lin Shu-ling

Hi, would like to request a review of the page Lin Shu-ling. Lin is a noted indigenous land rights advocate in Taiwan as well as a founder and leader of the 13-year protest movement against the Taitung Miramar Resort, a landmark case in Taiwan's indigenous, environmental and legal history. She was at the fore-front of numerous events to oppose the resort, including a 300km walk from her home (at the site of the resort) to the Presidential Palace. She was also a plaintiff on the historic Citizen Litigation launched by Thomas Chan that became the first successful use of the Citizen Litigation Act in Taiwan in relation to challenging an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment). She is also a prominent figure in anti-nuclear protests in Taiwan, as well as protests against other resort developments on traditional indigenous territory, including the 500-room Shanyuan Palm Beach Resort. She was contentiously disqualified from competing in the upcoming November elections as an 'aborigines plains' candidate. She is also the subject of a Taiwanese Wikipedia page.

Despite this, the English article has been tagged for 'notability'. The page is referenced by over 10 different sources including several articles where Lin Shu-ling is the sole subject of the story, and two theses. As such, could someone please check the page and the references, and perhaps the article Taitung Miramar Resort for context to get an understanding of the scale of her involvement? If still further references are required, I would be happy to include them. Otherwise, could the tags please be removed? Thanks, Before the Bang (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Before the Bang. I have also commented at Talk:Lin Shu-ling. There is no need to tell this person's life story here at the Teahouse, using promotional language like "landmark", "forefront" and "prominent". That type of promotional language in Wikipedia's voice must be removed from the article as well. The fact that she has an article on another Wikipedia is not relevant here, as each Wikipedia version sets its own standards. What experienced editors on English Wikipedia want to see is references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this person. I see a lot of non-independent sources in the article you wrote, such as interviews with her and her own campaign website. I also see some non-neutral language in the article, but that can be dealt with easily once notability is established. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen for your feedback. After reading your comments it seems like just a couple of small mis-understandings, which i think I can clarify. Firstly, I totally agree that "language like "landmark", "forefront" and "prominent"" is not appropriate for the "Wikipedia voice", and i do make an effort to steer clear of these words as well as other promotional language such as "famous", "one of the foremost", “renowned” etc. I only used them on Teahouse to present the argument that the issue of indigenous land rights is a ‘notable’ one in Taiwan, and, given political movements don’t happen by themselves, that therefore, Lin Shu-ling, as a leader of that movement, is also ‘notable’. Anyway, I will avoid the use of these words even on Teahouse in the future, and thanks for the guidance - I am still new to this! (Please note that although the word “landmark” does appear in the article, it is used as a referenced quote from a mainstream English publication, Focus Taiwan, to demonstrate notability - I am assuming that it’s ok in that context?)

Regarding your comment that “I see a lot of non-independent sources in the article you wrote, such as interviews with her and her own campaign website”, I have only used her campaign website as a reference to state her campaign policies. In terms of saying what her campaign policies are, wouldn’t it best to get it from the ‘horse’s mouth’? If not, can you suggest an alternative way to reference her campaign policies? (The bulk of the other references in the article are from mainstream publications - there are also a lot more that i haven't included, which i would be happy to provide if you still require more - though they will be in Chinese.) As for not using ‘interviews with her’ to quote her opinions, I am wondering how to quote her to demonstrate her opinions on relevant issues without using interviews?

Thanks again for your suggestions - I really do want to get this right so I appreciate any further feedback from an experienced editor such as yourself on how best to comply with all Wikipedia regulations. Cheers, Before the Bang (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Template

What does the Uw-... template meaning? - 114.124.181.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User Warning- (Reason) I believe. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor planets 1001-2000: 1090 Sumida redirect issue

Hello, Rebestalic here.

I recently joined WikiProject Astronomy, and soon began to improve articles for minor planets. A few minutes ago on the page "List of minor planets: 1001-2000", I inserted a link for minor planet 1090 Sumida, because initially, there wasn't a link to 1090 Sumida. Hoping to see a redlink so I could click on it and then create the page, I saw a blue, working link. I clicked on it and found out that it redirected back to the original page.

I would like to know how to change the redirection path for 1090 Sumida, so I can create an article for it and not result in an orphaned page.

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rebestalic. After following a redirect like 1090 Sumida, click "Redirected from 1090 Sumida" at top of the page. Then you can edit the redirect page and make an article instead. Note what the redirect page says about notability, and see the page history [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Rebestalic (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

About Adding Chhatrapati Before the name of King Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Is it's reason to block someone from editing Wikipedia to respect the particular respective person by adding some words to his/her name on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by पुष्पक देसाई (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Someone who repeatedly ignores Wikipedia's guidance on style, despite being warned, is likely to be blocked. Maproom (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Received "not forum" Notification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tym_Whittier#November_2018

I've received some kind of notice from another Editor and would like help in understanding what it means. It regards comments I've made in the "Discussion" section of an Article. From my perspective, I read the comments, got a sense of it's topic, and it's "tone" and posted my contribution as best I could, having to do with the definition of a particular term and whether or not it was acceptable to use in the Article.

The notice is the standard "not forum" notice that I see being used a lot. My question is not about the basic policy, but why it seems that my comments were singled-out when other comments that seemed equivalent. I think my comments are the same as everyone else's, and responded to the Editor who sent me the "not forum" message explain that, and why, I thought so. Then asked that Editor to explain how my comments for "forum-y". I've been on TONS of forums, and think I have a clear understanding that Wikipedia and "forums" are dramatically different, but maybe there's some nuance here I'm missing.

1) Will the Editor I responded to see my response I posted in my Talk Page? Or do I have to "message" him in some way?

2) Is this just standard practice for all new Editors to an Article that has an "Administrative Ruling" in effect?

3) Does the Administrative Ruling change, or otherwise restrict the scope or tone of the comments in the Discussion Section? Do I have to have a reliable source with text I'm advocating for in order to even have a comment (one possible interpretation of "not forum", or are Editors allowed to pontificate on the language even if they don't have a better alternative at hand (another possible alternative)? Or is there some 3rd alternative I'm not even imagining?

4) When will the Government finally tell the truth about chemtrails and the moon landing hoax?

5) Are jokes, wisecracks and light-hearted banter allowed in the Teahouse?

And, in case anyone is wondering, "Is this guy serious?", Yes, I'm serious. I'm fully aware that I have a lot to learn and have already established the goal of learning to post those "NPOV" and "OR" tags in discussions (I've tried twice, and failed both times), and also I READ them every time I can't connect their intended meaning in a Discussion to the Wikipedia Policy. If it doesn't make sense, I re-read the policy, and assume that the person that posted the link knew what they were doing. My question does not center on the policy itself, but rather the circumstances under which it was sent to me, and what that means.

Tym Whittier (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym Whittier, you post on that talk page were clearly NOTFORUM. You mentioned no sources, no policies and proposed (or clearly supported or opposed anything anyone else had proposed) any changes to the article. You instead talked at great lengths about your personal opinions. That's not how this works. The arb notices added to your talk are applied by fellow editors when you've edited articles affected by them. They're optional not automatically applied, and are generally only given to editors that have edited disruptively or have been confrontational (NOTFORUM is considered disruptive).

Further, you really should read WP:TLDR. The entire purpose of an encylopedia is to summarize what others have written about a given subject. If you cannot effectively communicate your own thoughts without using several thousand characters, how can you effectively summarize someone else's thoughts? John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A) shorter. B) reliable sources. C) not a forum. D) shorter. David notMD (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

How to get my new article reviewed

Hi there,

Super excited to write my first article (link below). I thought I'd start with some factual information about the company I work at. I would love to get this reviewed by some more experienced wiki editors and get some advice on how to improve my pages (I had lots of fun with the infoboxes). Thanks in advance :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafetyCulture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howiemann (talk • contribs) 05:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, your article will be reviewed by volunteers, since it's already in the new pages queue. However, you have important reading to do which include 1) Conflict of interest editing. 2. Paid contribution and 3. Notability of companies. Please do read at you earliest convenience. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Help reviewing the article

Hi, Need some suggestion about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhurit_Bhirombhakdi

This article had been declined submitting process for several times, I may need your help check and suggest which parts need to be fixed further. Some issues that this article had been mentioned, it need to be fixed...

1. This article was overly promotional, not neutral and looks like C.V. and some resources doesn't make sense ( already fixed some word and cut off)

2. Not enough reliable sources to be ref. or notable (already added some resources that is neutral)

3. The point is this guy have many part that he had done in the decades however the resources doesn't either make him dominant. we might need to choose just one point that make him notable.

Could you help, are there any parts need to fixed ? (reviewers have suggested may be this article need a major rewrite).

Thanks Bananabacon (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bananabacon: don't assume that the problem is with the draft and can be fixed. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The article has been rejected four times. A question here - since May 2017, this appears to be the only article you edit; are you being paid or otherwise compensated, or are an acquaintance of Bhurit Bhirombhakdi? David notMD (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Submitting through sandbox or edit file?

Hello I'm Jules,

I edited an article 2 weeks ago and hit the "publish changes" button. I deleted a picture and replaced it with another one. But In the preview the new one doesn't show. Why doesn't it show? Also, can you kindly point out if the article might be published in the way it is written? or should I make adjustments ? And last, should I have posted it through the sandbox or the way I did by "editing an old one"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Salim_Sfeir

Thank you for your help! JulesNawfal (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bananabacon: the image you used has been removed (from Wikimedia Commons), as a copyright violation. The draft will certainly not be accepted in its current state, as it cites no references. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Bananabacon

and Hello again Bananabacon, I would like to point out that several references are mentioned in the article.

Could you kindly help further? JulesNawfal (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

JulesNawfal I'm not sure if the posts got mixed up and Maproom was replying to Bananabacon from the previous post, but their advice still holds good; Help:Referencing for beginners - although you have included your sources, you havent given any inline citations. When writing an article (and particularly for a WP:BLP- biography of a living person) you need to indicate where you get your information from. Ideally each factoid will have its own reference. For instance, where does his birthdate come from? The information on his personal life? The awards that are listed?

You should read the guidelines on WP:Notability also - most of those sources seem to be general bios from businesses and associations the subject is financially involved with, so not truly independent of him; interviews dont go to notability either. After a quick look, the last two just go to business homepages, so dont really support anything at all. Curdle (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Curdle

Hello again Curdle I will be adding more references then and removing some

What do I need to do to post my first article

I started editing on Wikipedia for a week now, I am a digital marketing specialist and my purpose is to share my knowledge and experience in Wikipedia. I want to know what steps I need to undertake to be able to post an article in the future. Can anyone help me with a piece of advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen Simonyan (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Elen Simonyan, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think Wikipedia:Expert editors could be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elen Simonyan, to get your feet wet I'd advise that you first get some experience editing existing articles before taking on the considerably difficult task of creating a new article from scratch. In fact the digital marketing article needs quite a lot of improvement, you might have a go at tidying it up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Why am I being blamed for spamming because of replacing old data with a new one?

There was an article related to SMS marketing, where the statistics were of 2010 and all I did is replace it with statistics of 2018, only 1 sentence. Is it really spamming? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen Simonyan (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because all of your edits are adding the same spam link. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I need Support

Help Me

I amn't new to wikipedia. I had created several wikipedia accounts and I tried to mess up with the first account Gaurav456. Then I created User:50gaurav42 to help out wikipedia and then User:LuckyRacerNP and all of them got sock puppet. Now I want to help and contribute to article in wikipedia. I have created several articles one of them is Gopal Prasad Parajuli and I made several articles but they were selected for delection. Please Help me out. Understand me and I think this account will be too block as sock puppet. Please Help me out and give me solution in my talk page.WeLovWiki (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi WeLovWiki - Wow. That's quite a list of sockpuppets you've rung up. A sockpuppet investigation has been opened, and that is where you need to state your case. You can find a link on your talk page. You have a long history of not wanting to follow Wikipedia's rules, so good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Turner Ashby bio not complete

I’m a graduate of Turner Ashby HS and likely the school name will be challenged and perhaps changed as many schools named to honor confederate soldiers. A May 2018 article published in the Roanoke [VA] Times contains information I have never heard and is not common knowledge in the Valley of Virginia but is certainly verifiable; the webform does not permit me to post the link. If these revelations are true, then Turner Ashby’s Wikipedia bio should be corrected and expanded to give a full account of who he was. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.1.41 (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable, i.e., published, citable, sources about Turner Ashby then content can be added to that Wikipedia article. Is it that you are having difficulty finding out how to create a reference for a newspaper article? David notMD (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Create account

Can I create an account from another email address? - 118.136.59.215 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question suggests that you already have an account. Users should only have one account regardless of the email address used(it isn't required to provide an email address to create an account) unless the additional account is for one of the legitimate reasons listed here. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

draft status review question

I created Paxos (Company) in my sandbox, and moved it to draft status on Oct 30. There's usually a flag at the bottom saying it's been submitted and must now be reviewed, only this time, there is not. Have a feeling I did something wrong when moving it to draft, but not sure what that was. Thanks for your helpTlvernon (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You didn't submit it for review. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about noting coverage of a Wikipedia entry on birthday cakes

Hello Teahouse,

Recently the Wikipedia entry of Australian Women's Weekly Children's Birthday Cake Book was mentioned in an ABC Radio National brief. What is the best way to acknowledge this - is it the talk page? I know it was only a brief mention in both the ABC RN page and the accompanying audio, but I thought there was a way to note media coverage of Wikipedia pages themselves?

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/pamela-clarke/10450914

Thank you for your time! SunnyBoi (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, You could add it here Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. I also think there is a template for the talk page, but don't recall what it is called. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, You can also use the template {{press}} S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Use that template, on the articles talkpage. It's better there than at "Press coverage", since it's not about WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you S Philbrick and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I have placed the press template on the talk page, could you please let me know if I've done it correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Women%27s_Weekly_Children%27s_Birthday_Cake_Book Thanks for your advice and time! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, excellent! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

SunnyBoi, Looks good. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting editing and publishing

I wrote a draft but I don't really understand how to request a edit or publishing.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trunkeyd (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You can request it reviewed by adding {{subst:submit}} to it. The template you added on the talk page doesn't work for articles in draft space. Now, here are some things you could do before submitting it for review:

• You might want to add some links to other articles, such as Washington State University
• I see in the page history that you tried to make something similar to the German article about the same topic. But you translated "US-amerikanischer" as "prominent". "US-amerikanischer" means "American", and that's probably also what you should write. If he weren't prominent, there simply wouldn't be an article about him, so the word is redundant. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
• Check the spaces before and after references: an inline reference goes after a punctuation mark, there should be a space after the reference (unless it's at the end of a paragraph) but not before it.
• Your username seems to suggest you might be the subject of the article. If so, please see WP:COI.

– Pretended leer {talk} 21:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Lucky Luke in English

Hi, the page for Lucky Luke in english is about Asterix and not Lucky Luke at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.14.2 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Reverted the edit by the IP. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Publish the page Kya Tum

Dear Sir,

I have edited our movie "Kya Tum" with all details filled and references. Request you to kindly let know by when it will go live.

Regards, Ratnesh Roop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnesh Roop (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

If you read what it says in the box at the foot of the draft, it says "This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2399 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Ratnesh Roop. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to advertise your film. Please stop trying to do this. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. And if somebody who is in any way paid in connection with a subject edits an article on that subject, it is compulsory for them to make a declaration according to WP:PAID. When several people who have no connection with you or the film have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places (and that excludes any articles that are simply based on press releases) then there can be an article on the film, based almost entirely on what those independent people have said about it. Until then, no article on it will be accepted, however it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page

How can I add this picture as the background of my My talk page? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

TransLink CMBC 2018 XN40 S18101

Hi, Thegooduser! First of all, I think that would be a pretty bad idea: text is not very readable on a background with lots of high-contrast details, and this would definitely go against WP:ACCESS. In fact, only interface administrators could do that for everyone, and that doesn't mean they will.

Now, if you just want it to show that way to you, you could edit Special:MyPage/common.css to change the background image for the mw-body-content class if it appears inside an element with the page-User_talk_Thegooduser class. That won't change how the page is shown to others, and I haven't tried it myself. But if you understand Cascading Style Sheets, I think you could do that. I'm pretty sure your eyes would quickly get tired if you read a lot of text on that background though, unless of course you tone down the colours. – Pretended leer {talk} 20:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it might be doable using multiple divs and CSS positioning. But it might not look right on monitors of different sizes, and it might also be against policy if the image isn't clickable (though you could work around that by having a part of it be so). It would definitely cause trouble with MOS:COLOR unless you put a semi-transparent white background between the text and the image, or use a lighter image. – Pretended leer {talk} 21:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominating an article for "Good Article" assessment

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

The article for Les Miserables is potentially good enough to be a good article. How do I nominate it for "Good Article" assessment?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: You can see the Good Article criteria and how to nominate at WP:GA. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Although if you have not been able to find that page for yourself, you might want to consider gathering more experience first... Regards SoWhy 20:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you mean Les Misérables (musical), currently rated B-class, to which you have made eight minor edits. Typically, an editor puts in some serious time on an article, and may first declare an intent at Talk to nominate it for Good Article status before taking the plunge. David notMD (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Rendering an edit box on a Talk page

I'm trying to show an inexperienced IP editor some deficiencies in their recent edit, but the edit renders in the format of a published edit. This is what I am trying to render in edit box format (click "edit" to see it):

The {{As of|2006|alt=current}} Municipal President (Mayor) of [[San Pedro Garza García (municipality)|San Pedro]] is Miguel Treviño, an independent candidate. <ref>{{cite web|title=Municipio de San Pedro Garza Garcia|url=http://www.sanpedro.gob.mx/portal.asp?|accessdate=4 December 2013|website=Sanpedro.gob.mx|language=Spanish}}</ref>

Is there a glyph or phrase I can use to preserve edit box format on a Talk page?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Quisqualis and welcome to the Teahouse.

I've used "pre" and "nowiki" tags to markup your example. This, or "code" tags, are often used to show wiki markup language on talk pages. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Can sensation be used as source material?

(Wow, I looked over this page for minutes before I noticed the blue box that said "Click here to ask a question".) I'm trying to figure out how to "talk" to someone, or "drop a line". I guess the clutter on the editing pages, like all the informational on this page that distracted me from the blue box is one reason I can't figure it out. That's just me, though. I'm sure it's better for some other people this way. Beyond that, is there any use for material here that is experienced through the five senses: eyes, ears, ect? Is there a way to source that? I know there isn't. I know the answer is that sensation cannot be used as source material. But there are some things that are true even if there isn't a written documented source. How does a Wikipedia editor deal with those things? It maybe that this issue is beyond Wikipedia's scope.

Also, how do I properly contact to a specific person to talk to him/her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty5651 (talk • contribs)

@Liberty5651: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to contact another user, you may post to their user talk page. Every user has one, including you. I will post something there in a moment for you. Most user's signatures have a link to their user talk page in it(as mine will at the end of this post); you can also find it in the edit history of any page; almost every page has a "View History" tab at the top.

Regarding your other question, you may find reading the following link, WP:BLUE, helpful. In short, some common sense things do not need to be cited, such as the sky being blue, or water being wet. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving work over to mainspace

Hi, I'm moving my work over to the mainspace and was wondering if anyone could take a quick look at it. The link is here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbrodsky (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Qbrodsky: My immediate impression is that it has far too many images—just look at the way they're running off the end of the page—and you should carefully consider which are necessary. I'll also note in passing that at 4099 words of readable prose, Introductory Electromagnetism is currently considerably longer than the main Electromagnetism (2853 words). You should probably ask this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering, since that's where the people who are best placed to spot errors or omissions are likely to be. ‑ Iridescent 21:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Qbrodsky. You have clearly put a lot of effort into this, but in my opinion, it is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook. It contains articles on notable topics. I have not looked at your references, but judging from their titles I would guess that there is not one of them which deals with a clearly defined field or subject called "introductory electromagnetics". Unless there is such a topic - established in several reference works - it is not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia. You may find it Wikiversity a more appropriate place to contribute. --ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

McCoy moderation request

Hi! I'm a newcomer here, and I'd like to request help with resolving multiple issues on the page David T. McCoy. I published this page as part of my general efforts to share information about Indigenous peoples' contributions to US History. I'm hoping someone can help me resolve the three issues on the page (inline citations and neutrality/close connection). The article now has 37 inline citations, as well as linking to over 35 other Wikipedia pages. I would greatly appreciate any help to resolve these issues! Thank you. Meredithlmccoy (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Meredithlmccoy - there are several issues with the article. First, based on your username, you might have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. Please read WP:COI, and take any necessary actions you find there. Second, and this can be a result of COI, there is a slight non-neutral tone in the article. This is different, imho, from a promotional tone, but it arises from the entire article being from a positive point of view, without any negative viewpoints of the individual being presented. In addition, the entire "awards" section should be deleted, since not a single notable award is listed. And to be transparent, I was the one who tagged it a year ago for neutrality and inline citations. You have done a very good job at adding citations to the article, so much so that another editor removed that tag. However, another editor reinserted it. And they have a point, there are still many assertions in this BLP which have no citations. Take for example the "Office of the Governor" section, which is completely uncited. So, in order to remove the tags, I would delete the awards section, add any information you have regarding any negative he has. Second, I would add sources for any facts stated in the article which have no references. If there are no references, I would delete the info. Third, the vast majority of references are from non-independent sources. So, any sourcing you can get from independent sources would be a good idea. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Further observation: to expand on OneL's point, I think the lack of independent sources is critical. Although there are multiple independent articles cited, the guidelines require multiple independent sources, and almost all the independent citations are from a single source. It's critical you add citations from other reliable sources that are detailed. I don't see any of the offices he held as meeting WP:NPOL, so the sources need improvement lest the article be deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One of your multiple-used references is an interview of McCoy. Interviews generally not accepted, as what a person says about themselves is not independently confirmed. The WP:NPOL issue is that Mr. McCoy served in North Carolina government for 27 years, at no point was that as an elected official. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Kirk E. Kelleykahn

I have his Bio to add to wikipedia..... His Grandmother Is Oscar Legendary Academy Actress JUANITA MOORE. He has great accomplishment and it seem we do not know how to get certain topics onto page like awards.... bio... early career... etc etc.....

Name is Kirk E. Kelleykahn can you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane1x (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Kirk E. Kelleykahn Has scores of factual statements but no references, hence declined. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dane1x. Kelleykahn's grandmother may be Wikipedia notable enough for an article to have been written about her, but her Wikipedia notability doesn't transfer to him. What you are going to need to establish is that Kelleykahn is Wikipedia notable enough in his own right for an article to be written about him. The way you do this is explained in more detail in Wikipedia:Notability (people) (in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers).

Now, if you're looking for some general guidance on writing articles and citing sources, check out Wikipedia:You first article and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There are subjects that have one liners and are on wikipedia.... it is not a question of weather Kirkbelongs on wikipedia or not.... he should have been on here a long time ago and your stuff should have added him..... I can list celebrity friends of Kirk whom have no credits and they are on wikipedia... so lets not play the race card.... this guy is as legit as they get... and to add insult to injury... Kirk is listed on wikipedia as winning awards...... so since you are no help but think you are..... all you need to do is walk me thru this process... it is very difficult... and by the way everything mention that I wrote for mr. khan is in footnote.....the worst id that you guys do not explain just how to put up the links or footnotes... and if it is done wrong to is followed up with a .....correct it or it will be denied altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane1x (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I may need to pay someone to post his page and complete it.... I know Kirk has donated money to wikipedia and I advised him not to..... now I see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dane1x (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has almost six million articles, and some of these probably shouldn't have been added in the first place. The fact that one unsuitable article can be shown to exists is not a good reason to another unsuitable article to be created. Articles are being added all of the time, and sometimes it just takes some time to find the clunkers and have them deleted. As posted above the best way to ensure that any article created about Kelleykahn doesn't not end up being deleted is to show that he meets Wikipedia's notability guideline, and the best way to do this is to add citations to reliable sources which show that he has received the significant coverage for a stand-alone article to be written about him. As for paying someone to create an article about Kelleykahn, you can do so if you like since it's your money; however, that doesn't guarantee that any article you pay to have created will not still end up being deleted if the Wikipedia community consensus feels that Kelleykahn is not yet Wikipedia notable enough for one to be written. I also advise you to be wary of anyone guaranteeing that they can create an article for money because either they are not being completely upfront with you or they have a misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. In addition, a paid editor will be required to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure which means that there will be limitations placed on what and how much they can do and also that their edits are likely going to be more highly scrutinized by other editors to ensure relevant policies and guidelines are being complied with.

Donations to Wikipedia by people like Kelleykahn are greatly appreciated since those donations help to keep things going, but donators don't get any preferential treatment and don't get articles written about them just for donating.

Finally, lots of people seem to think that having a Wikipedia article written about them is such a great thing, but there can be a downside to it as well as explained in Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Subjects of articles have pretty much zero editorial control over article content, which means that negative information about them can be added the article as long as it complies with relevant policies and guidelines, and that they (or anyone associated with them like family, friends, managers, etc.) will not really be able to directly edit the article because they have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Moreover, Wikipedia articles are only intended to reflect things written about the subject in independent reliable sources; they are not intended to be used to promote the subject in anyway or update the world about what they are doing like social media. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment your screed about unfairness, the core of the weakness of the draft is no references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Your goal is to find independent;y written articles about Kelleykahn. The content in those articles can be used in the article. And that's all. Other information - true - cannot be added unless references can be found. Furthermore, what a person says about themselves on their website or in an interview does not count. Oh, and donating to Wikipedia is for a good cause, but the editors who do all this stuff at Teahouse and on articles are volunteers with no organization connection to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Proper use of references

Hello, I would like to start editing two articles: Terry v ohio and Terry stop. I have a question about the proper use of references. I'm going to begin by using one textbook as a source. Later, I plan on going back and adding more sources.

References

My question is how many times do I need to cite this source. For example, if I write three paragraphs in a row, should I cite it once at the end of the three paragraphs. Or, should I cite it at the end of each paragraph or even every other sentence. And also, should I cite page numbers if I cite the book multiple times.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01. If the paragraph is a short one of general information where all of the content is basically citing the same source or sources, then you can add the citations to the end of the paragraph; just be careful of WP:INTEGRITY. However, if the content includes some claims, quotes, or other things which might be seen as contentious, then it's probably best to add the citation as close a possible to the relevant article content.

It's possible to cite the same source multiple times using WP:REFNAME; however, if you want to cite different pages of the the same source, you can also use Template:RP or even a WP:SRF/WP:HARV citation style. Some editors perfer one of the latter styles when creating new articles because it allows them to add all of the citation templates to the "References" section and then only add some simple syntax to the body of the article. This eliminates the need for having to search through the editing window to find a particular citation if it needs editing, and keep the edit window free of lots of template syntax which can easily be damaged by mistake when others edit the article. However, these can be tricky to get the hang of off, so many just prefer to add the entire citation syntax to the body of the article.

Regardless, the important thing to remember whenever adding citations is WP:CITEVAR. Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred way of citing sources, so generally the one used by the first primary contributor to the article should be the one used unless there's a good reason for changing it. The same thing also applies to the date format being used in the citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Marchjuly: and thanks for all the help! I really like WP:SRF/WP:HARV, but, perhaps, I need to wait a bit :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I love fixing citations: direct me to the database/list/community page to find them!

The title says it all: point me in the right direction! I'll work on link rot, verifying that sources say what's in articles, formatting improperly formatted sources, etc. It's my favorite thing to do! I learned the habit as an IP who didn't trust Wikipedia to give me accurate information, so I have a habit of skimming articles and just open all the sources instead of reading the article. ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY 07:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Shashi Sushila Murray! You could look at the subcategories of Category:CS1 errors. That only catches errors where a citation template was used in certain ways. But they're probably the easiest to spot.

On a completely different note, your signature is longer than your message when viewed in the source editor. You might want to read WP:signatures and find a way to do the same stuff with less code. Specifically, the templates you're using should be substituted. And if the templates themselves uses templates, subst those as well:

You can simplify it to this without changing the appearance: <span class="emoji">[[File:Emojione_1F645.svg|16px|alt=🙅]][[File:Emojione_1F645.svg|16px|alt=🙅]][[File:Emojione_1F645.svg|16px|alt=🙅]]</span>[[User talk:Shashi Sushila Murray|''ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY'']]<span class="emoji">[[File:Emojione_1F623.svg|16px|alt=😣]][[File:Emojione_1F623.svg|16px|alt=😣]][[File:Emojione_1F623.svg|16px|alt=😣]]</span>

That's still 328 characters with two different images, which is considered too much, but it's much better than 5059 characters above. Consider using 🙅 and 😣 as characters rather than images, 🙅🙅🙅[[User talk:Shashi Sushila Murray|''ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY'']]😣😣😣 which shows as 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣. That's 67 characters. – Pretended leer {talk} 13:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Photos on Wikimedia

I found many ways to upload photos, but I'm still confused. Is it necessary that I upload the photos first on Wikimedia? and is it preferable? AGF (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi AGF. All of the photos you see used on (English) Wikipedia are either uploaded to Commons (where they can be used by other WMF websites, such as other language Wikipedias) or Wikipedia (where they can only be used locally on English Wikipedia). So, yes a file needs to be uploaded to one or the other for you to be able to properly use it in an article or on some other Wikipedia page. In addition, even though Wikipedia and Commons are both run by the WMF, they have slightly different policies when it comes to the types of files they accept. You can find out more about Commons' policy at c:Commons:Licensing and about Wikipedia's at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. The main difference between the two is that Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any kind, whereas Wikipedia does accept some types in certain cases per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Commons also requires that any files uploaded to it be either released under a free license it accepts or be within the public domain in both the United States (where the Commons servers are located) and the country of origin for the file (for example, where a photo was taken, a work of art is installed/displayed or where the company which owns a logo is headquartered, etc.); Wikipedia, on the other hand, will accept files even if they are only public domain according to US copyright law. I'm not sure if that's exactly the information you wanted, but feel free to ask more questions if it isn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Innovation

Hi,

I want to ask how I can change the page title currently showing my user name to article's title. I have created a new article on "Structured Innovation" also called Innewayshown or In-(a)New-Way-Shown.

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzaga (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about names.

On Wikipedia, should a biography have the title of someone's real name, or the name that they are known by(e.g. their name as a musician)? Thanks, --Canti60 (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Canti60 and welcome to the Teahouse. We have a guideline (see WP:COMMONNAME) which tells us that we should title an article by the name a person or thing is mostly commonly referred to by other sources (but not by themselves, like Kanye West recently did when he started calling himself 'Ye' for some reason). You would be justified in including both stage name and real name in the lead sentence (in bold) and then creating a Redirect which took anyone to that page were they to type in the person's birth/real name. Hopping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I would add as an example, the article about former US President Bill Clinton is at Bill Clinton, not his legal name of William Jefferson Clinton. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Or for a musical example, see Elton John (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Amazing Race

Hi I wanna to ask how i can put a headline on a created of me page, i still don't know and hope sobebody to show how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deyancho (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Deyancho Hi Welcome to Teahouse. You could find here - Heading on how to use wikitext to create heading and other useful wikicodes. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deyancho. It looks as if you've put some effort into the draft User:Deyancho/The Amazing Race 8: Neighbourhood Edition. But it also looks to me as if you haven't read the helpful links that somebody has put on your user page. Your draft has no references at all. References are not something you should bolt on at the end of writing an article: they are absolutely the very first step in writing an article, because it you cannot find suitable references, then the subject is probably not notable, and an article will not be accepted however much work you have put into it. Wikipedia articles are based entirely on what published sources say, not on what you know (or I know, or any other random person on the internet knows). Please study Your first article before you put any more effort into this. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Username

If my username assumes bad faith, can I create another account? - 118.136.59.215 (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Assuming your username is not blocked, you have two choices. You can either abandon the current account and create a new one, or if you want to preserve your edit history, you can visit WP:CHU for instructions on changing your username. If you are blocked, you will need to first make a successful unblock request before you can do that. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

118.136.59.215, Welcome to Teahouse. You can create new account but I would recommend you to change your username. Info could of changing username could be found HERE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge seeking

Is whikipadia the sama as the one which provides information of celebrities like lucky dube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.164.30.170 (talk • contribs) 2018-11-02T10:44:25 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains articles about many subjects, including Lucky Dube and other celebrities. But not all celebrities are WP:notable in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the word, so it does not have articles about all celebrities. --ColinFine (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Where can I be more useful?

So far I've only made minor corrections, like when I notice a glaring grammar or spelling error, or a dead link in a reference, which is easy to copy-paste fix if I can find the new URL. This was all being done by me without registering. I finally decided to register an account and a message popped up to come to the Teahouse. So, here I am, and the only question I could think to ask was, is there any central place I can go to find things that actually need to be done? (hopefully things that I am capable of doing, but I guess I could always come back here and ask advice if I get stuck). Thanks Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your edits, every little bit helps. You might find looking at the Community Portal helpful. It has a Help Out section which describes various tasks that can be done. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oakwood School, Funtington

Hello,

I am trying to update the Oakwood School page but for some reason when searching the page, it redirects to the page 'Funtington'. When I keep changing it so it directs to the School page, it reverts back. Why is this? I am putting up correct information from the School website and surely directing to the school page and not the village page is better?

Any help, i will be very grateful.

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexheath1994 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alexheath1994. You can see why your edits are being reverted by looking at the history of the page, which is accessible here. The text you are trying to publish as an article is too promotional and does not establish the notability of the subject (on the latter, see WP:GOLDENRULE). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no existing Oakwood School, Oakwood Prep School or Oakwood Preparatory School article in Wikipedia. Whether a search should redirect to Funtington or Chichester is a separate question. I suppose you could attempt to create an Oakwood School article. Of greater importance, the text you have been repeatedly trying to add is a direct quote from the school's website. What the school says about itself does not belong in Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

URGENT ****EDITS NEEDED****

Hi!

My name is Eugena Washington, I have a Wiki page but it is completely outdated and the information is completely detrimental to my new career path. I attempted to change the information myself, However, I was intercepted by Wiki bots who reversed my edits. Please help me to fix this problem as it is severely holding me back from future opportunities. I need to do this s quickly as possible. Thank You, Eugena Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piewashington (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piewashington: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a moment and confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address listed in the paragraph written here. This will help ensure that no one is impersonating you. Only once was one of your edits reverted by a bot, the rest were removed by other human editors. As the article is about you, you should not edit it directly, but instead make an edit request for any edits you feel are needed. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about(which you can see at WP:BLP) and we want all articles to be correct, but Wikipedia is not concerned with your career. That sounds cruel, and I don't mean it to be, but our purpose here is creating and maintaining an encyclopedia of human knowledge. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How to create a page

I herd that I need to do 10 edits before creating a page. Is it possible to publish a page without edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You already have 6 edits. It is true that to be autoconfirmed (and be able to create pages on your own) you need to have at least 10 edits and your account needs to be at least four days old; your account is not old enough yet. It is possible to use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for review before then. Is there any particular reason you want to create a page quickly? Please understand that Wikipedia is not just for merely creating pages; this is an encyclopedia, that has articles about subjects that are notable(as Wikipedia defines it) and have significant coverage in independent reliable sources(not just brief mentions). 331dot (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the title of the page? You can create a draft in your user space and ask someone to assist in publishing that. Others may have better ideas, and know when the software allows new users to create an article, but show what you want to achieve and more experienced users can demonstrate. cygnis insignis 16:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome @Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322:. We're glad to have you. To answer your question, no, you cannot create a new article until after your account is autoconfirmed. This is to ensure that the account is clean and not a bot account or otherwise used for abuse. Being autoconfirmed just means your account needs to be 4 days old (minimum) and that you have edited 4 pages at Wikipedia. Every contribution you make, including the question you just asked, counts as an "edit". So far, your account is 19 hours old and it has made 6 total edits (you can see your information by clicking the "contributions" link at the very top of your page). If you make 4 more edits, and wait until 21:40, 5 November, 2018 (UTC) you can start creating pages. If you want to know more about creating articles, you can read Wikipedia:Your first article. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers and I will definitely take it as consideration. Basically I want to work on the Big data Analytics where I want to give a brief explanation about Hadoop. However, I will wait until 5 November, 2018 to create a page and publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Refs to different author's chapters

I have tried several times to puzzle this out, when I hoped to just find and adapt a similar example, The encyclopedia style temple is performing the task I think, but every piece of template documentation only addresses the situation of one reference within a larger work; I keep skipping between discussion of anchors, harvard and sfn styles and the solution is not penetrating my noggin if it is there. My attempt is to link a template with multiple and different chapter titles and authors to the collection they are found in. For example, in the article William Nairne Clark I want to add text from several chapters by different authors in Stannage, C. T., ed. (1981). A new history … Not a common situation, but one I keep encountering and have no neat solution, the crude solution is to repeat the whole citation with the specific data. Cheers peers, cygnis insignis 16:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Help:References and page numbers answer your questions? --Jayron32 16:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Perhaps, but I read that one through three times and only saw uses I was already aware of :( cygnis insignis 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One thing you can do is have a separate works cited and references sections. Collect the larger works in the "works cited" section, and then reference them in the "references" section. I have done this many times myself, see for example Plymouth Colony which shows how that can work. --Jayron32 16:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

how do I contact other contributors to a page?

Have been editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwanentorbr%C3%BCcke and noticed that some of the German translation is not quite correct. Have questions on the sourcing too. I'm just familiarizing myself with this system and can't figure out how to locate and contact the original contributor (or the one who made the edit in question). Also there are other instances where I find myself needing to ask questions of contributors because it is unclear what they mean with certain phrases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natbaker (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Use the talk page and try to 'ping' them to draw their attention to the concern. The Template:Ping explains its use, but the code is @USERNAME:, this will send a notification to the user when active. The email user function is available, but the query may be answered by others who watch the talk page without resorting to personal messages. cygnis insignis 16:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Natbaker: you click the "view history" tab when looking at the article, it gives you a list of contributors and every edit they contributed. If you find the person who added the text you have questions about, you can then click the "talk" link next to their user name to be taken to their user talk page. From there, you can leave a message for them. You can also ask on the article talk page, which you can access by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the article page. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: okay I think I was able to do that.... Natbaker (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Hello, can anyone tell how to create a new page? Thank you very Much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Borg (talk • contribs)

@Benjamin Borg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles became successful because they took time to learn about Wikipedia and how it operates, by making smaller edits to existing articles first. That helps new users learn the best. They also usually use this tutorial which helps them learn about Wikipedia. I strongly suggest that you do both of those things first before attempting to create any articles. New users who dive right into creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their hard work is mercilessly reviewed and changed or rejected. I don't want you to have any bad feelings. However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article first, and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review. This way you would get feedback before you formally place the draft in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more harshly. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)