Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PrimeHunter (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 13 November 2017 (→Template:Navbox: "Templates used in this preview"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

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

Article Declined?

Hi there! I'd really appreciate if someone could explain what exactly I need to change about this article to have it submitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Zumbyes I feel as though it expresses the credibility of the group through its participation in well known competitions and being a part of well known albums and it is referenced by multiple legitimate sources. Thank you for your time! Jrubenstein (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jrubenstein. Several of your references are to other Wikipedia articles. Those references should be removed immediately, because one Wikipedia article can never be a reference for another Wikipedia article. Even more important is that none of your references are to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic of the Zumbyes. University affiliated sources are not truly independent and do not establish notabilty. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jrubenstein since I made a typo the first time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328

Just made a bunch of changes to the references in the article, includes some mentions from the New York Times and notable a cappella institutions. Jrubenstein (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Jrubenstein. The New York Times reference sounded promising when I first read your comment, but it consists of saying, in an obituary, that a person named John Grant "was a founding member of the Zumbyes singing group at Amherst College." That is not significant coverage and is instead what experienced Wikipedia editors often call a "passing mention". That reference is of no value for establishing notabilty. You have removed some references and added others. The new references do not appear to be reliable, independent sources that have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I still do not see the type of coverage that would convince experienced uninvolved editors that this is a notable topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to engage an editor who is insisting that his knowledge is above reliable sources?

I do not know where to turn to. This editor reverted an edit I did for a Edit Request. After bringing it up on his page, providing (forwarding) the references provided with the request ... he still disagrees and refuses to share any reference in support of his statement. --G (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G. The short answer, which you may likely already know, is that if there are no sources to back it up, then it shouldn't be added to the article. If you're feeling particularly generous, you may try to find sources to back up the claim on your own, and add it to the article once you've found them. If you don't have time for an independent search, the editor doesn't seem to be able to understand our standards for verifiability, and would prefer to leave the edit request open, then you can probably just let them keep it open. Leaving it open just means that it's still in the queue of unanswered requests, and that editors on the English IRC channel are notified of it. That just makes it more likely that the editor will get a third opinion, and one that will mostly likely back up your attempt to explain our requirements for sources. GMGtalk 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. He reverted again. I am leaving that topic, just requesting him to leave the edit request open. He hats the edit request also promptly calling it vandalism. --G (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding self barnstars!

LilUzi25 has awarded themselves a whole bunch of barnstars. I am not sure of the etiquette of whether to just revert the edits. Thoughts? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little unusual but it doesn't do any harm. I don't see any benefit in involving yourself. Generally it's a good idea to avoid editing others' user pages unless you're sure they'll approve, or its absolutely necessary to prevent disruption. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have however notified them about their username. – Joe (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I awarded myself those to set goals. I have high expectations for myself. Understand? LilUzi25 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)LilUzi25[reply]

Why does it matter whats on my account. Why are you "admins" stalking me. Why is it that every time I submit an article to be reviewed it gets declined by the same people? And yes, I know that my username is named after Lil Uzi Vert. He's my favorite rapper. What do you expect? LilUzi25 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, don't decline another one of my articles if I submit it for review. I know when I have enough information, references, and when I've cited enough sources. `LilUzi25 (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstars are for achievements, not intentions. Otherwise, I could put on my resume that I have a Nobel Prize, because I hope to be awarded one before I die. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating information Help

Hi I would like to update some Bangladeshi celebrities information in wikipedia. Are you able to help?

since most of them are bengali newspaper link. It's hard for me to publish the page or update the page.

Jannatul.tasneem.moon (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jannatul.tasneem.moon: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure which pages you are referring to, but if you don't feel comfortable editing the articles you want to, you may post what you wish to do on the article talk page of the articles you want to make changes to. If you click "Talk" at the top of the article, it will take you to the talk page where you can post your request just as you posted your comment here. Your sources do not need to be in English as long as they are independent of the subject and reliable, click on WP:RS to learn more about this. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with template messages

Hello there, Thanks for replies on this topic so far. I have one last question regarding my first edit on Stuart Roy Clarke's page. The problem - the reason for two message templates - has been identified as someone who edited or created the source before me. Something I have no control over. So, what's the best action here for the page? Delete it and start again? I also was wrongly identified as being a "sock puppet" on the WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football. I am a photography student. I would like to create some articles on my favourite female photographers - another project I am working on now - and thought a good place to start would be editing a pre-existing article with readily identifiable flaws before I create wholly new content.

However, I am finding Wikipedia to be a bit a of confusing and somewhat intimidating space to work. The argument on the WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football page about Clarke's notability deteriorated into quite a harsh argument between two contributors. Clarke is notable. Google him.



Remove message template: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Hello, Last month I posted in the Tea Room regarding the message templates on a page I was editing about a photographer: Stuart Roy Clarke. It was my first edit on Wikipedia and I chose this subject as I'm a student of photography and had been doing a project on photography and football, where Clarke's work featured quite heavily. So, I felt that he was a good subject for my first edit as I felt I knew quite a lot about hm and his work. This was discussed with @David notMD and I hoped I clarified that I do not have a close connection with the subject. Can this message template now be removed?

I was a little disheartened after my first attempt at editing seemed to attract these message templates but am going to try again. I am going to address the citations issues on this page and hopefully the need for that message template too.

Best, Encyclopediadia (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the edit history is that it's nothing to do with your edits, but because of someone claiming to be Stuart Roy Clarke editing the article. - X201 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) The tag on Stuart Roy Clarke was not specifically referring to your involvement. If you read WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football you'll see that quite a number of accounts were under suspicion, including HomesOfFootball and StuartRoyClarke, so even if you have no connection with the subject it appears that other contributors do have, so the message template to which you refer seems justified. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Encyclopediadia (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

make article

Hi

I try sometimes to make an article but I cant and finally directed to help page instead of edit page.

what can I do for making article?A.R.Rostamzade (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A.R.Rostamzade, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months editing existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. Have you read your first article?
Looking at Draft:Ahmadreza Yalameha, I see that while you have started on some of the easy but superficial parts of the draft (the picture, the infobox) you have not really begun the important part, which is
  1. Find several reliably published sources where people who have no connection whatever with Yalameha have written in depth about him
  2. Forget every single thing you know about him, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say.
  3. Make sure you do not use any evaluative language at all (such as "valuable") unless you a directly quoting an independent source.,
When you have done that, you can add uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources.
Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest; but that template should be placed on your User page User:A.R.Rostamzade, not in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how many people edit a day?

how many people edit a day?Poppytree123 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say - the average edit count per day is in the region of 40,000 at the moment, but most editors will make multiple edits over the course of a single day. Assume your average editor makes around 10 edits per day, that would mean that the answer to your question is in the region of 4,000 people editing per day. But that's a very approximate figure. Yunshui 雲水 12:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that wasted a good 20 minutes of my day... :) - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution

Greetings friends! I am here from nearly 3 months but have less than 50 edits in article section. I want to contribute to an article but do not find any article my type. Is there a category or something where stub articles are listed to I can freely edit them ? Waiting for your answer—Big Hero 13:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @Big Hero: Wikipedia is a a work in progress as such there is always work to do which we can never finish. There is general category, Category:Wikipedia backlog which have many subcategories listing thousands of Wikipedia articles needing attention. From needing reference to general cleanup you'll find them subcategorized to specific problems they have and work on the ones you like. You can also visit Wikipedia:Task Center for more on that. I Hope you'll find this helpful.  — Ammarpad (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will try my best.—Big Hero 15:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing a New Article

I've working on an article recently about a Youtube channel, dshermz. It's a smaller channel so there are not many resources for information about the channel. Luckily, this youtuber happens to go to my school and I got an interview. I was hoping to publish a wikipedia article on who he is and some basic info about his channel. This would be helpful because it would be a recourse for information since I could not find any myself. My writing keeps being rejected due to a lack of sources cited and I don't know how to cite a private interview. Any help would be great.

Thanks, LilyLilyg73440 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lilyg73440, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the reason you can't work out how to cite a private interview is that you may not cite a private interview. Please understand that Wikipedia has hardly any interest in what anyone says about themselves. An article about that youtuber or their channel should not include any information that has not been published in a reliable place: none. And it should include hardly any information that comes from the youtuber or their friends, family or associates. The only information Wikipedia is interested in is what has been published in reliable places (such as major newspapers or news-sites, or books from reputable publishers) by people who have no connection with the subject. If several people who are not known to them have written reviews or articles about the channel, and had them published somewhere (not just their own blogs, or social media, but somewhere with a reputation for editorial control) then there can be an article based on those reviews. Otherwise, probably not. Please read about notability and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

references newbie user

I want to use the same reference twice in two separate parts of an article. I am getting two identical references at this point which is OK but seems unnecessary and perhaps would indicate that I don't know what I am doing.Mosesos (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mosesos, and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about not knowing everything about editing Wikipedia: it is a huge beast. The answer is that you can name the reference the first time you use it, and thereafter refer to it by name. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a submission removed and have a question

I recently contributed a sentence to the article The Good Doctor" (TV series). I saw that my quote was removed saying "it's never a good idea to begin a sentence with "And". The direct quote I added began with "And". What do I do in a case like that? I was simply trying to stay true to the quote in the magazine. Here's the exact sentence from the magazine. "And the October 9 episode received 18.2 million viewers, making it the most watched of any primetime program that week - beating out NCIS and The Big Bang Theory."One more question. Is there a way to get in touch directly with the editor who removed a contribution?

Thank you for your help. I'm still learning!

Mjr524 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mjr524 - the Manual of Style, MOS:PMC, states "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced". I understand that some people dislike starting sentences with a conjunction, but 1.) there's nothing wrong with that; and 2.) you're quoting from the reference. I see nothing wrong with it. In regards to contacting the editor, I'd say to WP:Ping them via the article's talk page, so that the conversation is in a centralized, but relevant, location. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 16:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Mjr524. If I could add to what NsTaGaTr has suggested, I've looked at your edit and the revert and can see both sides of the concerns. And it's nothing major. Basically, what you inserted was not a quote from a person, but was really just a line from a magazine stating a fact. So the best thing I'd suggest is to rephrase it in your own words (rather than cut/pasting it as quote.) (So, how about: TV Guide Magazine reported that the October 9th episode had been the most viewed primetime show that week, attracting 18.2 million viewers, and beating NCIS and the Big Bang Theory - plus citation). Had it been Mr Smith, the head of TV Magazine was stated as saying "And the October 9th episode...etc.", that might have been different, and would have deserved a full quote. There's more on quotations and formatting at Wikipedia:Quotations. To contact an editor, first find out which one you want to discuss a matter with (such as a revert) by going to the View History tab and looking to see which editors made the change. After their name you'll see a talk link in brackets. Click that to go to their Talk page, than click the Add Topic tab to start a new section on their page. Give it a sensible title (usually the article name) and politely ask about their changes or reverts. Emails and text messages always sound far harsher or terse than we mean to be, so always consider how you word your question and respond to replies. A simple discussion tends to be informative and constructive. I hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help. I guess I just felt that the information was so specific that I decided to quote it. Your suggestions are very much appreciated!

Mjr524 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I added {dubious} to a statement, can't make it link to Talk#section, only to Talk page, instructions in [WP:Template:Dubious#Usage] inscrutable. This is minor and I'm sure that I'm missing something simple, but I like to do it correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Twins_in_mythology&oldid=809668032

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit – The talk# part is unnecessary in this case, since the talk page is the only place you would be linking to anyway. Regards, Dairy {talk} 00:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dairy, Thank you. GeeBee60 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to submit a blog aur website on wikipedia ?

i want to know that how to submit a blog or website on wikipediaDainik Tricks (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? As in for a reference or a new article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dainik Tricks. I may be wrong, but I suspect that your question means that you think that Wikipedia is like a directory, and you can just get something (a blog, or a website) listed. It isn't. We aren't a directory, and we don't have listings. What we have is articles, which are neutrally written and based on independent, reliably published material about the subject. If there are several places where people who have no connection with the blog or website have chosen to published in-depth material about it, then we can have an article on it, based on those independent sources (the content of the blog, and anything that people say about it who are connected with it, are of very little interest to Wikipedia). If not, then I'm afraid that it is not possible to write an accaptable article about it. Please read the essays notability, verifiability, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I bring up a page of a name that originally had the meanings and origins behind it in the description but was changed to an actor's bio instead?

Please go search "Komal" and you will find the main article being of an actor's bio and info. It used to be that of a name and its meanings and origins. I would tired to move the actor's info as titling it as "Komal (actor)" but it got rejected. Here's the only list of articles with "Komal" in them but no where a singular non referencing to any partcular person but of a name descriptive context can be found. Kpatelboston 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the page in question: Komal (actor). Not sure what's going on here, with several different editors involved, but it does appear that a valid article about the meaning of a name has been lost in the shuffle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a user who wants to create an article on a topic of doubtful notability, realises that it is easier to find an existing but little-watched article and hijack it. I'll try to revert the article to its original subject. Maproom (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the first hijacking, to a village in Sri Lanka, was done on 2010 May 24. It was later re-hijacked to be about an actor. I don't feel competent to untangle this mess. Maproom (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the revisions of the article before the first hijacking, and I disagree that it was a valid article - it was unsourced and consisted of personal interpretations of original research with some very peculiar opinions thrown in and presented as fact. This is what it looked like before it was first changed. So while there could be an article about the meaning of the name, there is absolutely nothing worth salvaging in the history of that article - better to start from scratch, and base it on reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 22:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small Business - big in our sector/ notability

Hi,

I've had our page request rejected for not being notable enough. But that feels spurious?

We've received significant coverage from our peers and i've shared not just a couple, but over a dozen links from notable and independent sources.

It seems unfair that only larger business seem notable enough for a profile - they will naturally accrue MSM coverage - in the modern context it's TOTALLY correlated to financial clout or fundraising record. What because I've not needed to raise institutional money, I can't make something notable? It feels anti-competitive for the little-guys.

Is this what the community wants? We're a specialist, and by the terms of our industry and practice, rare. Were we a creature, rarity would be a valuable factor. In fact, we would be the evolving fish, crawling from the goo!

Our page was neutral, suitably. I didn't publish it purely for the kudos. But as an insurance startup, establishing fact and trust and credibility are important. Why should a giant firm like Apple - renowned for squirrelling funds offshore to avoid taxation - enjoy the privilege of a page, merely based on their size?

I see no distinction and feel for professional equality, that in our sector, by any measure, we are indeed notable.

I implore an editor kindly review or look at this, as naturally for our business, a wiki page would be a HUGE honour. Is there any kind of appeal process?

I fear this will shatter my faith in what the platform stands for. As it is, I don't understand the criteria's application in this case.

89.197.12.27 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly share what the business is? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This sounds like an extremely clear cut case of WP:COI. You would do well to read that. Also, there are two other things: one, Wikipedia includes articles on subjects that have been covered in reliable, secondary sources. What the company thinks about itself DOES NOT matter in the slightest, unless it is notable for a reason pertaining directly to their self-opinion (ie, a company has a negative self-view, things like that). Second, you use the word "we". You are editing from an IP address, but if you do register an account for creating this article, please note that it is strictly forbidden for an account to represent more than one person. This does not apply to IP accounts, only because of the nature of their assignments. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IP editor, this is your only edit to Wikipedia from this IP address, so there is no way for us to evaluate your draft. Please provide a link to the declined draft.
I have written several articles about relatively small businesses. In all cases, these were well-established and quite distinctive businesses that had received significant coverage in reliable independent sources over quite a few years. And I had no connection with any of these companies, except as an occasional customer. Experienced editors tend to be highly skeptical of articles about start-ups, because of the obvious promotional motivation for writing them. In this case, you admit (which is admirable) that you are connected with this company. Therefore, you have an inherent conflict of interest which must also be taken into account. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

My recent article: 'Tristan Mackay' has been rejected very quickly apparently due to a clear copyright infringement.

Considering I wrote this article entirely myself without any copy or paste, can someone please help me?

Tristan. Tristanmackay1982 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be mistaken, Tristanmackay1982. Your draft was declined because of a notability concern, as explained in the red box at the top of the page. There is a message on your user talk page about copyright infringement, but that is from back in 2012.
However, I'm afraid there's a bigger problem: you appear to be writing an article about yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. As I'm sure you can appreciate, an encyclopaedia where subjects regularly write their own biographies would not have a very good reputation. Creating autobiographical articles is therefore strongly discouraged under our conflict of interest policy. I strongly suggest you don't continue working on this draft. If you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, a volunteer editor will write an article about you in time. – Joe (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse,Tristanmackay1982. You should take Joe Roe's comments to heart. Autobiographies come under intense scrutiny here. In addition, your draft has four references. Only the first is of any value for establishing notabilty. The other three are not independent and therefore are worthless for establishing notabilty. Using references like those three is a strong signal to reviewers that your draft is not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why my citations are unreliable

I'm a mac software nerd.

I'm trying to add a page about a mac finance software. I've looked at a quite a few already on Wiki to get an idea of the format, and read up on the best practices. Some of those softwares already on wiki don't follow them ;)

I created what I thought was very objective info, with sources that followed the guidelines. I was rejected for the topic not worthy of notability, please add notability and citations. From my perspective, I think that itself violates the basic wiki guidelines. Why should I toot the horn of this product?

So I find some recent web mentions that should make "notability" for the software very clear. And now I am told they are not trustworthy? So help here, it's my first shot at actually making a wiki page. Thanks. Lotusborn1 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link is Draft:Banktivity - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Lotusborn1. Your draft article has four references. Only the first one, to Macworld, seems to be a high quality, reliable source. Your second source is to MachHow2, which looks like a blog of some sort to me. None of the posts are signed by actual human beings and I see no evidence of professional editorial control. The third reference also appears to be a blog post written by someone called Chris Hauk, self described as a "magnificent bastard". That is not evidence that he or his blog is a reliable source. The fourth source is published by the company that produced this software. Since it is not an independent source, it is of no value in establishing notabilty. You need much better sources for a freestanding article about this software. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotusborn1:. Hopefully, Cullen328's answer has prompted you to look for further reliable sources. A few days ago we answered another query about how to exclude recent results from Google and only look for older sources. You can read that (rather long) thread here and give it a try. I gave it a go, and found a few other more reliable-looking and independent software reviews. Try here. here, here, here and here for starters. Whilst browsing through the results I ignored all those urls that looked like forums and personal blogs, seeking out more reliable-looking urls to review or magazine sites. Being fussy in this way can help you select the wheat from the chaff and get you over that notability and reliable source hurdle right from the start. If you decide to have another go at enhancing and re-submitting your article, I'd suggest leaving out the very long table of updates, and just referring to where a user can find update information via one or two references. Removing this table would, in my opinion, make the page look far less promotional, and more like a short, factual encyclopaedic entry on what could well be a piece of noteworthy software for the Mac. I've not checked the sources in detail - that's your job - but if it does get through WP:AfC next time, you can send us all cookies! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pokman

The smartest people on earth he know every ting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.16.67.235 (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP User We welcome new editors here who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and are always pleased to help them. I was surprised to see that, after posting your incisive observation, you had deleted two large help threads from other users. None of us find this helpful, so please don't do that again. (Your edits have been reverted). Of course, if you do have a genuine question, you will need to be a little clearer before we are able to help you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

referencing

How do you referenced items at the bottom of the page? What are the steps?


Mary Jane Doerr Mary Jane Doerr (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mary Jane Doerr. You may want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners. GMGtalk 14:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit table of contents?

Hello, I'm trying to edit the table of contents on the Basia Bulat page (one of the entries is in bold, for some reason), but I don't know how to do that. Please help!werewolf 15:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revirvlkodlaku (talk • contribs)

Hi Revirvlkodlaku, and welcome to the Teahouse. The table of contents is automatically generated from the headings, so all you need to do is to remove the '''bold''' from the relevant heading. I've made that change for you. Dbfirs 15:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! werewolf 01:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revirvlkodlaku (talk • contribs)

HostBot keeps reverting my posts

I don't know what to do because I am editing some pages to try and improve them and HostBot is saying I'm unconstructive. I am afraid my account will get banned. Iqra Ali (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Iqra Ali. You are being reverted because edits like this one are blatant vandalism. And you are correct that if you do not stop you will lose your editing privileges very shortly. GMGtalk 17:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did you find my edit??? HACKER!

Iqra Ali (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqra Ali has been blocked for vandalism. It does not take the skills of a "hacker" to find that edit or any other. Every edit that a user makes can be seen easily by anyone, unless an administrator has hidden certain edits that violate policy in a major way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to tag with "citation needed"

Specifically I am referring to the entry on Zorro which states:

The 1890s penny dreadful treatment of the Spring-heeled Jack character as a masked avenger may have inspired some aspects of Zorro's heroic persona. Spring Heeled Jack was portrayed as a nobleman who created a flamboyant, masked alter ego to fight injustice, frequently demonstrated exceptional athletic and combative skills, maintained a hidden lair and was known to carve the letter "S" into walls with his rapier as a calling card.

None of this information is on the Spring-heeled Jack wikipedia page and there is not even an 1890's penny dreadful listed. Cowboyleland (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use the {{cn}} tag. Don'twasteTime 02:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Cowboyleland. Here is a link to a book called The Legend of Spring-heeled Jack: Victorian Urban Folklore and Popular Cultures that describes Spring-heeled Jack as an inspiration for the Zorro character. Finding and adding a source is better than tagging an article for lack of a source, although it is more time consuming. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I correct a wrong information in a secure article in Wikipedia?

How do I correct a wrong information in a secure article in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.44.236 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. By "secure", I assume that you mean an article that is protected due to disruptive editing. Every article has a talk page, which you can reach by clicking the "Talk" tab at the upper left menu of the page. Open a new section and describe exactly what you want to change and furnish the new language that you want to add. Provide links to reliable sources that verify the new content. Add the following template to your post:
{{request edit}}
That will signal editors able to evaluate your request, and if appropriate, make the change for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are on the mobile version of the site which has no "Talk" tab. You can start by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the page, but after that it is easier to click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a template

Hey, could someone please tell me how to make a template — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMN81 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TMN81 - welcome to the Teahouse. Creating templates is not for the faint-hearted, but a good place to start learning how to use and create them would be this introductory page: Help:A quick guide to templates, plus this set of links to more detailed help and technical advice: Wikipedia:Templates. It's quite possible that a template already exists for whatever it is you're trying to do. If you want to tell us more about what you want to achieve, somebody here may be able to offer further advice. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi need help

I am few months old on Wikipedia I am struggling with Wikipedia guidelines whenever I create new page some people put 'speedy deletetion request' it's very hard for me right now to go ahead as a free Wikipedia volunteer it's feel like losing my time on Wikipedia because here on Wikipedia people don't respect eachother contribution they just delete. :( 🤒Sumitmpsd (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumitmpsd: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you have not had a good experience here. I will say that writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. Looking at your user talk page it appears that you have had at least one article successfully enter the main encyclopedia(Mahendra Mewati) and another moved to Draft space so you can work on it more(Draft:Regular.li). Whenever you create a new article or edit an existing article, it will be mercilessly evaluated and possibly changed by others. It's just the way Wikipedia works. I see that in some cases where articles you created were tagged for speedy deletion, it was removed by someone else who disagreed with the criteria.
In some cases I think you have confused deletion tags with maintenance tags; the maintenance tags are in yellow and merely indicate an issue that needs to be resolved. Deletion tags are in red. It's important to understand that most users cannot delete pages by themselves. Only administrators can delete pages, and only within the process indicated by the deletion tag(either as the result of a discussion, a valid speedy deletion criteria, or an unexpired, uncontroversial Proposed Deletion). 331dot (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ya now i am felling little bit positive thanks 331dot you are the first one who can understand my situation thanks again and again:( :) Sumitmpsd (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can't find reveal button

I have written the article and want to post. Yet don't know where the 'reveal' button to actually release it Mj kim (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HI Mj kim - welcome. Firstly, there is currently a trial in progress limiting page creation by brand new accounts like yours. You need to have been around for a few more days and to have made a few more edits. Secondly, your article is not ready to be published yet. The draft in your sandbox does not demonstrate with references that "Connected Car Commerce" is actually a widely accepted and used term, mentioned in depth by reliable sources. And thirdly, there is already an article on Connected car, and to avoid disappointment you would be better off adding a new section within that page. When/if you do think you are ready (and most editors here start off by learning how to edit by making small changes to existing articles), I would advise you to submit any new article with the Article for Creation wizard. Those who get turned down at their first submission do receive helpful feedback as to the things that need addressing to make it acceptable for submission. Doing it that route avoids the new editor restrictions currently in place, and you could simply copy from your sandbox over into the new 'Draft' that the wizard makes for you. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: I see your sandbox draft has used text you have copy/pasted from elsewhere. Be aware that you must always use you own wording to write articles, and not copy others. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get my article approved?

Hi there,

How can I get my article approved? Draft: Clyde Space

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

I've updated it with further content and links, used unbiased language based on feedback that was given and included greater information in comparison to similar Wikipedia articles on very similar subjects &/companies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyvak_Nano-Satellite_Systems

Any help is greatly appreciated as I truly believe this is a notable subject.

Many thanks, LIbby.Hoban (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libby.Hoban. You can resubmit your draft for review using the "Resubmit" button. I have not studied the draft to see whether or not it would be acceptable in its current form; but I will caution that comparing with other articles is not a fruitful endeavour, because unfortunately many of our five million articles are substandard, and we don't want to encourage more. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia adventure issues , repeating same messages when i have completes tasks

in the wikipedia adventure i have done everything asked of me but it keeps repeating the same message. need to complete it for a college assignment please help Redrobinwedding (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrobinwedding. Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you tell us what the message is that keeps repeating, please? Sometimes you have to scroll down to see the next action to follow. I should also point out that at the start of the Adventure there's a warning noticeon the page saying that it's not supported on mobiles or tablets, or if Javascript is not enabled, or if you're using an earlier browser version earier than IE10. Perhaps you could also tell us what device you're using, please? I can see you had two goes at getting started as you've got duplicate messages on your talk page. (These can be removed later on if you wish). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hon to add references?

I am trying to add references in in my sandbox (to be copied later in the page I created) ... but I failed. I do not get the use of templates Where do I find help? Thank you Mtl-371 (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtl-371: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on how to cite sources can be found by clicking WP:CITE. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What type of citation do you want to create? Book. Academic journal? Newspaper? Website? David notMD (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does referencing for beginners help, Mtl-371? --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quoting an entire 1940 obituary

This obit is in a University of Toronto newsletter (University of Toronto Monthly, Volume 40, Issue 7, 1940). Would I need permission to quote/reprint it and if so (if you might happen to know) from whom? 

Information at this link appears not to be copyrighted.

https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-90100-107986129/university-of-toronto-presidents-report-for-the-year-ended-june?trp=&trn=organic_google&trl= Mosesos (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a bit complicated. Whether or not it says it's copyright is irrelevant, as material is copyright unless it's explicitly released into the public domain. If it's Crown Copyright as a publication by a government institution, then the copyright has now expired; likewise if it's genuinely impossible to identify the author the copyright has now expired. If it's possible to identify the authors and it doesn't fall under Crown Copyright, then it potentially is still in copyright as copyright will expire 50 years after the death of the last identifiable author. Providing you're just quoting small parts of it, copyright doesn't really matter here as this will fall under fair use, so provided you attribute the quotes correctly and don't quote an unreasonable amount of it (the usual rule of thumb is 10%) you won't get in trouble. ‑ Iridescent 11:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mosesos Following on from the above answer, I might suggest you keep it simple. Just rewrite the bits of the obituary that are most relevant in your own words, and cut out any trivia. (I'm afraid I couldn't view the article in the link you supplied, it appeared just to be a long list of donors). We are always wary of copy and paste edits here, and, to be frank, if people want to read the whole obituary, the link you include as a reference would do. On a personal interest note, it's fantastic to see you working on a biography of a botanist. I suggest you do as much research and reading around his work as possible. You need to start your draft with a simple sentence saying who he was and why he is of importance. Use his full first name in the article title, then expand into his work, contributions to science, awards, etc, referring to sources that have written about him or his work, rather than quoting his own studies. We have notability guidelines here which seem to let every popular fictional film character under the sun become worthy of a page, whilst scientists working away in the background do have a high hurdle to get over - you can read more at WP:ACADEMIC. Do test your writing aginst the rationale explained there. You may wish to start your editing life here on Wikipedia by adding material to other articles - such as a history of ecological exploration section for Bruce Peninsula itself? Feel free to discuss botanical matters further on my talk page, or visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Signature

When I use my (unedited) signature by typing 4 tildes, the link doesn't appear and the signature is sometimes duplicated. Help!

Nebulous Nanuqsaurus 13:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nebulous Nanuqsaurus. Welcome to the Teahouse. That's a weird problem. Are you actually typing the wavy line without spaces?, i.e.: ~~~~ Some keyboard language settings generate different characters when that key is hit. Have you tried hitting the four tildes next to "Sign your posts on talk pages" at the bottom of this page whilst editing it. Once you save the edit that should insert your signature and date stamp, with a link to your Userpage and to your Talk page, rather than the plain text I'm seeing above. If you type 5 tildes, you just get a time stamp. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a standard signature then remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. This is the default setting and will automatically link your user and talk page like my signature. See more at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come back and say the same thing, having just done a test with the box checked, like this: Nick Moyes 13:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

noindex/patrolling

From what I’ve read I keep getting more confused, so figured I would ask.

Helped edit a Wikipedia article (now over 30 days old) and noticed it has <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow">

How long does it usually take before it’s removed from the article?

  • >30 days?
  • >30 days and patrolled?
  • >90 days?
  • >90 days and patrolled?

Also, is there any way to check if an article has been patrolled / or request for it to be patrolled?

Wiki nV (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki nV, welcome to the Teahouse. It's 90 days or patrolled, whatever comes first. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). It was increased from 30 to 90 days in June 2017. If you click "View history" and then "View logs for this page" at the top then there are options to show the patrol and review log. There is no procedure to request it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for the quick response. Wiki nV (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query re drop-down minor edit menu

I’m referring to the two drop-down menus of common editorial summaries. The first minor one says “spelling/grammar correction”. I would like to get punctuation added, as punctuation is important (see the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves) and I correct a lot of it. So it would be Spelling/grammar/punctuation. To whom or where do I direct this request? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe. The feature is enabled with "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries" under the Editing heading (not the tab) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The code is in MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js. You can make suggestions on the talk page. User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets is supposed to let you choose your own summaries but User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets.js hasn't been edited since 2012 and doesn't work for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect rendering of this page

The “Ask a Question” box I can’t use, as the Ask My Question button is always greyed out. Also, text from the left column displays on top of the box. This is on my iPad Pro in Safari and iOS 11.0.3. To whose attention do I bring this?

Thanks deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe. It's a gadget enabled by default with 'Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature' under Browsing at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The code is in MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js which calls MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. The latter's talk page looks more active. The "Ask my question" button is supposed to start working when you have added a signature. The button works for me in Firefox but I haven't tried with an iPad. I do see a problem with text in the left column. For me the box is transparent over the left column and the text there can be seen behind the text in the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test

hey Pepper135 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox

Hi, I was wondering where the source code is. I want to import it to Wikia. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artix Kreiger: the source code is at Module:Navbox but I'm pretty certain this module is already in Wikia. Nthep (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Artix Kreiger, welcome to the Teahouse. If you preview wikitext then the bottom of the window links to the transcluded pages at "Templates used in this preview". {{Navbox}} with no parameters gives:
Certain parameters may require additional pages. The rendering is also affected by JavaScript and CSS files like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css. All module pages require that mw:Extension:Scribunto is installed at the wiki, meaning Scribunto must be listed at the local Special:Version. Wikia has a lot of wikis. I don't know whether they have access to some common pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=810160813"