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
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243

Articalthat I have Created

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]

Welcome to the Teahouse Amanda.useta, your draft was rejected because it did not demonstrate the notability of the school with reference significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Worse yet it said hardly anything about the school. —teb728 t c 01:34, 22 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

Welcome to the Teahouse Vasiliades, your article was speedily deleted because it did not indicate why he is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 01:24, 22 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]

Hi Fritz Jörn. I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 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]

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]

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,

Tuesday, January 22, 2019: I am editing my original question posted in the last seven days. In addition to the fact that Ubi Primum has at least two authors, the main subject of Ubi Primum is the office of Bishop. It would make more sense in the context of Pope Pius IX being a Marian Pope to substitute his Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum in the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus' subject is the Immaculate Conception. That is how I would edit the Pope Pius IX article: substitute Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum. That makes the most sense and does not disturb the article content at all.

- - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:CC7D:B86F:1519:1660 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I was born in 1960 Slindokhule (talk) 09:36, 23 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]

Hi David notMD, I didn't tell the OP they were unwelcome here: I just suggested another outlet they might not have been aware of. I checked their global contribuions, and they were only on en-wiki. Did you think they were competent in English? Their sandbox was not just unready for review: to me it was only about half-comprehensible. —teb728 t c 02:10, 22 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]

ColinFine I have made some changes to the article. Could you have another look at it? Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ChristinFrohne, I think the tone is much improved. Be aware that I haven't done a formal review (I am not a regular reviewer for AFC), but I think it is worth your resubmitting it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 22 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]

Welcome, Thabiso Mabaso! You might want to start with The Wikipedia Adventure, which walks you through different editing tasks to familiarize you with editing on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 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]

My first question would have to be why is this entire system so damn awkward and why is it apparently impossible to get a) Contact with one person and B) Assistance in what I am trying to do?

I am trying to correct facts about the name GIBB/GIBBS. I have cited English Heritage, The Vatican and the Royal Archive but apparently such are not regarded as Reliable Sources which I would like someone to explain that to me. If this were a proper e-mail I could send you COPIES of letters from the Royal Archive as well as other fully documented information which you would find impossible to dispute. So far, it seems to me that WIKI are not interested in REAL facts.

I am the current Remembrancer (Chronicler) of the family, a position that has been passed down to me. My predecessors over the last 900 + years never had to deal with Social Media which simply did not exist and where apparently anyone can publish any amount of nonsense without any comeback. In the past our duty was simply to keep the family history and in olden days to appear at the Court of Heralds in respect of any disputes. One of my predecessors was indeed Clarenceux King of arms who wrote the book everyone now holds up as the Guide to Heraldry Now I am getting on (Retired) and not the greatest of experts in this Social Media/WIKI subject which is why I require assistance, which I humbly request. I do rather hope that someone will kindly step forward. Apologies for being a touch terse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Gibb (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gibb, you have received assistance in the replies above, but you appear to be misunderstanding the problem. Social media is generally not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, but neither are private letters. Sources need to be published in some form, and accessible to readers either online or through a library. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to better understand this. You also need to give more detail about the sources being used, so that readers can find them if they want to. A reference such as "Battle Abbey – English Heritage" is not sufficient, because it's not clear whether that's even a publication, as opposed to a place. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gibb, One reason you can’t get one person as a contact is that we are all volunteers here, and none of us is authorized to decide on the validity of unpublished primary documents. Instead we depend on the reliability of published reliable secondary sources which in turn evaluate the primary sources. Apparently your draft references unpublished documents: Have those sources been analyzed by published reliable secondary sources? That is how Wikipedia verifies such information.

BTW, I removed the false etymologies from Gibb with the explanation that it was “unsourced.” I expect that removal to stick. —teb728 t c 23:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft content is still out there as Draft:Gibb (surname). Your sources are not being challenged. What is needed is to convert the mentions of sources into references in format acceptable to Wikipedia, and then submit to Articles for Creation for consideration for publication. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 22 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspneter (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The companies which are allowed to have a Wikipedia article are those which meet the criteria at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia pages are not for promotion. I notice also that the page which was deleted as promotional was your user page User:Aspneter, so you should read the purpose of a user page at WP:user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, OK the rules are there for a reason I believe. Thank you for clarifying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspneter (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and just to clarify ... no company "has" a page here in the sense that they in any way own or control the page, but if the company is notable then there might be an article about them, preferably written by someone unconnected with the company and based on what other unconnected WP:Reliable sources have written. Dbfirs 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get a Page heading changed if it is inaccurate

Hi I've just seen that this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormsley_Park refers to "Wormsley Park" but this should in fact be just "Wormsley" - how do you go about changing this? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormsley1086 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is shown as Wormsley Park on the Ordnance Survey maps. If you think that is wrong I suggest you start a discussion on the article take page, backed up with a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to create an article

Hello moderator and Wikipedia community,

I have used Wikipedia for most of my adult life. It is a wonderful resource and I love that it is a not-for-profit organization (and I have personally contributed many times over the years to keep it that way).

I am writing to ask about the appropriateness of building an article for myself. In addition to my day job as a banker for government and not-for-profit organizations, I am an independent author. I published my first book in 2017 - a sci-fi novel: Leadership, Heaven and Hell; and a Cybersentient Hero. Then, this past August, I decided to publish my memoir: The Inexplicable Survival of a Happily Fallible Child. (I had actually written the memoir before the sci-fi novel but published it after.)

The memoir has been picked up by a couple of major retailers: Barnes and Noble and Thriftbooks.com

I am happy these retailers found my book and are offering it for sale, but I'm unsure how they found it. (To my best knowledge, at this point, no retailer carries my sci-fi novel.)

I share this information because I believe it may be a contributing factor to my dilemma. I have been told by friends and family that they've found incorrect information on the internet about me and/or my book. For instance, if you search my book name under Google, you'll find on the right side of the page that one of my brothers and one of my sisters are listed as the author. If you click on the link, another sister is listed as a co-author. (I love all my siblings dearly and I couldn't have written the book without their input, but I am the one who wrote the book.) There are other, frankly, wacky, articles about my book out on the internet with all sorts of incorrect information.

A friend suggested I create my own Wikipedia page because that is where much of the information gathered within the internet is pulled from. I am asking if that would be appropriate.

For reference, if you search my Goodreads.com author profile. It is accurate about my books and who I am.

I attempted to include links for Barnes and Noble, Thriftbooks.com, Google search and Goodreads.com but I received error messages that one or more are listed on Wikipedia's blacklist, so I removed them all. I apologize.

I very much appreciate your time and look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Gary C. Mele, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycmelejr (talk • contribs) 15:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against it, you can request articles at WP:RA. If you want to be involved also read WP:COI. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will find advice against, at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Garycmelejr. Just a tip about that Google information panel: there's a "Feedback" link beneath it that you can use to request corrections. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetalDiablo666 Overkill (band) page

...I have several times corrected the origin city of the band...they are NOT from Old Bridge, NJ, that may be where their label (Megaforce) was based, but not them, I went to high school with Rat Skates and DD Verni in New Providence, NJ and also if you look up old 'zines, their mailing address is New Providence, NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellhammer666 (talk • contribs) 15:38, Today (UTC+0)

Hello, Hellhammer666, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is that a reader next week in Duluth, or next month in Sydney, or in 2029 in Uzbekistan has no way of checking information in your head or "in old 'zines'". It was fine for you to to be bold and make a correction, but once another editor reverts it, making the same edit again without discussion is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. You need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, according to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. In order to persuade other editors, you will need to find a reliable published source for the information you want to add: that is the only kind of information Wikipedia will accept (and yes, we know that sometimes it is not accurate, but that is the best we can do: see Verifiability). Unfortunately, a fanzine will probably not be counted a reliable source, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edits

I edited a page on Jan. 11 and its not updated. Any ideas on why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C8:200:C3B:94EA:6E20:5394:6658 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What page? David notMD (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP user. We can't give you any definite answer without knowing what page, as David notMD says. But I can suggest some possible reasons. One is that you might not have saved your edit: many users have been confused that the button that used to be called "save" is now called "publish". Another is that your edit may have gone in, but been reverted by a bot or another editor, because it didn't appear constructive (a very common case is when people add information without citing a source). If you look at the History of the article, you should see whether anybody reverted your edit, and they should have left a summary explaining why.

If your edit did get reverted, and you still want to apply it, you should open a discussion about it on the article's Talk page before you try and edit again. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist Format

Hi,

I'm doing a copy-edit of Strand Road, Kolkata. I've gotten as far as the History section. I need to figure out a convenient way to format the reference list, particularly when a section is referring to the same source and different pages within that source. Hoping someone can give me some tips. Thanks! RandomGnome (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RandomGnome, sorry for the long wait in getting you a reply. I've taken the liberty of changing the first two uses of Cottons 1907 book, but will leave you to fix the rest. The trick is to give a 'name' to the first use of a reference, and then you simply call it up again when you want to reuse it, without the need to retype the full reference. You'll find a detailed explanation at WP:REFNAME. Then, after each use of that reference you can specify the exact page with the {{rp}} template (please click that link to see detailed instructions). Thus, {{rp|167}} appears as^: 167 immediately after the reference to show which page to go to. Does this help or make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick Moyes, that's exactly what I needed - someone to do the first couple to show me how it's done. Thanks for your help and the link to REFNAME. RandomGnome (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a new page - rejection

Hi - I am trying to create my first Wikipedia entry for my department at The University of Sheffield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:School_of_Health_and_Related_Research I'm aware of academic boostering and am trying to create an objective, informative page about our esteemed department and building as part of the wider university page. I have other information to add, including links to other Wikipedia entries relating to some of our previous academics. Before I went too far I thought I would start basic and see whether I could get it accepted before expanding too quickly. I got the message below and don't know how to act upon it - apologies for not understanding, I'm keen to learn and do this properly. Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks, Andy

Welcome to the Articles for creation help desk! If the white boxes below are empty, please complete the following, otherwise skip to 2. below: First, copy and paste the following code in the header bar: 17:23:56, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib Then, copy and paste this code in the big input box below that:

Scharrlib (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Below that, explain why you are requesting assistance, take as many lines as you need and make sure to remember to sign your post with Scharrlib (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up. Wikipedia is no place to advertise. I've took a look at your draft. Furthermore, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Scharrlib. I'm sorry that you haven't received more useful advice. The main issue with your draft, Draft:School of Health and Related Research, is its lack of citations to reliable sources. I'm not quite sure why Whispering declined the draft as being "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia", but I would note that articles on individual university departments are quite often deleted or merged into articles about their parent institutions. The exception would probably be if your department was independently notable, through having been written about extensively in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

An IP editor has said on my talk page with edit summary Words of encouragement. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_English Why did you undo my correction of the Glottocode for New Zealand English? How was it "unconstructive" when it's entirely factual and up to date? I see you've been in trouble with Administrators before - I wonder why. But fine: have it your way; keep your little fiefdom; I couldn't care less. and I replied Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I am sorry if I undid a constructive edit. I have reverted your edit to New Zealand English. Hope that helps. Should I be concerned? Mstrojny (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've come across an obnoxious editor, editing from an IP address. It's not worth a second thought. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Mstrojny, welcome back again to the Teahouse. Should you be concerned? Probably not, but that depends what you mean by 'concerned'. You certainly won't be taken to WP:ANI for that, and you did absolutely the right thing both by asking here for feedback, and for reverting your edit. Maproom was right - the IP editor did come across rather unreasonably to you, though I can understand why to some extent. I looked at the sequence of events, and I do think you made two, possibly three, mistakes. So, yes, you should be concerned to understand what you did wrong, and how to resolve any problems you might have caused, just as any good editor should. The trick - as in the real world - is to appreciate what those mistakes were, learn from them and not to repeat them, and to understand that wrong decisions and unjustified warnings can really upset others (after all, there's a real person behind every IP address. But they should have responded in a WP:CIVIL way to you, which they did not.). Let's break it down, shall we?...

...First off, the IP editor made this valid edit which improved the page. (Admittedly, like you, I'd never come across 'Glottolog' codes before this question, but by following the link in the Infobox, it was easy to see it's a legitimate language database (we even have a Wikipedia page about it. see: Glottolog). It's really important not to jump to conclusions about IP editors - the vast majority of their edits are just as constructive as those of registered users. OK, so you saw their edit (maybe at 'Recent Changes'?) and reverted it with Twinkle without leaving any edit summary, and you then took up Twinkle's offer of templating the IP editor, and gave them a level 1 warning for vandalism on their Talk Page. That was quite unjustified and your second mistake. You really should have spotted that wasn't vandalism. So, not surprisingly, they came to your Talk page and expressed their frustrations with your actions. They did not cover themselves in glory in the way they went about addressing you. You then did the right thing by reviewing your actions, reverting them, and apologising to the IP editor. So that was great. Well done. I think you could still go one step further and go back to their talk page and remove your templated warning, leaving an edit summary along the lines of "removing warning template - I added it in error, sorry". Not removing that template was your third mistake, and you can still correct that one if you wish.

I do think it was a little unfair of the IP editor to highlight your past problems and block - though perhaps understandable under the circumstances, though the 'obnoxious' way they did it was not OK. It certainly looks like you're really doing your best to now be a constructive editor - and that's absolutely fantastic, and what we want to encourage. You certainly don't need to be concerned if this is a one-off error, and you have to learn not to be upset when people aren't polite. Just be careful not to make too many more. i.e. err on the side of caution, especially avoiding accusations of vandalism and not reverting or rollbacking edits without leaving an edit summary. But unless you do stuff here, you won't be helping; and whenever we do stuff, inevitably we sometimes make mistakes. I certainly do. The trick is to try to recognise when we've made an error, rather than rush on to resolve the next issue. Stay a while longer and consider whether your actions were justified.

So don't be concerned that this single, genuine mistake will affect your ability to edit. You dealt with it OK. You do seem hasty in placing some of your higher level warning templates, (like this level 3 notice, and this level 2 one). And in future, don't quote other people in bold - either use italics or, better still, the {{tq}} template, which puts quoted text in green like this.

Finally, and on a completely different note, what I would suggest is that you remove the WP:REDIRECT from your Userpage to your Talk page, and simply place there a few honest lines about yourself and your past mistakes for which you were blocked, explaining what you're now trying to do to make up for it, and the type of editing you're now doing. That way, when someone comes to ask why you've done something, they'll see a positive statement about your current approach to editing, rather than lots of old talk page messages just highlighting past issues. I hope this (rather long) explanation serves it purpose, and that you go on to serve Wikipedia well over the years ahead. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice, Nick Moyes. Mstrojny (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making your own article.

Can someone please tell me how to start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B023:3231:F45A:F9CE:D0D9:4A74 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Your first article. Choose a topic that's WP:NOTABLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a reliable source

I am creating my first page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramon_Rivas_Musical_Artist_Audio_Engineer#External_links but I cannot find a good third party source for an indie album. I can only find it on sales sites like "spotify". Any suggestions would be welcome. Is there an "Allmusic" type site for Indie music? Wanderingfreeman (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wanderingfreeman. Before looking for that source, have you considered whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I'm concerned that the sources you've cited in Draft:Ramon Rivas Musical Artist Audio Engineer might not yet establish that Rivas has been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources, which is the standard that needs to be met for an article to be published without risk of subsequent deletion. Are there any other newspaper or magazine profiles of him? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrikson Stallard

Hey I’ve written a post titled ‘Fredrikson stallard’ but it has neither been verified or reviewed - could someone please help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise lost 90: You asked this a couple of days ago and received a response here, which still applies. (I don't see how that draft could realistically be accepted, I'm afraid - it is almost entirely promotional, and a lot of the information is unsourced. Some of the text that has a reference isn't actually supported by the source either, which is also problematic. But it will be up to the reviewing editor.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the draft again as it still reads like an advert, it is stuffed full of marketing trumpery….“pushed the boundaries of art and design”, “famous 'Momentum' collection”, “famous London gallerist being pivotal to their meteoric rise”, “exhibit inside the grand reception at The Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park”, “packaged in a weighty rock glass with a luxurious patinated brass”’ “driving a program of creative collaborations”, “often collaborate with leading commercial brands”, “most tangible expression of contemporary design”, “filled with the apparatus of a cutting-edge studio”, “starting a conversation between their work and the observer”, “industrially crafted and yet emotionally engaging” etc etc. none of which is the neutral tone which we expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Hi everyone. Could you pls review the article for Benjamin Schnau after I made last requested changes

Hi everyone. Could you pls review the article for Benjamin Schnau after I made last requested changes. Thank you --Franklin187 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MARK ZUNINO

Hi, my recent article submission for Mark Zunino was rejected due to a lack of reliable resources, specifically secondary sources. The rejection also stated that IMDB is not a credible resource for Mark's designs in films and TV shows. What would constitute as a reliable source and what is meant by a secondary source?

My article submission can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Zunino

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakkarysmith (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakkarysmith: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please click on and read WP:RS for information on what reliable sources are, but in short, reliable sources have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Those are usually media outlets like newspapers, but can be other forms of sources. IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Hello. How do I change the name of the wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author Kharisma (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Author Kharisma. You get somebody who is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED to WP:MOVE it for you. BTW, if you are thinking of moving your draft to article space, it is not ready for that yet. —teb728 t c 23:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praticing Artist of 11 Years Page

Hi there,

I noticed you rejected the page I was placing together without subsequent reason. Lists of works have been including externally. I was in the middle of editing. I would appreciate a revise so I can continue to build.

Kind regards,

Mennie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drycontext (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drycontext. I am actually unfamiliar with the rejection you received (though I took an almost year's long break recently). I've never before seen an AfC decline template that did not have a button allowing the draftee to resubmit for review. In any event, there's nothing stopping you from continuting to edit Draft:Rue (Artist)—hopefully citing in a transparent manner to reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (not just mere mentions) to verify the information content and demonstrate the notability of the subject, without copying the words used—and when you are finished, adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft to resubmit it for review. Be aware that the standards I referred to, citing sources and the like, are what's needed to write and article that will "stick". If the types of sources I mentioned don't exist, then no proper article will be possible. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drycontext, I took a look at the versions of your draft, and you did something in this edit that changed your article from "draft" to "submitted for review". So, a reviewer looked at it and declined it. You have to be very careful not to move or change anything in that template until you're ready to submit your article for review. You can check Preview to make sure the templated review message continues to show as "draft". Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: The AfC rejection template is a new feature, different from a decline, that is meant to discourage resubmissions. CoolSkittle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MLK day

Someone please change the info on the MLK Day page, its extremely inappropriate!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7A00:1902:9122:13C2:76B7:6E81 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. The image has been removed, and the user blocked. You can report vandalism quickly here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got a message someone is talking about edits I may have made on the Admin notice board?

I don't know where to read about it. I just received a message but I don't understand how read it. It says: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. How do I view this? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator's noticeboard is here but Moxy removed the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style Question on "Signing" Posts in the "Talk" Section

[This Section] shows what I'm talking about. As I learn to use/edit Wikipedia, certain details become more important to me, and in this case it's about how to structure the text I've written so that it's beginning and end are clearly delineated.

I've learned to use the full colons to indent the beginning of the text to show that it's in response to the one immediately "out dented" above it, and so now the ending of the text I've posted is an issue. I don't like to "sign" (with the 4 tildes) at the very end of a line of text; particularly if that causes the signature to get hung at the right side of the page. So what I've learned to do is use two carriage returns and enough colons to throw the signature part one line below the text I've posted, and indented to the same "level" as what I've posted. I like this because it clearly shows the end of my text, which then implies that anything after that, is the beginning of someone else's, which I think is a good thing since sometimes people just throw their text in any old way and sometimes it's hard to see where one person's texts ends, and another person's begins.

I'm posting this here to make certain that this isn't going to be a problem. There's an extra line between the text and the signature, and it's blank. Maybe someone will have a problem with that, and then I'll hear all about it. Better to get ahead of this potential problem and ask the question. Also, in a more general sense are there any policies or conventions that regulate the syntax of posts/text in the "Discussions" that I (or anyone else) should know about?

Tym Whittier (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tym Whittier. Welcome to the Teahouse. Having skimmed (skum?) through Wikipedia:Signatures, I didn't find anything there which says you must not separate your signature from the end of your post, but I do think it's a really bad idea, and not something I like to see at all. By convention, we all place our signatures immediately after the last paragraph we've posted. It strongly associates our name with our comments. By doing your own thing and by adding an extra line makes me think someone else has just posted their signature, and that the posting itself is unsigned. I find it confusing. If we all did it, that would be fine, but we don't. It also spaces out the discussion more than is needed. Maybe others can find a policy which says you "must" do it that way. WP:SIGAPP states not to add an extra line by means of the break command ( <br />). I would simply urge you to follow the convention that virtually all editors follow, irrespective of whether you like it. You have, yourself, also been prone to missing out the indent when you sign in that way, as you can see on this discussion on your own Talk Page, and that is always going to cause confusion, especially in complex discussions.

I also note that in our "Missing Manual" we have this very clear advice: "Don't start a new line or paragraph when you sign your comments. At the end of the body of your comment, just add a space or two, or a dash or two, or both, for separation, and then add the four tildes. (Extra lines for your signature just take up space on a page, and adding them is the mark of an inexperienced user.)"

Regarding syntax and guidelines, I'd suggest you browse through: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page layout. Does this give you the answer you sought? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice, and the fact that I've messed up the formatting on some of the things I've posted is a primary reason why I'm paying attention to it now; trying to refine "the Method" I'm going to use.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

An editor, User:SounderBruce continues to remove my content. Initially Neighbors Against Greenhaven, was admittedly not neutral, and a separate article, however, it was whittled down and then was told to add it to the Greenhaven article. After multiple edits it was whittled down to one sentence with a verifiable source. I thought it was settled but they took down my content because I inadvertently left a citation, they removed my entire content, not just the citation.

I removed the extra citation and they removed content again saying it was a duplicate content, but it wasn’t. Multiple times I was told to discuss on the Talk page of the article in question, but they never discuss there. I posted on their talk page but was told I was edit warring.

Please advise TravelinFool 02:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TravelinFool. There is already information in the article about two community groups that oppose the formation of the proposed city of Greenhaven. You have repeatedly been trying to add information later in the article about one of those two groups. So the other editor is correct that you are trying to add duplicate content. I have reviewed most of your edits, and have you complained several times that people are removing your "approved" content. That word indicates that you may not understand how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as approved content because when it comes to content decisions, all editors are equal, as long as what they propose is in line with our policies and guidelines. We have no content approvers here. You need to convince other editors on the article talk page that it is a good idea to discuss this opportunity group twice in this fairly short article. Gain consensus, because that is how we make decisions. You must stop edit warring, because that can lead to a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I apologize. I never saw a post that said this content was added in any of the edit remarks, so hopefully you can see my confusion. My last comment would be why isn’t an external link to N.A.G allowed if there is an external link to the pro side Imagine Greenhaven? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine what became of a submission

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia writing and am trying to understand what became of an article I submitted on 16 December 2018. Initially, there was a question raised about a photo that I included then the photo was reinstated after I sent additional information. However, I am wondering if I did something else incorrectly as I have not seen any followup. It may just be due to the huge backlog of submissions awaiting volunteer editors but if it is an issue relating to how the article was written or submitted I would like to fix it ASAP. The article concerns a gentleman who is now 95 and we were hoping to be able to post the information while he was still alive and could answer questions if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shosh2/sandbox/Louis_Rosenblum

Thanks so much for any advice that can be offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shosh2 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shosh2, welcome to the Teahouse. Nothing has become of your article - it is still in your sandbox, exactly where you created it/pasted it in. In other words, you haven't yet submitted it for review at Articles for Creation. If you wish to do that, simply add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and save your changes by clicking the big blue 'Publish changes' button. Unfortunately, this name tends to confuse new editors who sometimes think it means a page is put forward for inclusion in the main part of Wikipedia. (We are unable to do anything about this recent global name-change, sorry). There is a long backlog of articles awaiting review, so this can take some time. You are well-advised to remove anything from the article which cannot be verified from published sources. The "Early life" section, for example, is completely unreferenced, and this isn't OK. Maybe Mr Rosenblum can point you towards sources that talk about his early life. What we don't accept is Mr Rosenblum's own words about himself. Everything here has to be provable from sources that someone in a library or on the other side of the world can check out for themselves. "If in doubt, leave it out". You might also wish to reinsert the previously deleted image you referred to. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Refimprove" vs. "more citations needed"

What is the distinction between {{refimprove|date=November 2008}} and {{more citations needed|date=November 2008}} (or whatever date applies)? I occasionally see the former changed to the latter by editors, and I don't understand the difference. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. Please take a look at the documentation at Template:More citations needed. That is the name of the actual template. {{refimprove}} is a common redirect to the master template, and I was surprised to learn just now that there are no less than 32 different redirects to the main template. Functionally, both chunks of code perform the same, but some editors enjoy reducing unneeded redirects, and that is a useful thing. It makes the encyclopedia run a bit more efficiently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cullen328. I had never thought of redirects being used for templates, but it's a logical approach. I will try to remember to use the master template in the future. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleted product infobox

Hello, I recently added an infobox @ pennsylvania bluestone and @ flagstone. Bluestone Flagstone is a product so I used a product infobox to display a picture of the product which was missing from the article. That seems correct to me. The infobox includes a link back to a blog post with a description of pertinent high quality information regarding the subject. I was told by one editor that it was commercial in nature though I don't believe there is anything there to justify that assumption, particularly if one is assuming good faith. Another editor mentioned that the blog might non-WP:RS. The information is just not likely to be refuted or viewed in a skeptical fashion because it is completely neutral. The fact is there are no books on the subject. Being an expert in the field I want to share with and educate those interested in the product. Furthermore, the site currently has no references that speak to the pages content, sadly. Thanks for any input.Stevenvieczorek (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stevenvieczorek. As a general rule, blog posts are not acceptable as reliable sources. Two exceptions come to mind: First are blogs under the direct editorial control of published newspapers and magazines that are themselves reliable sources. Second are blogs by recognized experts in a topic area whose work has been widely published by reliable sources. Other references to blog posts should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your welcomeCullen328. Have you looked at at the the actual edit in question? It is not a contentious issue nor is one where someone would be likely to challenge. It simply a picture of a product. The blog it links to has industry insider information which is useful. Have you read: "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" at WP:RS? Wouldn't you agree that that applies here? I would very much appreciate consensus here. The information is good. I will check out Let's discuss it. Thanks again for your input!Stevenvieczorek (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that a picture of product (bluestone, flagstone) belongs in the body of the article, not an info box, and definitely not with a bloglink. The blog appears to have been created by Stevenviesczorek, who is in the stone business. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait time before making major edits

Hi! I made a couple of suggestions for edits to pages that I figured should be discussed first. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait before I change the article? No one has responded to my comments, although it has only been 5 days. Thanks! CLPond (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond[reply]

Hi CLPond. There's really no "set time" so to speak, so if you feel the edits should be made you can do so. It might be a good idea to add a link to the talk page discussion as part of your edit summary just so others can better understand why you made the edit. Editors can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS when editing. If you do the former and nobody reverts your changes, then perhaps you can assume WP:SILENCE. If you do the latter but nobody comments in response, you can also assume SILENCE and make the edit. In either case, you should consider the change to be OK until somebody undoes it or asks for clarification, but once that happens you should try to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion, unless the revert is completely contrary to relevant policies and guidelines.

Usually, when you make a change to an article with lots of page watchers, you find out fairly quickly (sometimes within a few minutes) as to whether anyone disagrees with the change. Some articles, however, might not have lots of page watchers, which means that comments posted on their talk pages might go unnoticed or unresponded to for quite a long period of time. If you really want input from others, you can try asking a relevant noticeboard or on a WikiProject talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new info

hi. can i start a page on a music artist with new info updates? ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.88.108 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 60.241.88.108. If an article about the artist already exists, then you might be able to add this new information to that article yourself per Wikipedia:Bold as long as you do so per Wikipedia:Five pillars, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people if the artist is still living. If you're not sure how to add the information youself or whether it's OK to do so, you can always start a discussion about it on the relevant article's talk page and ask others for help or feedback. One thing to try and remember is that articles are not really intended to include every piece of true information about their subjects, even if the information can be properly verified.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to create a new article about an artist, then you should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) first in order to assess whether the artist would be considered Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article. If you then feel they are, then you might want to look at Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on how to write articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Robert Guibe

It is very clear to me that Wikipedia is total nonsense as are the people involved with it. To suggest that English Heritage, The Royal Archive, the Heralds, Burkes peerage and the Vatican are unreliable sources of information is frankly insulting to anyone with one working brain cell. Fact and Reality as well as common sense are clearly something Wikipedia cannot deal with and by the way, your page on Cardinal Robert Guibe is WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.27.147 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 78.147.27.147. It's not clear which article you're referring to because your edit at the Teahouse is the only one listed in your contribution's history. If by chance it's Robert Guibé, then you can be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion at Talk:Robert Guibé about any problems you feel need fixing or you can simply be WP:BOLD and try and fix them yourselves. Nobody has edited the article since July 2018 and it appears to be fairly stable for the most part without any disputes over article content or sources, so maybe you mean a different article.

As for reliable sources, reliability often depends upon the context in which a source is being used, but if the sources you mentioned above satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you should be able to cite them in articles. If you'd like more specific feedback about a particular source, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: This may be related to the section #Gibb as surname above. It would be wise for Richard Gibb and the IP to read WP:Referencing for beginners to understand how to cite the sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it would also be wise for them to rein in their frustrations and not to insult all and sundry here. Every editor contributes voluntarily, and through the best of intentions. It can be a challenge to understand how things operate but, as in life, a little diplomacy can go a long way in getting the support or guidance one needs. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard Gibb You are railing against strawmen. The issue is your citation in an opaque and vague manner to sources like "The Vatican", "Collage of Arms", "National Records Kew ", instead of transparently citing a particular piece of information to being verified, for example, by the text located at a particular page of a particular book, identified by year, name, author, location, ISBN, etc., so that others can verify the information. This is a basic requirement of academic writing and citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting my article approved

Hi guys

I have just finished a draft of an atricle i want to add to wikipedia. It is simply a rock band from the 1960s.

It has given me this is message at the top of the draft now:

"This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."

I really don't know what to do from here.

Im happy to show someone from the Wikipedia volunteer team my draft and if someone can please assist me on what I need to do with it to be approved etc

I hope to hear from someone soon,

Gino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegman81 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegman81. The notice was placed on Draft:Daisy Clover (band) by GSS, who also placed a longer message on your User talk page, suggesting that you may have a conflict of interest. GSS has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for believing that you may have a conflict of interest, or be a paid editor, so the appropriate action is to ask them why they say this. You can do this in any of three places: the talk page of the draft article, their own user talk page, or on your own user talk page, replying to their message. I have just pinged them above, so they will see this message and, I hope, respond.

One point you might not be aware of about Wikipedia: we are a huge collection of volunteers, all more or less equal. Anybody may put a message on an article like the one GSS put on Daisy Clover, if they think it is justified; anybody may remove it if they think the issue has been resolved. However, given that the message relates to your contribution, it would be a bad idea for you to remove it without discussion. I confess I am puzzled why GSS has put such a message up without giving any explanation of why they think it is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Colin. Yes well I'm new to all this, I'm not even sure how to reply to you here. I'm hoping this is it?

Ok I will try and reach out to user GSS nd see what I can do.

Thanks again.

Gino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegman81 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gino, you have successfully replied to me. Two formatting points: if you reply to a message on a talk page like this, please indent your reply with a colon at the start of every paragraph (or one more colon than whatever you are replying to). Secondly, please sign your posts on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. This GSS user is still giving me grief about my article. First it was that he thought that I paid someone from Upwork to make the article, which i have since explained i haven't. Then is was the photo i used. the photo is simply an image from a newspaper from 50 years ago that would have no copyright issues with me uploading it. Anyway i have just removed the photo and will look into getting approval to use it or find a different photo of the band. For now I will leave it with out one. Now he is taken issue with the fact that the drummer in the band was my father! He has put another message about my draft. Are you able to, at all, please assist me in getting this draft approved and uploaded to Wikipedia? Im happy to amend any of it to suit but I believe that I shouldn't have to as I have made it neutral, true and accurate as possible, with many cites and references. Please see if you can check out my article and assist me thanks mateThegman81 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The banner placed at the top of the article IS appropriate, as you do have what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This does not mean that the draft will not be accepted if every else OK. If accepted, the banner would remain. On the Talk page of the draft you should create a section to declare the nature of your COI. The photo (since deleted) did have a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long will it take to Publish or include my first Draft page in Wikipedia?

Hello Team Teahouse,

I have recently created a Draft page for a person and the draft seems good with all the links and all. I wanted to ask usually how long does it take to get draft page approved to become a Main page on Wikipedia.

Also Creating a new page is also covered in Editing to become Autoconfirmed User?

Here is my page's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ajeet_Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReelingMedia (talk • contribs) 10:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ReelingMedia.

In regards to how long it takes for a Draft Page to become approved, that depends on how many articles are waiting the queue. To start the process, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article.

As for creating a new page, yes, that will count towards the edit count needed to become auto-confirmed.

However, I would like to ask a few questions about the article. First, it has a section at the top dating from 2010 asking for additional citations. Why did you include that? Second, I am not sure that Ajeet Kumar is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia at the present time. While the article has a decent collection of sources, none of them include more than a passing reference to the subject, which is not sufficient for proving notability. Do you have additional sources that focus on the individual specifically?

Finally, I note that your name, ReelingMedia, has a tenuous link with the individual in question. If I am barking up the wrong tree, then I apologize, but you may wish to read this on detailing with any potential conflict of interest.

Before I go, I would just like to add - Welcome to Wikipedia!

-- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFA(Atheist Foundation Australia)

Hi there!

I've recently made some small edits to the AFA page you've got, was going to do more such as delete a section that isn't true anymore & maybe add some pictures to brighten it up a bit & some quotes from famous atheists but wanted to be sure it was OK to proceed since I'm a member of the AFA council .

Zabebew . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabebew (talk • contribs) 13:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zabebew: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking. If you are a member of this organization, you should avoid editing the article about it directly; instead you are welcome to make a formal edit request on the article talk page(click that link for more info) detailing any changes you would like to see; your request will be reviewed by independent editors. You should read about conflict of interest and make the appropriate formal declaration on your user page. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Word limit

Is there any word limit for an article to be created on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfli18755 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragonfli18755: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no fixed limit for articles outside the technical limitations of the software which no one is likely to ever breach. However, you can refer to the guideline at WP:ARTICLESIZE on how to handle large articles. In general, articles that are larger than 100,000 characters will almost always be split into smaller sub-articles to maintain readability. The second link also contains instructions on how to propose such a split. Regards So Why 16:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Can we use Wikipedia links as citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfli18755 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfli18755, in other wikipedia articles? No. Outside of wikipedia? see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. For citing Wikipedia in other works, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Regards So Why 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when a noticeboard question goes unanswered?

Hi. I've only been a member of Wikipedia for 15 years, so bear with me. I posted a question to WP:NORN, the noticeboard for questions about the WP:OR policy and its application. That noticeboard apparently has little traffic and after eight days, I still have not a single comment on my question. Is there a place where one can ask for people to comment on such a question without appearing canvass-y or annoying? After all, the noticeboard is the correct place for the question and I cannot find any other venue that would be equally correct. Regards So Why 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might get a little more attention with a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, RFCs were always for when you want to make changes to pages, not when you need input on an interpretation. Thanks for the tip! Regards So Why 17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl of Wisdom Needed

Sadly I cant get a article or edit to stick. My information is sought after yet there are no reliable sources to site. The knowledge I wish to share is not published anywhere. My own articles are valid and useful but are viewed as unreliable. For example: http://flagstones.org/2019/01/20/natural-cleft-pennsylvania-bluestone/. Do I have a leg to stand on or should I give up trying to provide useful information here. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenvieczorek (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenvieczorek: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the information you want to post is not published in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject, it cannot be on Wikipedia. If you just want to tell the world about your information, you should use social media or other website that you personally can operate. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us are experts about something. We do not add links to our own websites or blogs. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically archiving user page

How do I get my talk page to automatically archive old conversations? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC) + edit[reply]

User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo tells you about one method. Help:Archiving a talk page talks of others. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase SigmaBot III

I recently edited my talk page to automatically archive old posts using the above bot. I set the “old” parameter to 10 days. Does this mean that the thread will be archived 10 days after being created, or 10 days after the most recent post? Also, I have already created an archive page manually. How do I tell the bot to start archiving from page 2? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find article I was working on

Hi all!

I was working on an article on event cameras about one month ago, which I wanted to finish off and publish. However, I can't find the page any more. Is it possible that the page was deleted because it was stagnant for a month? I thought that the URL was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SquidWhisperer/EventCamera, but maybe I have gotten this wrong. Can I somehow view all of the pages in my namespace (SquidWhisperer)?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidWhisperer (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant search at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=prefix%3AUser%3ASquidWhisperer%2F&title=Special%3ASearch and it finds nothing. Similarly your contribution record shows no edits except for your question here. Perhaps you forgot to press the "Publish changes" button to save your edits? - David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take mint and the legislative info box

Hi I edited the Andi Story article. She is a new Alaska state Representative (elected in November, sworn in Jan 15). I cited the new page of representatives. But don't know how to change the place in the infobox (on the right) that says "Member-elect" would appreciate direction to tips to read or the answer right here. Thanks, orcalover orcalover (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Orcalover: and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the wrong display of "Member-elect" (instead of just "Member") in Andi Story with this edit. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why the other parameters don't work (and am too lazy to dig into the spaghetti code of Template:Infobox officeholder). But you could use the alternative parameters for now, and I'll report the issue at Template talk:Infobox officeholder to let the coding experts for this template know about it. GermanJoe (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orcalover. There is no doubt that Andi Story is notable as a newly elected member of the Alaska legislature and ought to have a Wikipedia biography. The current article is just a beginning, and ought to be improved over time. Your help is appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take a wiki page draft to be active or Live?

I have contributed to Wikipedia by drafting a page. I am wondering how long it usually takes for the page to be active? Right now the pending queue is showing 1453 articles to be read before mine. This number is increasing day by day instead of decreasing. Appreciate your feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzzane lasale (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzzane lasale: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are reviewed by volunteers, who do what they can when they can. As you are aware, there are hundreds of drafts awaiting review; it will likely take many weeks. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the submission box it says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order". One thing which you can usefully do while you are waiting is to remove the misplaced external links from the article text. You may have intended some of them to be references. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a new page

Hello,

I would like to set up a new page for a legendary movie producer who doesn’t have a page on Wikipedia currently; how do I go about doing this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela RPor (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamela RPor: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. If you want to dive right in, I would strongly advise you to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and the process. If you have any connection to this director, you must disclose it per the conflict of interest policy and (if it is a paid connection) the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pamela RPor. When I see somebody ask about "setting up a page for" someone or something on Wikipedia, I always think that they are confusing Wikipedia with social media or a directory. I urge you to replace that phrase in your mind with "writing an article about". If such an article is written, it will not belong to the producer, they and their associates will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly (they are welcome to suggest changes), and they will have no part in deciding what does and what doesn't appear in the article. Please see WP:PRIDE. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage formatting

Is there a way for me to align Template:Userpage blue border short on the left and and have my service badge aligned directly on the right, so that they are level? (Link to my userpage in signature) Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Puzzledvegetable. Does the alignment change I made suffice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's perfect. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: Great. Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take Jack in main characters

Please take jack in main characters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.87.77 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is your only edit using this IP address, so we don't know what Jack you're referring to, nor what "take" might refer to, as to which main characters, of what show.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me?....

Hi. I recently changed the font on my talk page to veranda, now when I go on any user talk page the font is veranda, is it just me? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegooduser. You mean Verdana. The font in User:Thegooduser/Templates/Talk Page only affects User talk:Thegooduser. Are you sure you see it everywhere? That would require a change of your personal css or your default browser font. Maybe you only saw talk pages which happen to have the same or similar font. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do i make my Wikipedia page live?

I have drafted a Wikipedia page about a man by the name of 'Baddy Oosha', how do i get it published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Baddy_Oosha — Preceding unsigned comment added by RochL (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and it will be sent for review but this can take up to ~~6 week~~ 2 months (backlog is even higher than normal). RhinosF1 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my word Hello is wrong?

Please tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Trump (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! Pooja Shrivastav08 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article was deleted as you stopped working on it. The submit function sends it to review for an article which the word 'Hello' is not. You are free to leave it in your userspace though. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how to change Pictures

I am new to wikipedia,I have seen some celebs wikipedia pages and they have quite old pictures...I want to modify them, can I do that?? If yes then how. Grewal SInder (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grewal SInder, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can not exchange them for ones you find whereever on the internet, since those are almost always copyrighted. "We" have a place called Commons where people can donate/search for "free" pictures. If you have celeb photos you have taken yourself you can upload them there and then they can be used on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources

Having difficulty finding sources for a page I'm working on despite knowing that the information is correct. There exists real-world artifacts which could be a source... but no such luck for websites. Is it okay to not have sources under some circumstances? Zantarctica (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Zantarctica. There must always be published sources, but they don't have to be online. Newspapers, magazines, and books are acceptable. —teb728 t c 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BigDFT (January 21)

I created the BigDFT page a long time ago and the creation of a new page about BigDFT with the version 1.6.0 was not from me. Is it a bug from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdoune (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a bug from Wikipedia. User:Tdoune/BigDFT was a userspace draft that you were working on back in 2012, but for some reason User:Robert McClenon submitted your draft for AFC review, but he then immediately declined the submission himself on the grounds that BigDFT already exists in mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and the mainspace article was created by yourself on April 4, 2011‎, before you started the draft, and you have edited it 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as today. I suggest that you just delete the old draft to avoid confusion. Dbfirs 14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF WIKIPEDIA. PLEASE

I plead or wish to become a honest,loyal. member. of Wikipedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praisenwachi200 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praisenwachi200 and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. You have already joined Wikipedia by creating an account and we look forward to your edits. To get you started, you might like to try WP:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. Dbfirs 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, Praisenwachi200 and welcome both to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. There is no membership, as such. You have now become a registered Wikipedia editor, and you are free to contribute to any article that needs improving. Of course, just like school, we have lots of rules we ask everyone to follow. You might like to visit Wikipedia:Five pillars which explains how we are an encyclopaedia, based solely on reliable, factual information published elsewhere. In other words, we don't just add stuff from our own personal knowledge or beliefs.

Do try out The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tour, allowing you to gain 15 badges along the way to show your understanding of how we work. My advice is to start simply, perhaps making only small improvements of, say, spelling or grammar, to articles you have an interest in. Every article has its own talk page where issues or concerns around that particular topic can be discussed prior to adding to the article itself. We work by consensus (agreement) between other editors. So, if another editor reverses (reverts) any edit you have made, look at the 'edit summary' in the 'View History' tab associated with that page to understand why. They might even leave a note on your talk page to explain if they think you made a not very good edit. Don't panic over that - but listen to what they say and try to understand the reasons why. If you don't understand, you are, of course, entitled to ask them for an explanation. Do come back here again with any questions you might have, or visit Help:Contents to try to find answers for yourself. I'll pop by and leave you a 'welcome' message on your talk page, and I wish you luck at the start of your own, personal 'wikipedia adventure'. Oh, and try to sign every talkpage message so we know who has said what. To do this, simply type four keyboard tilde characters right at the end of the post (like this: ~~~~), and your user name and timestamp will then be automatically added when you save (publish online) your edits. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Profile/infobox photo

I am trying to swap out a picture in the Infobox for my boss's Wikipage. I can add a new photo but it does not replace the old one and I am having a hard timing finding the original picture to remove when opening up the source editor. Any ideas on how to replace the image?

Thanks,

Joeywyoming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeywyoming (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joeywyoming, First you may want to establish on your userpage that you have a WP:COI. This may restrict you from making direct changes to the page, but if you have the image you want, I can do it for you. Just be sure It is free use or that you have permission from your boss. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WelpThatWorked, - Please and Thank you! Page: Kenneth McPeek - Changes: The photo at the bottom Left needs to replace the headshot in the infobox on the right side panel - I have permission to Make the Changes and rights to the photo.

Joeywyoming,

Done WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joeywyoming. I'm not sure why WelpThatWorked mentioned "permission from your boss", as that is not relevant. Nothing about Wikipedia's article about a person requires their approval. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I'm guessing it was not permission to make the edit, but permission from the photo's copyright holder to upload it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FlyingAce, Yep, I was just mentioning he may need it if said photo was taken privately or was non-free for some other reason. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WelpThatWorked, FlyingAce. "Permission" is wholly irrelevant for images. Either the copyright holder has released it under a suitable licence, or they haven't. If they have, anybody may use it without permission. In the latter case, nobody may use, permission or not. (Unless the Non-free content criteria hold, in which case permission is again irrelevant). But I had checked before my comment, and seen that Joeywyoming had uploaded the photo as "Own work" in any case. --ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not exactly know how to make an article.

Hello everyone! I noticed that there are certain articles that can be made, like the biography of Robert Topala for example. I would love to contribute to Wikipedia by making accurate and up to date articles! But I do not know how to! I think it might have something to do with the "upload files" page, but my account is not verified yet and therefor I haven't tried that yet. A quick overview of the guidelines and ways to upload articles would be nice! Thanks! AnimationChromaAnimationChroma (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnimationChroma, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is unfortunate that so many new users think that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating a new article. It is useful to do so, of course, if the subject is notable; but improving existing articles is if anything more valuable, and a good deal easier. I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, before they embark on the rather difficult task of creating a new one. When you do decide to have a go at creating a new article, Your first article is the place to start. "Uploading", by the way, is generally for photos and other visual or audio media, not usually for text. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning forthcoming works

When is it appropriate to edit an article to include mention of a forthcoming publication? A year ago I added mention of a book contract (with $1 Million+ advance) to a biographic article. The book is a novel about the subject; I did not write the book nor have any connection to the author. It was a two-line edit with citation, but it was removed because the book hadn't been published yet, and as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.

The book now has a publication date of February 5, a page on the publisher's site, major author blurbs, a book tour, and is available for preorder on Amazon and multiple other places. Do I have to wait till February 5, or can I add this info now? And if so, how should it be worded? Thank you!Susanc1906 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)susanc1906[reply]

I recommend that you wait for a week or so after the book has been published, before trying to create an article about it. By then there should be published reviews of it. You will need to cite independent published sources to establish that the book is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article – blurbs etc. aren't independent, and will do nothing to help. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Susanc1906 is asking about adding the information to an existing article, Maproom, not creating a new article. Susan, items mentioned in articles about other subjects do not have to meet the criteria for notability, but they should still be referenced to reliable sources. Whether the sources need to be independent of the subject of the article depends on what kind of information it is: SELFPUB gives some guidance. I would say that in most cases information about a forthcoming work comes under the rubric of "self-serving", so should not be included unless it has been the subject of independent coverage (truly independent, not just regurgitated press releases). So, in short, my advice is the same as Maproom's, even though it is a different case. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about Bycombia

I am editing the article Bycombia and have two questions. I have information that lists the subfamily and tribe and want to know if this information should be added to the taxonomic box. Also, there is very little written about this moth and I think the article pretty much plumbs the depths of what's out there. Can O remove the stub template? Many thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Deletion

I discovered a page on Wikipedia that I wanted to create (which is located here). This link contains my draft. Since I made the draft, can I delete it since I don’t need it anymore? LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As sole author you can tag it for deletion by pasting {{Db-author}} at the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid I.V.

Can someone please give me detailed instructions on how to request that a page be written about Liquid I.V.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthaliv (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid I.V. is another`water plus electrolytes product in same general family as Gatorade, Powerade, Pedialyte, etc. Less sugar. Contains a few vitamins. The company's own website has a section called "Science," but it provides no references to clinical trials or reviews published in science journals. A hasty search could not find any mention of science for the claims that when added to water it is more hydrating that wate alone. IMO, not article-worthy. I see that on your User page, you declare a COI with this proposed topic. What is the nature of the COI? David notMD (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright images in Flickr

Hi. I found some images in Flickr that are "all rights reversed" and I really think these images are useful. I want to use them in Wikipedia. What are the possible ways to upload them to Wikipedia. If geting permission (by paying money) from the owner is the answer then what are the steps to get permission and then prove to Wikipedia that the owner has allowed me to use his own work in Wikipedia. I am new in these things so I don't have much idea about these things. Thanks in advance --SharabSalam (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use those images, except for the very limited cases that meet all the criteria at WP:NFCC. The owner would need to release the image under a free license that allows reuse for any purpose (not just for Wikipedia). RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hello SharabSalam, Wikipedia requires permission not only for use on Wikipedia but also for use anywhere for anything, including commercial use and making derivative works. The way to request permission is described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 18:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spikeball vs. Roundnet Wikipedia pages

Hi there,

I have a question for the group - I am someone who competes in a sport called roundnet, and has done some work for a company that creates equipment for that sport (Spikeball Inc.)

Currently the Wikipedia page for roundnet exists and describes the sport fairly accurately, but the Wikipedia page for Spikeball equates the two and is merely a redirect to the roundnet page.

What is the best way to go about getting that relationship clarified and an accurate page for Spikeball Inc. added to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c4:c400:9b73:b4dd:8820:d242:1aa (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bennett ...the audio diaries part 2

Hi,

can anyone let me and others know, what music is used at intervals during this recording on his CD. It sounds like a piano trio,..piano, cello, violin.

It's wonderful music and a great way to break up the diaries.

Thank you

brian puddifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian puddifer (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian puddifer, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we're only here to help editors who need assistance or guidance in how to edit Wikipedia pages. We're not here to research esoteric topics unrelated to editing. You ought to be able to use search engines to find such information yourself although, if you get stuck, there's is a bunch of people over at the Reference Desk who just might be willing to assist you. Regards from the Teahouse, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to get an Music Album article approved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnw28/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnw28 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the preview on Google

Hello,

How do i change the wikipedia preview information on google.

I would like to change the CEO name for Red Rooster to match the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster.

Thank you

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

[1]