Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245

Neutral Voice

Can someone help me with this Articalthat I have Created I dont understand whats wrong with it thanks God Bless--Amanda.useta (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm having a little trouble writing about an electric boat company - I had an article denied publishing because the tone wasn't neutral enough. Are there any tips you have for me? I've read all the wiki pages about neutrality but still seem to be having some trouble with his article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilicas1 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilicas1: I am guessing that the article in question is User:Ilicas1/sandbox. The very first thing that strikes me is that it has no references at all. The article should be based on summarising what reliable sources have said about the subject, not on an editor's personal knowledge of it. Your first step should be to collect all those sources - books written about this company, newspaper articles that discuss it in depth, etc. Then as you write the article, add a reference to show where each piece of information came from. For a more thorough description, see Your first article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article more carefully, it would also benefit from removing some of the promotional wording. This may be what attracted the "Neutrality" comment, particularly when they are not based on an independent source. Expressions such as "The appearance is of typical Scandinavian design, with clean, simple and functional lines" or "hulls, axes, propellers and rudders that work in symbiosis to combine both speed and distance" sound more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia. Also, there is an inconsistency: in the lead it says it "now currently produces one type of electric boat" but in Vehicle models it "currently produce two boats".

To reiterate my first comment, most of these will probably be resolved when everything in the article is based on published sources.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz:

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I will be sure to reword the promotional wording, and include all my resources in the citations, and amend the inconsistency. Again really appreciate your help.

@Ilicas1: You're very welcome. If you have questions, come back and ask - we're all working together to build this encyclopedia. By the way, when you post something on a Talk page or a help page like this, it helps if you "sign" it by putting four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your post. This will automatically add your details and the timestamp, as well as sending notifications where necessary. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ilicas1:. I would like to suggest some specific areas you can change. First, you can delete or modify the Appearances section because the content largely involved promotional activities. Also, instead of merely citing the specifications of the boats under the Vehicle models section, you can write about the notable models in prose, focusing on those that gained coverage from independent sources. For instance, there is the case of the eElectric 8000 Smögen Edition, which was cited in this article. The one built in cooperation with the Norra Norr design is also an example. Bloomberg also wrote about the X Shore Electric 8000 during the 2018 Monaco Yacht Show. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am creating an article about a celebrity in Africa. How can I improve the article and to make it appear on google. Vasiliades

Birthday reliable sources

I see birthday edits and reversions all over the encyclopedia. Is there not a place that is uniform and acceptable to establish the birthday of a notable person?Eschoryii (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no. WP:BLP puts high demand on sources, so a good WP:RS is required. Sometimes a primary source from the subject (like twitter or FB) can be sufficent, but context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware also that even reliable sources sometimes make mistakes or are inadvertently misled, so have to be weighed against each other. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted that truth and accuracy DO NOT count in Wikipedia unless referenced but why or where is consensus built on my question of birthdate? The answer "I don't think so" is so hard to accept. Is there a place for editors to learn about dates establishing age? My question can not be the first. Someone told me long ago that IMDb is not reliable. So what else does not count and where can I and others find and learn birthdate rules. Everyone should not have to edit and fix unreliable ages. I read a lot of chains explaining why this or that date is not acceptable. People being angered that their edit is not acceptable has to have a better answer than go find a source, no a reliable source, no a source that the "community" accepts. I am not trying to be difficult but I am sure I am not alone in my frustration on wanting to be able to find guideline on birthdates (let alone death dates). Any better answer out there? Thanks Eschoryii (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eschoryii. Have you read WP:DOB? It seems to cover this topic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoryii (talk • contribs) 5:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Eschoryii, about "what else does not count", Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources could be of help. It mentions Famous Birthdays, Find a Grave etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful. Thanks 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Twinkle

How do I add Template:uw-subtle1 to Twinkle? I can't seem to find it, and I'm not sure how to add it on the Twinkle preferences page. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonymuss User. Welcome, and thank you for your question. I'm sorry you've had to wait a couple of days for a reply. I have investigated, and you'll see that I've just successfully left a test warning template on your userpage (feel free to delete it!). So, how to do it? Well, in addition to adding custom welcome messages, you can also add custom warning messages that aren't already available by default. You'll need to open and edit your Twinkle preferences at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences - (which actually modifies your own twinkleoptions.js file). Scroll down to the 'Warn user' section and click 'Edit items' next to 'Custom warning templates to display:'. There, in the 'Template name' section, simply add the template name without curly brackets, (i.e. Template:Uw-subtle1) and click 'Add' and then 'Save changes', and then save the changes to the whole preferences page. I think you can add further templates if you wish. Give it a try - you'd be very welcome to leave a test warning message on my user page if you wish so you can see that it works. It's important that you don't template editors inappropriately, so this'd be a sensible way for you to ensure it functions OK without upsetting anyone. Hope this all makes sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've just realised that the descriptive text that you can add which will show in the drop-down warning list will also appear in the edit summary you leave to a user - so choose with care! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbook skin, dark theme

You know how YouTube has a dark theme and you can do the same with Mac setting a Dark Theme, is there a Dark theme, black background, white text theme for Wikipedia at all? Govvy (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one but you can turn on "Use a black background with green text"in the Gadgets section of your preferences if you want something dark

That said, with some CSS skills, you should be able to edit your common.css to change the colors accordingly. Regards So Why 15:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Is there a wiki doc showing each pane? As to identify which elements I can manage? Govvy (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I really don't know. However, Chrome and Firefox have developer tools you can open with F12 which you can use to identify the relevant code. That's how I do it when I try to change something in my css file. Regards So Why 16:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, You can use mw:Skin:Vector-DarkCSS (works quite well for me) and per m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Results, the WMF will be developing a dark theme this year. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that idea of the Night (dark) theme sounds cool, shall have a look vector code, cheers Galobtter, Govvy (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New entries

Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed.
In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at lenght and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes.
I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing how company name appears

I need to change our heading that appears on Wikipedia. Currently it says Ty Inc. I want it to just say Ty so when people search on Google they just see Ty and not Ty Inc. When I press edit I cannot change the very top of the page where it reads Ty Inc.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceyoutoo (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked & answered at WP:Help desk#Changing page name. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to New editor

Hello again. I'm writing concerning the page Laurence T. Maloney. That's me.

I am proposing a draft version Draft:Laurence T. Maloney of an update to the page that also removes material that other editors have suggested removing. The page lists honors and awards with links to the corresponding wiki page for each honor or award. E.g. The "Guggenheim Fellowship" links to the "Guggenheim Fellowship" wiki page for Guggenheim Fellowship which links to lists of all past Fellows by year. You can find me under 2015 verifying that I am a Guggenheim Fellow. The "Troland Research Award" links to the page "Troland Research Awards" that also list past winners including me.

AM I doing this correctly? Should I also include external links ....?

Notability: I satisfy Criterion 2 in WP:NPROF because I have a Guggenheim fellowship. You might consider making the Troland Award of the NAS and the Humboldt Research Award automatic qualifiers under WP:NPROF. The Troland Award is one per year for psychologists under age 40 and the Humboldt is across all of science.

L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltmaloneynyu (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As was said in the review of the draft, the draft will not be accepted because the article already exists. As was said in the reply to your earlier question as linked from the section heading, the place to propose changes is on the talk page of the article. I have turned your mention of the titles of the article and draft into wikilinks, & corrected your typo in mentioning the name of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing search box

A new editor I'm working with has a user page but her task bar doesn't have a search box. She's refreshed her page, but can't get the search box and all the tabs on that line are missing. Thanks in advance for your help. CatonMA2 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CatonMA2. I have not seen this problem before; would it be possible for you to get a screenshot or something? If you can't that's fine; some other details that would be helpful to know to figure out what's going on are what device she's on and whether she's on mobile view or desktop view (you can switch between the two views by scrolling to the very bottom of any page, past the actual content of the page). Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a .pdf file of a document I would like to use as a reference in an article?

If I own a .pdf file that is of a document that relates to an article, is there a way to add it as a reference? I also know where the file is located on archive.org. Would it be better to just reference a link to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P4i2p0e (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P4i2p0e and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't add pdf files to an article, but to use them as a reference, just link to the archive where they are stored. To be a WP:Reliable source, the pdf should be published by a known publisher rather than just stored on a private website. Dbfirs 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you can upload a pdf file (if it is free-licensed) in order to display it on a page. But an uploaded file (or any other content on Wikipedia) is not a reliable source for a reference. —teb728 t c 23:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just link to the archive.org item (or any other place the document is already stored online). (By the way, there's no way of knowing whether such a "document" would constitute a reliable source for whatever information you intend to use it for, because you haven't specified what it is or what it concerns.) Softlavender (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized Pages

Hello! Does anyone know where some of the more vandalized pages are? I'd like to learn to spot vandalism quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage risen (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sage risen, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there is no page listing the most vandalized pages (this one is inactive), though there are other ways to spot and revert vandalism quickly. Something that myself and many other editors do is WP:Recent changes patrol, in which we monitor the log of recent edits and potentially problematic ones can be highlighted using filters (e.g. likely problematic, very likely problematic) which may be configured in Special:Preferences or in the top menu of Special:RecentChanges. From there, it is relatively straightforward to check highlighted edits and undo/revert them if they are indeed vandalism. Once you are autoconfirmed (you already have more than 10 edits but will need to wait 4 days), you may also familiarize yourself with WP:Twinkle and its functions that make certain tasks easier. For a more thorough learning experience in this field, you may also be interested in the WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy, a training program for newer users interested in fighting vandalism. A new vandal fighter is always great to have! ComplexRational (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about commons and translation

I have been working on the Army of the Interior article and have found an useful organisation graph image on the fusion and name changes of this French army in the French Wikipedia article, and have added it on the English Wikipedia version of the article, but its text is in French. I now have a translated file, but I am confused about what course to follow to get it uploaded, whether it is necessary, and whether I am allowed to do such thing by guidelines and license, as well as how to properly attribute in this case. Sadenar40000 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadenar40000, welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry you've had to wait some time for a reply. My advice (for what little that may be worth) is to upload the translated file to Commons, noting that it is derived from this file which itself was uploaded from fr.wiki, and should be credited to Papier K who originally uploaded it under a CC-BY-SA 2.5 licence. Had I changed the appearance/design of the file so that it was more my own work, I would still have felt it appropriate to attribute it to Papier K. Please don't take this a definitive answer; others here might do differently. It'll be interesting to see. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issue with a biased Editor

An Editor, Grayfell, has been overly hostile, insulting, belittling, and inappropriately unprofessional toward me personally. In the antagonizing and baiting posts to my Talk page, he has admitted to being biased toward me and other like me. I have attempted to be civil with him but he spins my statements and obviously is seeking a reason to block me from the system, as he has threatened several times.

I am sincerely trying to follow the advice found on Wikipedia:Civility but Grayfell is just not interested. I am seeking advice here, if I understand the procedure correctly, before asking for Administrative help. Thank you.Jay Bestille (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's you. You are a recent new (PAID AND COI) editor, you are creating a lot of new articles, you've committed many of the common new editors' errors - promotional content, copyright violation, weak referencing, drafts that will be failed, by-passing AfC, articles on topics - mostly living people - that likely fail notability, and all-in-all creating a high level of nuisance monitoring for other editors. Draft:Remote Dielectric Sensing is a perfect example of you having no idea whatsoever about what belongs and does not belong in a medical/health article. Grayfell is not hampered by an excess of tact, but I see nothing unprofessional in the admonitions to you to get it right. David notMD (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: You'll have to find a different example. That draft was a copyright violation – a complex, intertwined one that cadged from multiple sources and used close paraphrasing and I have deleted it accordingly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for JB - who wrote it as PAID - it remains an example of failure of competence. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mention using the signature name

If someone used my signature to mention me do I get a notification? In other words which one of these replies I would get notifications from? @SharabSalam: or @شرعب السلام: ...Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@شرعب السلام: As far as I know, it has to be your actual username, like this. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: Not like this. (So you should only have got one ping). – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea I only notification for the first one. Thank you so much for the help.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SharabSalam. You will only receive a notification if the person who mentions you by linking your username signs their post – and then saves with both the mention of you and their signature included in the same save. In other words, if a person mentions you, but forgets to sign, and then tries to fix it in a subsequent edit by adding their missing signature to the original post, that will not result in a notification. See Help:Fixing failed pings. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding discussions on talk pages

I have recently posted on an article talk page about an issue which is not really specific to that one article (the article is just one example) and wondered if there's a way of drawing in a few experienced editors to participate? Else the discussion just remains confined to that one page and editors who happen to be watching it and notice and are interested... It's here: Talk:Immigration#Size of article, and Immigration and crime section. Or is there a better place to post such a discussion? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink, if you check near the top of that talkpage, you see links to a number of wikiprojects. One/some of their talkpages may have interested editors, consider posting something like "I started a discussion about X at Talk:Immigration#Size_of_article,_and_Immigration_and_crime_section, your input is welcome." Enjoy yourself! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you - that is a good suggestion. I'll give it a try. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dennis Scholl

Hey everyone,

I have already successfully published an article on the German Wikipedia, which was quite fun.

I've now translated the article into English and adapted it to the required standards, but I'm not sure if I did the right thing. The article is still saved as a "draft". I'm not sure if I even released it for review? This is the article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dennis_Scholl Maybe one of you can help me, that would be great. Cordially --Freidaycat (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Freidaycat. You can submit the draft for review by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the curly brackets) at the top. You are not obliged to do this - you could simply move the draft to main space, but if you are not confident, I recommend submitting it for review.

Please note that if you made substantial use of the text of the German article (as is implied by "translated") you must attribute the source, or that will be a copyright infringement. (This is true even if you originally wrote the German text, because you irrevocably licensed it under CC-BY-SA, which requires attribution). Please see WP:Translation#How to translate. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can i edit in a page?

Dear Tea House Good Morning

How can i edit in a page? Advice me in details.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. Start with Help:Editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the advice you were given here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_877#Maghfoor_Ahmad_Ajazi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Masroor Chaudhary As you have been told before, the way that you edit a page is that when you add something to a page, you must provide a reference to a reliable source. Also when you are reverted, you must not continually add the same thing but discuss your change on the article talk page. —teb728 t c 12:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, Masroor Chaudhary, separate from the question of sources is the question of whether or not information is encyclopaedic. One of the editors who have reversed the edit you have applied nine times has pointed out that the identity of the subject's brother-in-law does not appear to be a significant addition to an article about Ajazi. If you still think that for some reason that information is important to the article, the only way for you to do it is to open a discussion on Talk:Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi explaining why it is important, and convince other editors. (You probably should notify all four of the editors who reverted you). Trying to reapply your edit without first reaching consensus is likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having Trouble writing about an ROBLOX subway car , P-3.

I got declined because it isnt a ´good topic ´and I want to be accepted because it was my first article — Preceding unsigned comment added by R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R38R32R10MTAOTT and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we can't just accept any article or anyone's first article; the majority of drafts that are submitted get declined or rejected. All topics on Wikipedia must meet certain notability guidelines. In most cases, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Another important thing to remember when creating and editing Wikipedia articles is verifiability. All material must be supported by a reliable source; original research isn't allowed. In this case, your draft didn't have any sources so we could not prove notability or verifiability. To be a bit blunt, this particular article is unlikely to merit a standalone article; at most it might could have a brief mention at Roblox. On Wikipedia, not every single topic and sub-topic is documented on its own page; the only topics that articles should be created for are ones which we can write a substantial amount of content about from sources that are reliable and independent of the article's subject. I hope this helps you out a bit and please do not get discouraged; creating an article that is accepted is a very hard thing to do. Feel free to reach out here again if you have any more questions.

Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an image no longer exists, can I assume that it has been removed due to a copyright violation?

Earlier today, an image of the new 2020 Supra was available. However, now there is simply a red link in its place. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I viewed the talk page of the user who uploaded the file and my assumption was correct. However, I am still curious about the criteria for deleting an image. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syntaxlord. Common bases for deletion will be through the speedy deletion grounds found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files, or you can peruse file deletion discussions held at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. As to your question, the assumption would often not be correct or not quite correct (many times image deletions are copyright related, but the reason is not because the page was a copyright violation), and there's no need to assume because you can find out the reason any file was deleted more directly than, as you did here, going to the user's talk page to look for a warning related to the image. For local files, clicking on the red link will then take you to a page showing you its deletion log entry. Try it: here's the same red link you saw earlier today: File:2020-Toyota-Supra-9.jpg, click on it and you should see its deletion log entry.

If there's no red link to click on, you can paste the name of the file into the search field and the resulting page will provide to you a red link you can click on next to "You may create the page..." You can also copy the name of the file and paste it directly into Special:Log/delete. Of course, many files we use here are from the Commons. You can access the deletion log there also by going to Special:Log/delete while at that site. Commons' speedy deletion bases are at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, and their deletion discussion forum can be accessed through Commons:Deletion requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the image, but if it was a copy of Toyota's publicity shots then Toyota own the copyright. If someone took the photograph themselves (and haven't sold the copyright), then they can upload it to Commons as their own work. Dbfirs 17:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a new article?

I just joined and found out there is no page for a book I've read recently. it's far from well known, but i would love to add it to the information available here. But I am so confused. any help will be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella1366613 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bella1366613. I always think that new users are better off spending some time learning the ropes through regular editing to existing articles until taking the plunge in creating a new article – probably the hardest task for a new user to start with. In any event, I would suggest taking a slow and careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial before editing, taking breaks to read the various major policies and guidelines it links to in new tabs, in order to get your sea legs. After that, read Wikipedia:Your first article, and, given the nature of the article you are thinking of creating: Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Books.

One thing to keep in mind is that in order to create an article on any topic, there must exist reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in some substantive detail (not just mere mentions) that you can cite in a transparent manner to verify the content and demonstrate notability. Search for those types of sources and write based on what they say without copying the words used, citing them as you go; don't try to write an article if you can't find those sources in existence. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Tea house team,

I'am a Brazilian journalist specialized in writing about Latin American fine-artists and visual artist. I recently tried to write an article about an artist that is receiving a good amount of international attention and is very known in Brazil, but my article was tagged as P.R. I would love to hear your thoughts and feedbacks on why this happened as I tried to be very neutral on my writing. I'm planning on writing more articles about latin american artists, but since it requires me a lot of time to gather references, books, magazines and newspapers, I would prefer to know what have I done wrong and if you have any thoughts on how I Could fix this. I did read the 5 pillars and the recommendations and I honestly though this article followed it.

This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gustavo_Chams

Please let me know. Thank you, Mirela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirella Silva (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The critique looks like a translation of a copyright article. Is it intended to be a quote? 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)User:Dbfirs|Dbfirs]]

Hi User:Dbfirs Yes, it is intended to be a quote.

See Wikipedia:Quotations. Dbfirs 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mirella Silva. I salute you for wanting to fill a gap in our coverage.

It is hard to determine how reliable the sources are, since you have not generally named the publication; but I am not hopeful. As far as I can tell the first citation simply credits Chams with the pictures in the article: this is at best a primary source. The GGN reference appears to be an interview, so it is not dependent. I didn't examing them past there, but the question you need to ask before writing an article is, What have people unconnected with the subject chosen to write about the subject, and been published in reliable places? That is what almost the whole of the article should be based on.

As to the formatting: the important bit of a reference is the bibliographic information that enables a reader to see where it is from, and to obtain it if required (eg through a major library): the link is a mere convenience. I recommend using citation templates, though they are not compulsory; but in any case, please look at WP:REFB.

In my view there is a problem not so much with advertising, as with the tone: it is appropriate to a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia. A Wikipedia should not use judgmental words like "notoriety" unless it is quoting an independent reliable source. The tense is inappropriate in "he would sign his first fashion cover. Which would later grant him access to work with Brazilian local celebrities". This "future in the past" is used in magazine articles, and prmotional sites, to establish a chatty, story-telling feel; but in an encyclopaedia article it would be better in the past: "He became a photographer, and in 20xx produced his first fashion cover, for YYY magazine. (If you don't tell us the year and which magazine, why is this even in the article?)

"The common thread that characterizes Gustavo's work is a sinuous homogeneity that explores the most profound aesthetic of human essence" is either advertising puff, or (if it means anything) original research: you can directly quote a reliable independent source that says this, but it does not belong in an article in Wikipedia's voice. (I've just realised that that is what Dbfirs' question was about). --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Dbfirs I have updated it following the requested suggestions. (also added another references) any other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirella Silva (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violates copyrights

114.31.115.138/ns1.rtat.net 216.218.228.119/ns2.rtat.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roufique07 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roufique07 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear about what you're trying to say and what help you need. Perhaps you could elaborate further?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rtat.net seems to be a Github project created by Roufique07: no idea what it is. They have put a couple of links to it on Talk:Public domain for no obvious reason. They have previously put links to it, and to a travel company, on a number of other pages. They appear to be here to promote something, and had better stop, or they will get blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write an updated English version of a Swedish article

There is an article in the sv.wikipedia (Swedish, right?) I would like to update and add to the English wikipedia. The Swedish version is at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slator_Lake. About a month ago I searched for Slator Lake and was taken to the Swedish page. That search now fails.

Anyway, can I just start an English article with the same name as a Swedish article, or do I need permission?

Thanks brian.slator Brian.slator (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brian.slator. No, you don't need permission; but if you create the article by translating the Swedish, then you must credit if (see Translation. I suggest treating it as a new article in English, even if you do translate it, because the article in the Swedish Wikipedia may not be appropriate as it stands: different Wikipedias sometimes have different rules, and in any case, the existence of an article in a Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that it is a satisfactory article (we have many substandard ones on enwiki, unfortunately). I suggest reding your first article as well, and creating a draft with the WP:AFC process. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian.slator: You may wonder why the Swedish Wikipedia but not the English has an article about a small Canadian lake. Millions of Swedish articles were created by Lsjbot, an automated Wikipedia article-creating program by a Swedish editor. The article has never been edited by a human. The English Wikipedia has different policies and far less bot creations. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mario Fever theme in Puyo Puyo Tetris

According to ShiroBrawl, the fever theme was also used on Puyopuyo Tetris, even though Sega owns Nintendo's intellectual properties/licensed rights. I DON'T KNOW WHY IF SEGA DID ON PURPOSE? ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Apollo C. Quiboloy fans. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? That is the only kind of question appropriate here. It's possible you might get somebody interested enough to answer you if you post your question at Reference desk/Entertainment. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove a photo

I tried to add a photo to a page, however, instead it was created as a solo link. I cannot find an undo, remove, delete button.. Help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REA79, I added the image for you WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi REA79. I'm not clear on what you are seeking. Can you please advise whether you are okay with the deletion of this image file? If so, I will delete it under CSD G7. If not, and what you were seeking was help with adding it to Michael Andrew Arntfield as WelpThatWorked did, please note that I have removed it from there, and marked it for deletion (see the message at your talk page). As I stated in my edit summary accompanying tagging it for deletion under CSD F11: "The mere fact fact it is a "publicity photo" does not imply it is in the public domain, and you have not provided the actual source you got this from, so no way to check whether the source actually provides a release into the public domain or licenses it as such (a TinEye search was not frutiful)". It may be that it is, in fact, in the public domain, but the information you provided at the image page was insufficent to check and implied a possible misunderstanding of what makes something public domain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to add the photo to the wiki profile. Instead, I somehow loaded it as an individual photo not on his page. I have no idea how to delete the photo and add it to his wiki profile.. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My First Denial

How can I get my draft to be accepted despite the fact there arent enough sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cwpom: I will assume the article in question is Draft:Chaleb Pommells. The first thing to do is to read the comments the reviewer (SamHolt6) left when it was declined. There were two main problems: the article does not establish that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term), and the tone of the article reads more like an advertisement. Read through the links provided by the reviewer to understand these issues, and if you have specific questions about how to address them after that then please come back here are ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: Can you define what specifically makes it seem like an ad because the intention is to be a bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one thing that makes the draft seem like an ad is that it talks about a 14-year-old middle-schooler's "career." In four years he may be eligible to run for the legislature; if he is elected then, it will be time to start talking about a career. —teb728 t c 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwpom: In answer to your original question, you can't get a draft accepted without references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What references your draft has provide none of that: Neither the Teen Council page, the legislature page, nor even his company page even mentions him. The Pines Telegram page only gives him bylines, and his tweet only mentions him as the tweeter. So there is no indication at all that he is notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 04:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope what I have written above does not come across as harsh, Cwpom, but I don’t want you wasting your effort on something that is not going to be accepted. It is very rare but not impossible for a teenager to become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. (Malala Yousafzai became notable at 15 as a result of her attempted assassination and David Hogg at 17 as a result of his activism following the MSD shooting.) Wikipedia is looking for the kind of subjects that they write whole articles about in newspapers and magazines. Have The Miami Herald or the Sun-Sentinel written articles about Chaleb? (They certainly have written about Malala and David.)

Your draft was nicely written for a first article: I hope you will accept that our standard of acceptance is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and devote your talents to such subjects. —teb728 t c 09:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Https and Http

Hello. I have been seeing a lot of online references that use insecure http. So I was wondering if it's okay to edit the links from http to https. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SharabSalam. https is preferred per Help:Link#http: and https:. Check that it works before changing. Some sites only allow http. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--SharabSalam (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello

let me know exact perpose of this page..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshkumar9540 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeshkumar9540: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for new users to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia. If you ever have a question about using Wikipedia, please ask it just as you asked this question. You may be interested in using the new user tutorial(click those words to get there) to help you learn about Wikipedia. Again, welcome. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you put "Aaradhya Enterprises, karad. FMCG Distributor firm in karad city." on your User page. The purpose of a User page is to explain a bit about yourself and your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a social media page for you or your business. See WP:User pages. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where should i upload my images to?

(R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please see this help guide for more information. I will also post some info on your talk page. Can you provide us with more context? RhinosF1 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard may be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Formatting

Hello, I have a question that I've been wanting to ask for a while regarding citations:
Is it required to have the access date if it is the same as the date the article was published?
Syntaxlord (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wise to do so, as that confirms which date the ref has been confirmed as supporting the text. The access date gives a good guide as to where to look for an archive version if necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Syntaxlord, "The date the article was published" is not very meaningful. A Wikipedia article is never finished: there's nothing special about the date when it was first created, and in any case, a particular reference might have been added much later. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, I believe that Syntaxlord was referring to the date that the article used as a reliable source was first published, not the date the Wikipedia article was first published. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, Yes, I was referring to that. I'm sorry that my wording was confusing. Syntaxlord (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry for my misunderstanding. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if my sources are sufficient?

Dear all,

I created an article about an Austrian physician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harald_Stossier). When I submitted the draft for review it was declined with the note: "I'm inclined to think notable but sourcing needs to be improved vastly."

Since all statements are referenced by at least one source, and in my opinion all sources are reliable according to the wiki guidelines my question would be: Do I need to add more sources, or are the included sources questionable?

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yet another IT guy (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's better to take up such a question with the editor who declined the draft, Yet another IT guy, but looking at Draft:Harald Stossier, I can see that, while the sources are probably reliable, not a single one of them is independent of Stossier. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their employer, organisation, or associates say about them: an article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have written about them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yet another IT guy. I agree with ColinFine's assessment of the shortcomings of the current sources. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to measure notability?

Hi, I came across certain people that are famous in Sri Lanka. But there is no wikipedia page for them. How do I measure their notability? and why is notability not measured at all for certain people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luewia (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luewia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability (as Wikipedia uses the word) is fairly well defined (though applying the definition isn't always clear-cut). Please see Notability. In most cases it depends on whether several people, unconnected with the subject, have chosen to write at some length about the subject and been published in reliable places (places which have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking). The sources do not have to be in English, or online, though it is easier for editors to check them if they are. Neither fame, popularity, importance, or influence, necessarily makes a subject notable in Wikipedia terms, though of course there is some correlation. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about tables

Hello,

I was wondering when creating a table on a page, how to center align the content. Also, how do you add coloring to the boxes and their text as well?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawks1998 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question relating to Tom Kenny (Actor)

Hi I've just been reading up on Tom Kenny (voice of Spongebob Squarepants) and noticed his Biography does not mention his recent work as the voice of Police Chief Randall Crawford in the first series of 2018 Netflix series Paradise PD.

As Tom is a well known artist I didn't want to risk my novice editing skills on his page.

I would be grateful if you can ask one of your experienced editors to include this at some point.

Many thanks

Mark Stevens England, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.252.73 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't feel comfortable making such an edit yourself, you should post on the article talk page(Talk:Tom Kenny) so that editors that follow that article see it and may be able to help you. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How or who can edit the Pope Pius IX page, because there is an error on it?

Dear Sirs, Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

References: In reading the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX, I discovered an error. The error is that the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pius IX while Ubi Primum is written by Leo XII and again later by Pius IX. I have just noticed that the vatican.va lists alternatively Pio IX and Leone XII as the author here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xii/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-5-maggio-1824.html as Leo XII ... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-2-febbraio-1849.html as Pius IX... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-17-giugno-1847.html as Pius IX.

I applied to do an edit. Because of the Kwysinski dog rapper problem, I had to wait. Still I am not allowed to edit after about 24 hours. Anyway to avoid any confusion can someone add into the Pope Pius IX article that more than one Papal Encyclical has the title Ubi Primum and that Pope Leo XII is another author?

Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

Regards, Mr. Michael Griffin p.s. The edit could say: "Ubi Primum" (note: three versions of the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum exist including Ubi Primum authored in 1824 by Pope Leo XII). The edit could also say something like "Ubi Primum dated 1847," or "Ubi Primum dated 1847 and/or 1849." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:89F2:2121:9602:E0A5 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pebbles (band)

Anyone up for doing an entry about this great garage band? facebook.com/pebbles.web/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambapaannex (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambapaannex: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you use the term "garage band" strongly suggests that the band does not meet the notability criteria for bands written at WP:BAND. There has to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources not associated with the band at all, for a band to merit an article. YouTube videos, which anyone can post, don't count. It doesn't matter if this band's videos have 10,000 views or 10 million views, if no independent sources write about them, they do not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambapaannex: There is actually an entire (humourous) essay on this topic - Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sambapaannex. I replaced the YouTube links you added with a link to the band's Facebook page. People often upload videos to YouTube that they don't hold the copyright on and such links are not supposed to be added to Wikipedia pages per WP:COPYLINK, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is referencing a governmental website a case of bad self-published referencing?

As an example, is it a case of self-published reference to use census data from the website of the Ministry of Municipal affairs, Regions and Land Management of Québec to reference the number of inhabitants of the towns of Rimouski, Matane and Rivière-du-Loup in the article Bas-Saint-Laurent? The guideline on this is confusing for me. Sadenar40000 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadenar40000: It depends on the nature of the source and what you're using it for. I'm not aware of any controversies in Quebecois census surveys today, so in the example you specified it seems fine. If you were instead relying on census reports issued by say, Myanmar, Syria, or another country actively in the midst of a crisis in which the government is complicit, or if there's another credible reason to cast doubt on the government's reliability (e.g. the Egyptian government's published estimates of the sizes of various religious minorities in the country vary greatly from both the estimates released by the communities themselves and from independent sources), I would proceed with caution. Whether or not the source contributes to notability is a separate concern, but for inhabited places like the ones in your example, that's not an issue per WP:NPLACE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to change back edit in non programming mode

Hey all,

I was able to edit without coding, but now it says "Edit Source" and requires real coding. How do I go back?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guestofaguest (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guestofaguest, click the pencil symbol in the editor and it should come up with a menu letting you switch to visual editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guestofaguest. Adding to what Emir of Wikipedia has helpfully stated, if you go to your Preference settings, and then the 'Editing' Tab, you can change how the two different editing tools are offered to you. Personally, I think it's far better to always be offered both editor tabs, but you can choose whether it remembers (and offers you) your last-used editor. I hope you find this helpful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

I've been doing edits for a few months and have a question about an article that always bothers me.

Without getting too far into it, the wiki title of the article that follows is incorrect !

Catherine Middleton/Kate Middleton/Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge

The format of her title as "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is the one that would be used if she was the divorced former wife of a Duke. (see Sarah, Duchess of York below). This rule is explained in section 3.3 of the wiki article "British Princess" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_princess . She is properly titled Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cambridge (having a The in one's name is very important in british royalty !) therefore the article should be titled "The Duchess of Cambridge". It would not matter so much if the style chosen for the title were not one that specifically suggests the woman is divorced.

For instance, the wiki article on the divorced wife of Prince Andrew of York is correctly titled "Sarah, Duchess of York" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York

Best source possible: the official website of the Royal Family have titled their page about her "The Duchess of Cambridge" ^[1]

I do see that there has been a good deal of discussion of this on the Talk page, but I'm unclear how to bring the topic back up on the Talk page, and on who has the power to unlock the article title. So - how do I make this change happen, or at least re-open the discussion? Who do I have to communicate with ? The page is semi-protected. LigaGila (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, LigaGila. Wikipedia already has an article Duchess of Cambridge which discusses the title and the three women known that way. Therefore, her first name is added to the biography of the current duchess, to disambiguate the person from the title. This was a very controversial article naming decision at the time of the marriage, and you really ought to read the entire lengthy discussion before trying to reopen the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328 I did read the whole discussion there, but it just peters out with no clear decision, or even a clue as to who can make the decision (ie has access to editing the title field). Can you tell me who is the "owner" of the page (please excuse as I suspect that isn't the correct term to use)

LigaGila (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is no "owner" and we have no such concept on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected, which means it can only be edited by accounts over four days old and with over 20 edits. You have 19 edits so you are very close. The article is also move protected which means only an administrator can change the title. No sane adminstrator would change the title except to implement a clearcut consensus on the article talk page. You are welcome to start a new discussion on the talk page, but I have a very strong hunch that there will not be an agreement to change the article title. It was discussed extensively by many people in the talk page archives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: When did the autoconfirmed criterion change from 10 to 20? Would you be able to change WP:AUTOCONFIRM with an appropriate reference? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph, I will blame my upcoming 67th birthday for my memory lapse. You are correct. The standard is four days and ten edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LigaGila. Nobody is the "owner" of any page in Wikipedia. Almost any editor can change the title of an article by moving the article (but in the light of what Cullen says, nobody should move that one without achieving consensus on the move). --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC) --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that consensus must be achieved, so I'll do some further research to make a convincing argument for such. Thanks for the advice Cullen328 and ColinFine! -- LigaGila (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.royal.uk/search/the-duchess-of-cambridge

No picture for famous person yet

What can I do if nobody is going to add a pic for G. T. Bynum? Nobody has responded to that IP’s request and there is no pic for a famous mayor. Can you find one please? I don’t want to do copyright. Thanks! 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A photo is nice to have but not at all necessary. If you feel it is important, you could ask his office to provide a photo as described at WP:COPYREQ, or you could go to Tulsa and take photo yourself. —teb728 t c 03:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i want to see my wikipidea in anothers mobile but im not able see can you can any suggestions

after 1 or 2 edit it is not accepting another edit in any case of urgent how can we edit our wiki and how can we upload a picture of the particular Im not sure about WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamakura raju (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about whether you're involved with the subject which would mean you need to read the WP:COI and WP:PAID policies. Your account can not be used by multiple people and your Username seems promotional. Please address the issues above before continuing to edit then read the getting started guide. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chamakura raju I'm sorry to say that you don't seem able to communicate well in English. Are you aware that there is a Telugu Wikipedia (and several other Indic Wikipedias). You might be more comfortable writing there. —teb728 t c 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with teb728's comment. People who want to write in the English language Wikipedia are expected to be competent, but not sent away. In this instance looks like the draft is at User:Chamakura raju/sandbox and may be autobiographical and is clearly not ready to be proposed for review. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of my Draft

hey everybody, I working now for more than a week on my first article to be published. Unfortunately it always gets rejected as it sounds apparently like an advertisement. Of course, I do not want it to sound like it. So I edited several times and orientated it to other similar articles. But it still hasn't been accepted yet. Therefore it would be great, if someone could have a look at it and give me some advises on how to improve the article. I have already looked at all the standardized wikipedia help sites and tried to implement their advises. The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eclipse_Theia Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChristinFrohne. "the Theia project counts RedHat, IBM, Google and ARM as contributing companies". Wikipedia is not interested in what the project counts. If this is a demonstrable fact, state it as a fact. "Theia has a flexible layout" - this is not a neutral description, but an evaluation. See PEACOCK. "Based on a growing ecosystem of over 60 available language servers, delivering intelligent editing support for all major programming languages" is again not neutral. "Furthermore" is editorializing. What you should be aiming for is wording that both its supporters and its detractors would find accurate: neutral statements of documented facts about the software, not evaluative words and slanted claims. (I am not disputing the claims, just saying that they are inappropriate in an Encyclopaedia). --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine thank you very much for your feedback. Now I know how to edit the article. ChristinFrohne (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* History */ removal of outdated table

Hi I have twice removed an outdated table from the Perth College page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_College_(Western_Australia)), however, my amendment has been overridden by someone else. Perth College do not wish to highlight ATAR results in this way and hence we have not updated the table for the past couple of years. As a result, it is now very much out of date. Can you advise what our options are. Many thanks. Ctrlaltk (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ctrlaltk and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you disclosed your WP:Conflict of interest here, and your WP:Paid status? You need to be aware that the article belongs to Wikipedia, not to the College. Wikipedia would welcome an updated table, but it is other Wikipedia editors not involved with the College who will decide what content is appropriate for the article. It would be best if you express your concerns on the talk page of the article where you can discuss the changes with other editors. Dbfirs 08:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to change (or request a change to) a large amount of links?

Hi, I've been working on the Unisound and Unisound Studios pages and currently, albums produced by Unisound Studios link to the Unisound page incorrectly.

Based on Special:WhatLinksHere every page except the following should change from Unisound --> Unisound Studios.

The ones that link correctly are:

List of unicorn startup companies
Unisound Studios

As there are over 50 album pages, what would be the best course of action to update (or request an update) to these links?

Thanks :)

Redwards21 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post the job on WP:AWB/Tasks - X201 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted there, thanks @X201. Redwards21 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove pages or challenge pages that do not show any citations or references

I see a whole list of wikipedia pages in Sri Lanka that have no citations or references at all, and no one seems to have challenged. I could point them out to you if it is out of my lead but would be great if I could know how it is done? Let me list bellow some pages that have zero references

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luewia (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say "no one seems to have challenged". Each of them is tagged, as far as i can see. THere is advice at WP:Notability (high schools). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia, can anyone please give me any ideas how to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabiso Mabaso (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibb as surname

Wikipedia asks for people to edit content when they have more relevant and correct information and then deletes anything that they do not like without any discussion. I have published Ten edits in regard to the origin of the name GIBB with proof's thereof. I cannot find anyone who will actually discuss this or answer for their actions and constant denial will not change fact. The entire Wiki system appear to me to be set to stop any edits not promote them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Gibb (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the edit summary for this edit? You were told that your text had been copied to Draft:Gibb (surname), so that you can work on it there and eventually submit it for AFC review when it has been properly formatted. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, and Welcome to Wikipedia. I have replied on your talk page to your concerns, but let me assure you that Wikipedia wants any constructive edits that meet the standards of the encyclopedia that you can contribute. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have, @NoCOBOL:. I think you posted to User talk:Philipnelson99 instead. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OOPS, I'm an idiot. Thank you @David Biddulph: for bringing this to my attention, I will rectify it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are existing names lists Gibb and Gibbs (surname). Neither is a place for a discourse on the origins of the Gibb/Gibbs surnames. Richard's text currently parked at Draft:Gibb (surname), but if that ever to become an article, it will need a better title to avoid confusion. When I looked at Smith I saw a link to a list of people with the surname smith and also Smith (surname) as an article on the origins of the surname. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer Website

Hello Guys,

I understand that this is not a free web hosting service but is there any reasons that I am not supposed to have a page on wikipedia. I have seen tons of companies having own pages/articles here.

Thank you

[1] ttps://www.royal.uk/search/the-duchess-of-cambridge

[1]