Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a 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.

Help Wikipedia

"Salted"

Hi,
in the context of deletion discussions, I have repeatedly read the term "salted" (like in "should be deleted and salted").
What does that stand for? It's not in the list of abbreviations.
Thanks, --84.190.88.113 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:SALT on this. Basically, it refers to protection of a page to prevent its recreation. This might be done where an article has been deleted and disruptively recreated a few times. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! On that page I found a link to this page which was useful in understanding that expression. So I was wrong in assuming it to be an abbreviation. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Help With article Link.

Can an established user please link this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Revolution to Ilana Mercer's main wiki page?

Thanks

~kc2290Kc2290 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone has done it. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

When does a point of view have enough evidence to be covered by NPOV?

As an example, our pages on biology rely on the truth of the theory of evolution, and our pages on environmental science support anthropogenic global warming. These views are supported by scientific evidence, but millions of people disagree with them. So, who decides which views are reliable enough to include under NPOV? Thanks! Reason is Immortal (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that as long as the article is properly sourced from reliable texts etc and the editor makes no personal judgment about the subject matter then NPOV is covered. There are plenty of articles about Creation and Creationism as well as those covering non-anthropogenic global warming which also ensure that the encyclopedia as a whole is NPOV. Iadmc (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Usually on controversial issues, the views of both sides are discussed without favoring either. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It might be added that these controversies should not be carried out in each and every biology article but only in those that explicitly have those topics as a subject.

That is, if you have good and reliable pro-creationist sources about the origin of the Darwin finches, that might be an appropriate article for leading that discussion. But leave the robins and the chickadees alone. Even if someone has used a pro-evolution source in those articles. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Broken Links to References in a Foreign Language Article

I've been expanding Niemica (river) by using the corresponding Polish article (I speak Polish reasonably well). However, two of the links there (specifically numbers 2 & 4) do not work. Can I still use those links as references (because they clearly used to prove the statements, and it's not like the sources' disappearing will make the facts false)? I've added 'citation needed' tags in the places in the English article where the links would be.

Thanks in advance for any help.N Oneemuss (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Ref 2 was easy, as you had http:// twice. I've cured it in this edit. I'm not sure where your other problem is, as ref 4 looked OK at first glance. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume that the other problem is on reference 5, & I see that this link is broken on the Polish equivalent too. It's probably worth looking to see whether it was archived. I looked at web.archive.org, but apparently the Polish website cited has a robots.txt which prohibits access by such searches. Perhaps you could enquire on the Polish article's talk page? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but I'm actually referring to the Polish article https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niemica_(rzeka). There, sources 2 and 4 lead to a blank page and a page that says 'you do not have the authority to access this' respectively. My question is whether I can still use those sources in the English article (to replace the 'citation needed' tags I put in).N Oneemuss (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to enquire at the Polish talk page now. Thanks for the help.N Oneemuss (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@N Oneemuss: Hello. Speaking to the broader point, you should not use any source that you have not read yourself to confirm that the source verifies the assertion in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.N Oneemuss (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(Fixed URL: restored ")" after "(rzeka".) --Thnidu (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I eliminated the spaces, one corrected. The bottom one is still in a highlight box. Any suggestions?

I'll work on the external links.

Optimumhunger (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Links and Quotes

I am not sure how what went wrong with the page. I used quotes and an external link. There is a colored block around a portion go the quote. Not sure what the colored block means; if is means I need to correct this part or if I did the quotes wrong??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_House_1823

Thank you for your time,

Optimumhunger (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The coloured block is because you started a new paragraph with one or more leading spaces, so you need to remove those. As far as the external link is concerned, you shouldn't have included it in the article text, see WP:external links. It ought probably to be a reference. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to articles with same subject, but different languages

I have writen an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiquets_Copenhagen and want to link it with the catalan version that already existed https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiquets_de_Copenhaguen. Could someone please tell me how to do this? Thanks! (Xiquets (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It is done through Wikidata, where I added the links to wikidata:Q20102264 through the "Add links" option under the "Languages" menu item on the left hand toolbar of the English Wikipedia page Xiquets Copenhagen. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly what I needed to know! (Xiquets (talk)

@Xiquets: I went to your article to see if copyediting was called for. No problem there! And the subject was interesting, to boot. But it is full of links to Catalan articles, with no indication to the reader that these articles are in another language -- except the titles, which are not always dependable (e.g., Castell, which is in this, the English Wikipedia).

I have changed two of these links to use {{Interlanguage link}}, aka {{ILL}}. (I prefer the all-caps form of the short name because I i l | can be hard to distinguish in sans-serif fonts: {{ill|...}}, {{Ill|...}} .) I urge you to use these as examples to do the same for the other links to other Wikipedias.

The forms of ILL that I used provide redlinks plus the abbreviation of the other language, ca, da, or whatever. If English articles are later created with the same name, the links will become normal links and the (ca/da) will disappear. --Thnidu (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting for a bibliography

How can I format the following from the Italian wikipedia so that it appears correctly in the "Bibliography" section of the English version of the article?

• bibliografia|Assisi 1999|Assisi non più Assisi. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco, a cura di Giovanni Morello, Milano, Electa, 1999. ISBN 88-435-6672-5

(with text enclosed in these symbols: }} )

Thanks for the help!

TimeForLunch (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello TimeForLunch and welcome to the Teahouse. Use {{Cite book}}. Here that would be something along the lines of:

{{Cite book|editor-last=Morello|editor-first=Giovanni |title=Assisi non più Assisi. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco|location=Milano|publisher=Electa|date=1999|isbn=88-435-6672-5|language=it}}

which renders as:

Morello, Giovanni, ed. (1999). Assisi non più Assisi. Il tesoro della Basilica di San Francesco (in Italian). Milano: Electa. ISBN 88-435-6672-5.

If you want to give a rough translation of the title in English, add |trans-title= somewhere inside the brackets and fill in. I hope this helps. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much (User talk:Finnusertop). Could you refer me to the wikipedia page that lists all the details for this kind of citation? I am having some trouble locating it though I'm sure it exists. TimeForLunch (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@TimeForLunch: There is an extensive documentation for all parameters here: Template:Cite web. For more general information on citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Citation templates, and Help:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, (talk ⋅ contribs. I'll check it out. TimeForLunch (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Delhi Metro Station Link Correction

East Azad Nagar metro station.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Azad_Nagar_metro_station Need help in correcting Krishna Nagar link in infobox bottom of above metro station.

Link should direct to below page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Nagar_(Delhi_Metro)

I have tried but just couldn't get it right.

Jazze7 (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, and the link works - what do you want it to do differently that what is there now?--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I see - there are duplicate articles named Krishna Nagar (Delhi Metro) and Krishna Nagar metro station. The first task is to merge these articles, probably into the second of these, then make sure the {{S-line}} template is set up to refer to the correct one.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that you had tried something similar at Karkarduma Court metro station and I had initially reverted your edit because it appeared to break a link, but I have self-reverted as I realise that the link had been to a proposed station in Lucknow rather than the one in Delhi. The difficulty seems to be that the template being used apparently adds " metro station" to the end of the station name in the call to the template. Without understanding exactly how the template works, I wonder whether a work-round might be to call the template with "Krishna Nagar (Delhi)", and to make Krishna Nagar (Delhi) metro station a redirect to Krishna Nagar (Delhi Metro). Other contributors may have a better idea. In parallel, it may be worth asking whether the Lucknow station qualifies as primary topic for Krishna Nagar metro station or whether disabiguation is required there. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that current link is directed at proposed metro of a different city, Lucknow. That needs to be modified. Thanks

Jazze7 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank You David Biddulph. I have applied same correction to Karkarduma Court metro station. It is neatly sorted out. Much appreciated.

Jazze7 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about questions on the teahouse forum

I just came to the teahouse, cliked the ask a question, typed a reaaaaaaally long question to the teahouse, but forgot to add a short summary and then clicked on "Ask my question". Now I don't know how I can find it. Tried to look for it in the history and user info pages, but couldn't see anything :( Rozemarys (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rozemarys: Welcome to the Teahouse. Sadly, this is your only edit to the Teahouse question forum, although you created a guest profile. I am sorry if you lost a lengthy question, so all I can suggest is that you ask your question again, and furnish a brief summary as the header to your question, and then submit it. Moving back back back in your browser may possibly allow you to recover what you typed. Or maybe not. Once we see your actual question, hosts here will do our best to answer your question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Completing First Article

I just did my first article titled Francis T. Giesler. He is a recipient of the Legion of Merit. I see the name is in the recipient list and the link goes to the article. 1. Is this just a draft? 2. Is it accepted or do I have to do something? 3. I want to add a picture in the info box. Do I have to wait four days and have ten edits to upload the picture? Thank you for your help. Gieslerm (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately you have fallen into the trap of trying to write an article before understanding how Wikipedia works, and you have not submitted a draft for review but have published it straight as an article. Because there are no references to demonstrate the subject's notability in Wikipedia terms, it could be subject to speedy deletion. Rather than tagging it for speedy deletion I have replied here to give you the chance, if you wish, to ask for it to be moved to draft space or to a user subpage to allow you time to read the guidance at WP:Your first article, and the notability criteria at WP:SOLDIER, and then to see whether you think that it could be improved to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gieslerm and welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add on to what David Biddulph posted above, I will try and answer your questions as well.

1. You added the article directly to the article namespace. So, technically speaking, it is not a "draft". However, the article has some problems that need to be addressed if it is to avoid being deleted. This is why new editors writing a Wikipedia article for the first time tend to be encouraged to use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that experienced reviewers can guide them through the process. I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article
2. Any article within the article namespace may be deleted if the Wikipedia community feels that it is not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. The primary reason articles seem to be deleted as to do with a lack of Wikipedia notability. No citations to independent reliable sources are provided so it is hard verify the article content per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more information. Reliable sources are also needed to establish that the received significant coverage needed to establish Wikipedia notability for a stand-alone article. Unsourced bits of artcile content is not usually a reason for deletion because articles can be improved over time and unsourced content sourced by other editors. Failure to provide at least a few solid reliable sources establishing the subject's notability, however, is almost always going to lead to the article being (at least) nominated for deletion, absent any special circumstances.
3. You may upload image files after your account has attained confirmed status, which is 4 days and 10 edits in your case. However, image use in articles can be tricky because they are various rules regarding copyrights, etc., so I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images and familiarize yourself with what needs to be done.

Finally, your choice of username seems to imply some kind of connection between you and Giesler. Persons who create or edit articles about subject they are personally or professionally connected to are considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to that particular subject. COI editing is not expressly permitted per se on Wikipedia, but it is something that is highly discouraged. If you are connected to Giesler in any way, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and familiarize yourself with the kinds of editing considered acceptable in such cases. If you're not connected to Geisler at all, then you might want to consider changing your username to something else per Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names to avoid any misunderstandings with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will read the articles but it is not always clear on what I am supposed to do:

How do I save a new article as a draft? Can you move this article into a draft area for me? I have just put the article into my sandbox which is where the draft was before. Is the sandbox the same as the draft?

Once a draft, how do I ask for a review? I understand the COI. The article is about a (deceased) family member. I have references for the facts. Some of the references would be official military documents - are these acceptable?

Thanks for your help. It has been great getting into the Wikipedia fold.

Mike

Gieslerm (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Gieslerm. Another editor has moved the article to the draft namespace at Draft:Francis T. Giesler, and I have added Template:Draft article to the top of the draft. You can now continue working on improving the draft at your own pace. Please understand that even drafts are not really owned by their creators and content in the draft space may be edited by other editors at any time. Most experienced editors will refrain from doing so, however, as a courtesy unless they feel their is some serious policy issue (e.g., a copyright violation, etc.) which needs immediate intention or they can improve the draft in a way which brings it one step closer to article status. So, if you notice someone has edited the draft, please take a look at the changes made and try to understand them instead of immediately assuming the worst. If you have questions about a particular edit, just ask at the other editor's user talk page or on the article's talk page. If you want your draft reviewed, then just add Template:Submit to the top of the page when you think its ready for article status; an experienced editor will review it and make suggestions on what it might still need to become an article. Since the draft is a biography of a former soldier, you might be able to get more specific advice from the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Just post your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Per your request, I've moved the article to Draft:Francis T. Giesler. A draft is anarticle where the name starts with "Draft:" (technically it's in the "Draft space"). Once you're ready to submit it for review, place {{subst:submit}} at the top. Official military documents are only acceptable if they have been published in some way, so that they're available for other users to check. That doesn't mean they have to be on-line. Also, they're what we call "primary sources", so are of limited use in showing notability. See WP:Primary. Rojomoke (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is my draft article ready for review?

Hi everyone,

I am a newb when it comes to writing articles and I am trying to create one that is notable, does not contain any advertising language and will generally adhere to the wiki guidelines. Would love for someone to check out this draft page I jus created and see if there are any red flags I should fix before submitting it for review.

Thanks for any and all feedback.

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

Mike at FlexJobs (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty close to being ready, although it would be nice to have her birthdate and an infobox. I made a few small edits to bold the title and list the references at the bottom of the article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I see you have also created the article FlexJobs which, as you can see by the template, has quite a number of problems. Now before you submit the next one on the CEO of this same company, you may want to take a moment to consider those issues.
The major issue in your case certainly is the conflict of interest which, by your user page, you are obviously aware of. Please read the recommendations for editors with a conflict of interest.
Also, the notability of this company has been questioned, and in case the company is not notable, I would assume that neither is its CEO. So, if you really want to keep on working on this in spite of your COI, you might want to work on establishing the notability of both by supplying good sources. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to upload photos that I don't own?

What the title says, actually. Thanks in advance. Doctorjimmy (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The ownership of the photos is irrelevant. What matters is the ownership of the copyright in the photos. If you own the copyright (which is unlikely without owning the photos themselves, unless you are a professional photographer), you may upload them. And if the copyright of the photos is in the public domain you may upload them. Otherwise, generally not. Maproom (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have an image (from an online source) in mind and have a link to it, we can check and see if it's eligible for upload to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 23:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding and 2 IPs were banned. HELP

There was a misunderstanding in conversation over what defines cited references on The Jayhawks Talk Page and an Ip was literally banned. Then another person's computer in our camp used the same log in and password on their computer not knowing about the ban, and suddenly that IP was banned and they were called "abusive". Is there a way to get this straightened out so at least we don't have this over our heads, in particular the IP address that unknowingly logged in with this banned account? 173.22.109.176 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Never share accounts. That's the rule, and it also avoids this problem.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think IPs logged in or used passwords. (?) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, they don't. If these editors had created and used accounts, the problem would have been avoided. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In some cases, a block on a user account automatically blocks the IP addresses they were using. If the autoblocked IP address is shared among good-faith editors and bad-faith editors, it can lead to collateral damage. But it appears in this case, multiple users were sharing the same account, which caused multiple IP addresses to be autoblocked. In other words, yes, creating separate accounts for each user would have avoided this problem. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Help and replies

Seriously guys I try and I try but all anyone keeps saying is rejected, rejected, no cites, insert links followed by incorrect links when I insert them. I have referred to all of the articles you point me to but still it seems I'm wrong. Surely it shouldn't be this hard. Surely someone could send a simple email explaining exactly what it is I'm doing wrong, explain in lay mans terms on how to fix the problem and that way I can amend where necessary. Yes I've tried posting on the 'Teahouse' and used the 'Talk' and 'Help' pages but as an old school programmer I'm now beginning to understand and believe as to why so many of my colleagues over the years have simply given up trying to contribute to Wikipedia................. GabeGabe Cooney 10:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabecooney (talk • contribs)

One link which you were given in both of the rejection messages was Help:Referencing for beginners. Another user gave you an example in this edit, so you need to do the same for the other references you need to add. As has been pointed out in answers to numerous other questions here, starting a new article isn't a simple job, and it is normally better to get experience in editing existing articles before embarking on an attempt to write a new article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, @Gabecooney:. First - David is exactly right above: writing a new article is not a task for newcomers.

But to try and help sort this out - it's all about references. It's all about references. If there are a good number of good references to support the article, the rest can be fixed. If not, no amount of technical work will fix it. Start with the references; they need to come first. Perhaps if you list what you think are the very best half-dozen or so references on the Talk page at Draft talk:Caroline Guthrie, then let us know so we can help. When I say "best" references, that means independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. So not just IMDb (which can be edited by the subject) and not just passing references which confirm that she acted in a particular work - looking through the references there at the moment the lengthiest mention seems to be just over one sentence in the review of Blair's Children. It needs references that spend significant space discussing her. Again, I have cleaned the article up a bit, but firstly you really need to find the references. Oh, in case I forgot to mention it - find good references first.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I said above that I "cleaned the article up a bit", but apparently those changes were lost in an edit clash. Never mind; other, more experienced editors jumped in and the end result is probably better.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gronk Oz, that'll have been me. But I made much the same changes as I imagine you were making, removing all the direct external links and all the citations of IMDB. Maproom (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right @Maproom: - it was quite disorienting at first because it looked similar to what I had changed, but specific parts were different. I had actually got carried away and converted all those IMDb links to references with the idea that they at least supported the claim that she acted in each show - but as you say it's not reliable anyhow. I did put her own IMDb link back since under External links.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The draft in question appears to be Draft:Caroline Guthrie. As other editors have said, creating a new article, complete with proper references, is the hardest task that there is in Wikipedia. Some new editors think that it is the only way that they can make a positive contribution to Wikipedia, but there are many other ways that they can contribute. As was mentioned above, the draft needs more references to show her notability as an actress. I see that the Original Poster has also helped out by editing existing articles, and they can continue to gain more experience by doing that while trying to improve the draft. Creating a new article is not the only way that new editors can contribute to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I make my AfC not sound like an advert?

Hi,

I have proposed an AfC Draft:NUGEN Audio which I have a COI for. I have tried to make it as neutral as possible and have mainly used external independent published references, but it has been declined as being too much like an advert.

Please could someone tell me how to improve it to make it publishable?

Thanks

PaulTapper (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@PaulTapper: Welcome to the Teahouse. The draft reads more like a product catalog rather than an encyclopedia article about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen: Thank you for the feedback - I'll pick up the discussion with you on your User talk page PaulTapper (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Marc Vouillot article

Hello everyone!

I am (or was) very familiar with Wikipedia editing a few years back... but in French! Could anyone of you be so kind as to visit the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Vouillot and help me correct my poor English?

Thank you very much in advance! GBantrek (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@GBantrek: Welcome to the Teahouse. I did a little bit of copy editing of your article, but your English prose is not poor. I have seen far worse. Thank you for contributing to the English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Uebert Angel article

Hello everyone I have been trying to write an article about an influential person Uebert Angel. He is a business mogul recognised by the BBC and Forbes Magazine. H e is a founder of The Angel Organisation and The Good News Church. He has a lot of followers and has influenced a lot of people world wide. I need help in writing an article that is neutral and not in contention for deletion. I have tried several times but to no avail

Simon Mugava (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Simon Mugava and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem indicated with the article Uebert Angel is not in neutrality of tone. The problem is that the article topic might not be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You need to find and cite more sources so that it's easy to see if he has been picked up by reliable sources. If he is noted by Forbes, then please cite Forbes. If he is featured in more than one BBC article, then cite more of them. A few passing mentions here and there will not make a subject notable, no matter how prestigious the sources. You need to cite many. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I already know about wikipedia. I just need some help. :-)

I REALLY NEED HELP... Jesus loves me (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with what, Jesus loves me? Joe Roe (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: check six sections below this one.

@Jesus loves me: did you see ColinFine's response to your original post? Have you read WP:Your First Article as he suggested? What specifically don't you understand? Rojomoke (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Article for rename request - check

Hi, I have tagged Kilt article with a "Requested move" template. Not sure I done it correctly, could someone check Talk:Kilt please? thanks. Nmclough (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I can see no attempt to place a "Requested move" template. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The markup is visible at the bottom of the Talk:Kilt#Ancient_.22celt.22 page - few lines above bottom - but I am not sure it is being processed correctly. Nmclough (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello Nmclough. There are various ways to display a template's name, without having the template itself be invoked. One of the ways is to use a "template link" template. For example, if you wanted to discuss Template:Unreferenced, without having the template banner display, you might type {{tl|Unreferenced}} (TL stands for template link), which displays as {{Unreferenced}}.

What happened here, is that you went to some page where Template:Requested move is mentioned, but instead of copying the code to make it work, {{requested move}}, you were in edit mode, and (in this edit) copied the code to make it into a link: {{tlps|Unreferenced}}. With that explanation, you need to remove the template link markup "tlps|" to make the template function. With that having been said, have you read the common names section of the article titling policy? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that Fuhghettaboutit has got it quite right. It isn't a question of just removing "tlps|". The instructions for the template {{requested move}} say that it must be substituted, so you need to replace "tlps|" by "subst|". --David Biddulph (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

True, forgot about explaining substitution, though when you place it without, it displays a screaming crimson red notice saying "This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"

Thank you both. I am grateful, and think I fixed it. @Fuhghettaboutit My request to rename article may be controversial but verifiable sources use term "kilt" more neutrally since no other word in English language fits. But I am sure this will be discussed strongly on talk page. Thanks. Nmclough (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

New table

How can I create a new table in an article by visual editing in a mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayatbiz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rayatbiz: the only reference I can find is Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_tables and as I don't use the Visual Editor I can't help further other than to suggest you ask your question at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/User guide. Nthep (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you use JavaScript on Wikipedia for?

What do you use the JavaScript on Wikipedia for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahlad balaji (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Prahlad balaji. I'm not certain what you are asking. If you mean, when do you write Javascript when working on Wikipedia, then the answer for most people is Never. If you mean when do you make use of Javascript when working on Wikipedia, the answer is, most of the time when editing. The editing widget, with all its buttons and shortcuts, is written in Javascript. So are many other gadgets, if you have them enabled. There are also many User scripts written in Javascript, that you can choose to use if you wish, for various purposes. --ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Help to publish sundaykart

Can anyone help me on to publish Sundaykart article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatateja (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tatateja. Please study Your first article, and come back here if you have questions. --ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

See also the feedback you have received on Draft:SundayKart. You will need to correct the fact that the draft currently reads like an advertisement. See WP:NPOV for guidance on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tatateja: Your draft includes these sentences:

"It has 20 employees who are a pool of dedicated professionals who can think innovatively. They are highly skilled in finding creative solutions for all kinds of IT/Marketing/Sales related to the needs of organization"

That is the sort of promotional language that belongs in a company brochure or advertisement, not in a neutral encyclopedia article. All of that type of language should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagging "of interest to" WikiProjects as inactive on talk page

Arjuna is described on its Talk page as of interest to WikiProject Hinduism and to three of its subprojects, Hinduism/Mythology, Hinduism/Vaishnavism, and Hinduism/Krishnaism, as well as WikiProjects Religion, India, and Mythology. Of these WikiProjects, Hinduism is tagged on its home page as semi-active, Hindu mythology and Vaishnavism as defunct, and Krishnaism and Mythology as believed to be inactive.

Only WikiProjects Religion and India appear to be fully active. I would like to mark the others with their status on the Talk page, but that would involve working with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell or its parameters, which I don't know how to do or even if it's doable. (And for many other articles on Indian mythology as well, or Indian religion as it would be more non-POV called.) Advice, please? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu. There isn't a parameter of Template:WikiProjectBannerShell that allows you to tag those WikiProjects as inactive on the talk page, but what I have seen some projects do is replace the WikiProject templates themselves with Template:Inactive WikiProject banner. To do this, taking WikiProject Mythology as an example, you would change the first line of Template:WikiProject Mythology to read {{WPBannerMeta/inactive, rather than {{WPBannerMeta. This only works for projects that have their own banner, however. WikiProject Vaishnavism doesn't appear to have its own banner—you add it as a parameter of the Template:WikiProject Hinduism banner. One possible solution might be to remove Vaishnavism from the Hinduism banner entirely, but it might be helpful to preserve the parameter in the event that the Vaishnavism project is revived in the future. As far as I know, there is no way to mark projects as "semi-active" on talk pages. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mz7. I started trying to create User:Thnidu/Template:Defunct WikiProject Banner by copying Template:Inactive WikiProject banner, but gave up on it, not being familiar with the syntax for such complex templates. So I put a {{divbox}} on Talk:Arjuna listing the status of all the "interested" projects that are less than fully active. It would really be better to add "defunct" and "semi-active" to the options in {{WPBannerMeta}}, but I don't know how. --Thnidu (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The {{divbox}} looks pretty good. It is indeed a little difficult to understand the complexity of these templates. A few places you could ask for help are Template talk:WPBannerMeta, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I do have a few more thoughts, however. My impression seems to be that an inactive WikiProject is one that editors simply lost interest in naturally, whereas a defunct WikiProject is one that was abandoned perhaps by consensus or by becoming obsolete. If that's what defunct means, then rather than flagging them, I would consider removing the talk page banners of defunct projects entirely, since the projects do not have a high likelihood of being revived. Additionally, a "semi-active" WikiProject is, as I understand, one that is still active, but "activity is slower than it once was". It might not be necessary to flag semi-active status on talk pages if there are still a couple people interested. Mz7 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks, that advice sounds good. --Thnidu (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: Feh. I edited the wiki project Hinduism template, using HTML comment tags to comment out all the references to Hindu mythology and vaishnavism, but they're still showing up. Do I have to delete them?.....And change ALL the tf... and TF_... numbers as well? --Thnidu (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu:It looks like you typed <--! rather than <!-- while you were commenting them out. I have switched them. Does that resolve the issue you were seeing? Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mz7: (Facepalm) D'ohhh! Exactly, thank you! And I've taken the mentions of Hindu mythology and Vaishnavism out of the divbox. --Thnidu (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Excellent. Glad I could help! Mz7 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I need help on writing an article. Could you guys help?

Guys I'm writing an article on Difference between diamonds, pearls, and rubies.Jesus loves me (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jesus loves me and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing I always advise new users who ask about creating an article is to suggest they spend a few weeks getting to know how Wikipedia works before embarking on one of the hardest tasks there is, that of creating a page. Then I suggest reading WP:Your first article. But in this case, I am wondering why that might be a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, and that unless you are drawing your material from reliable published sources that are specifically about the differences between those gems, anything you write will be Original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia articles. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember a page, but don't remember what it's called.

Resolved

Hey guys, TPM here. As stated in the title, I remember seeing a page, but I don't remember what the page was called. I know it had a box where you could type in a title for making a article (could've been for making a userpage subpage, my memory on this is extremely fuzzy.) After that, it took you to another page to show you how to make such a page. So... does anyone know if there's a page that looks like this?

Thanks,

The Phase Master (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. What about WP:AFC which leads to Wikipedia:Article wizard? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph No... I think I'm thinking of WP:Drafts. Here's what I'm trying to do: I'm trying to use that new draft box in a subpage that I'm going to make. Said subpage would be a page where you could make a subpage for a chess game. (Remember Shaun's chess game?) The subpage for making the subpage would use the new draft box like the original box, but it would be pointing to User:The Phase Master/Game name, with Game name being whatever you typed in the box. Also, the box page would have a list of my chess games, both ongoing and finished (in seperate categories, of course). Any idea on how I can go about doing this?

The Phase Master (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia as a host to play online games, which is flat-out forbidden. If I'm misunderstanding you and you're actually asking for how to document the moves in an existing, noteworthy chess game in a Wikipedia article about a particular game (e.g. Lasker versus Bauer, Amsterdam, 1889), I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess—the way Wikipedia handles the markup of chess boards is quite complicated, and not something an automated prompt will be able to help you with. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent I wasn't intending to make WP a host for online games, however I was wanting to create a WikiGame, like the ones at DoF. So... the Wikigames aren't forbidden, are they?

Let me explain a little further.

If you'll look at User:Shaun/Chess, you'll see that he made a chess game on Wikipedia. However, since he's now Semi-Retired, the game's not being played. What I'm trying to do is revamp his game, and perhaps improve on it a little by making a homepage for it (which would be a subpage addressed as User:The Phase Master/Chess). At this point, I've asked Shaun about this, but I'm not expecting a fast reply from him.

So... Ideas?

The Phase Master (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wkipedia is not a games website, it is an encyclopedia. Neither his game nor your proposed one belong here. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Okay then. Sorry.

The Phase Master (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: To explain in a bit more detail, what you're proposing falls under Games, roleplaying sessions, secret pages and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia" and is expressly among those things deemed inappropriate. We on rare occasions bend the rules with regards to highly active contributors who are demonstrably devoting most of their Wikipedia activity to helping the project, but who occasionally use their userspace to blow off a little steam. However, Wikipedia is not a web host—your user page(s) belong to the Wikipedia community, not to you, and almost everything in your userspace should either relate directly to Wikipedia, or be about you in the context of what you bring to Wikipedia. (There's a non-exhaustive list of what sort of content is appropriate in userspace here.) ‑ Iridescent 15:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah... Got it, thank you. --The Phase Master (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A category

I was going to re-create Category:Wikipedian WikiSloths, when I noticed that it was deleted by a deletion discussion. However, the discussion mentioned having "a zoo of WikiFauna categories, which has, in fact, happened. Should I re-create this category or not? RedPanda25 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: Welcome to the Teahouse. Here is my opinion. How would re-creating this category help to build the encyclopedia? I see nothing about this term that facilitates collaboration among editors, but perhaps I am missing something. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, this is not a social media site. The category was deleted in 2007, nine long years ago, and consensus was pretty clear back then. In my opinion, there is even less acceptance in 2016 for things not clearly related to building an encyclopedia. We have Facebook for unlimited goofing around, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for responding. Should I then nominate for deletion these categories:

• Category:Wikipedian WikiBears
• Category:Wikipedian WikiCats
• Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies‎
• Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes‎
• Category:Wikipedian WikiHobbits‎
• Category:Wikipedian WikiPumas

? If not, please don't accuse me of WP:POINT. Thanks, RedPanda25 17:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)‎

@RedPanda25: "WikiGnome" is a widely recognized designator which has real meaning to many active editors. There are thousands of editors in that category. Evaluate each category on its individual merits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Tennessee Williams Wikipedia Article

Monday - October 24, 2016

I've taken a look at the Tennessee Williams Talk Page and while I haven't studied the full entry in detail, I could clarify much of what's been proposed or counter-proposed. However, I'm not sure how long ago these questions were asked or resolved. I'm also uncertain who's involved or interested.

I realize that anyone (almost anyone) can edit a page but there must be a respected source who has the final say and vets it all. I'm just trying to add a line or two and as soon as I figure out exactly how sources are cited and all that, I'll try it again.

If anyone has the time and interest in helping me through this maze, it would be appreciated.

Regards,

Robert Carroll Robert Carroll 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Carroll (talk • contribs)

@Robert Carroll: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are always welcome to ask questions here at the Teahouse. At Talk: Tennessee Williams, you will see that each comment is dated, which is standard on talk pages. Most of the discussion took place several years ago, although there was some discussion a few months ago. It seems that several of the issues have been resolved. To learn how to cite sources, please read Referencing for beginners. This is an important skill for new editors.

Anyone is free to edit the article as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Other editors may review anything you add, or they may not since this article is infrequently edited. No one is the "final authority" on this or any other Wikipedia article. I will add the article to my own watch list, and am always willing to answer good faith questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Carroll: If you are the "Robert Carroll" who had a close personal relationship with Williams late in his life, then you have an obvious conflict of interest regarding this article. I suggest that you propose any changes on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Carroll, can I check that you are signing you posts using four tildes (~~~~), rather than manually? Your signature isn't working correctly - hence the "unsigned comment" message above. If you are using the tildes method, check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" is not ticked in the signature section of your preferences. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Carroll: I am operating under the assumption that you are the person who had a close personal relationship with Tennessee Williams in the 1970s, although I cannot know for sure. But that is not really relevant to the content of the article, as long as you comply with our conflict of interest policy. Biographies of Williams verify the relationship and it belongs in the biography in my judgment. Accordingly, I have added a paragraph about the relationship to the article, cited to two reliable sources. One presents the relationship in a positive light, and the other less so. We are obligated to summarize the range of reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Helping improve article: Antonio Penn

Can someone assist me in resolving the page issues on the article I built for my nephew Antonio Penn please.Imabossap (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, how do I upload a picture to Wikipedia?

???>>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)<<<???

@AppleCrumby16: Please see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. RedPanda25 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to upload a picture and only use it for my user page?

Not much else to say, the title says it all. >>>AppleCrumby16 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)<<<

Yes you are allowed to do that, but if you have uploaded the image to Commons, it can be used by any editor. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps reviving a deleted article - need help understanding where it went so off track?

User:Rjlabs/2016 US Russian cyber conflict was a stub article under development. It was marked for notability and deletion early on. The notability tag proved false and was removed. The article was expanded and continued to evolve, and it remained stub status.

There was growing interest in the article as it had 100's of page hits per day. During its live period it was independently marked as within the scope of:

• WikiProject International relations
• WikiProject Computer Security
• WikiProject Internet
• WikiProject Politics
• WikiProject United States
• WikiProject Russia

Many weeks later it was subject to a speedy deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 US Russian cyber conflict.

I'm trying to "diagnose" the specific problems with the article. Would deeply appreciate specific (granular) feedback. It takes a long time to author, and a very brief moment to delete. Hoping to learn more so my future efforts here can have more positive results. Rick (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Only admins can see the former content, in order to provide "specific" feedback, but, as a non-admin, the reasons seem clearly enunciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 US Russian cyber conflict. The fact that it was a stub is not relevant to the outcome, and the article was NOT "subject to a speedy deletion" as you claim. The AFD discussion period is seven days, and in this case it ran from 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC) to 11:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC), so it was not closed prematurely. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Biased Notability

This is a contentious question, so I hope I don't get blocked for asking it; as I question an average Wikipedian's rights here at this society. Anyways, here is my question: How can this be an online encyclopedia and anything, any part of history, not be notable!? If the page is poorly written or is short of references to back up its information, I can understand the subsequent AfD that might and should take place. But what kind of cause is notability? That is completely biased. What is notable to one might be absolutely meaningless to another. That's like developing a concept on how a person should act; how radical. People have various opinions on how they should behave, and people should also have various opinions on what is notable. So that's my question: Why can't everything be notable if this is an online encyclopedia dedicated to making the world a more educated place; the one source for all-around information. Infopage100 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Infopage100 and welcome to the teahouse. Please take a moment to read through WP:NOTEVERYTHING (in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE) where you will find some of the answers to your question. Another thing to be aware of is that WikiPedia relies on WP:SECONDARY reliable sources for their articles. Not everything in the world meets that criteria. Other editors may have other links to provide for you to help explain things. MarnetteD|Talk 14:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

interesting thought, worthy of discussion. I suppose it would create an overload of work for Wiki, plus the data load (although I would think that value would be going down.)Philip.mark.powell (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question, Infopage100, and in my view it points up exactly why "notable" was such a particularly unfortunate choice of word for the concept. I believe that the answer is an operational one, not a philosophical one. An article with no references is, in a sense, worthless: you simply cannot trust it. In fact, an unreferenced statement in an article is, in the same sense, worthless. That is why we now operate a high standard of referencing before accepting new articles (we were not so careful in the past, which is why there are so many substandard articles around).

But what does this have to to with notability? The answer, as I see it, is to stop people wasting their time on articles which are never going to be of any value. If there are no reliable sources, then there is literally nothing which can usefully be put in an article. "Not notable" is a shorthand for that situation. It is unfortunate that a word was used which in normal use contains a value judgment; but that is not relevant in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Caroline Guthrie - Article Rejected

Please can someone help me preferably by email, as to why my article for Caroline Guthrie is being rejected. There seems to be a problem but no-one is telling me what it is. If I knew what I'm doing wrong I could fix it but alas it doesnt seem to be that easy. Help needed. Thank you Gabe Gabe Cooney 11:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabecooney (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read what it says in the box at the top of Draft:Caroline Guthrie (born 10 August 1961) is a Scottish actress. She starred as Carol in the 1981 film Gregory's Girl, Pauline in Local Hero and Katy in Chaplin., and the links from there (the wikilinks are shown in blue). You will also find a message (and links) on your user talk page, at User talk:Gabecooney#Your submission at Articles for creation: Caroline Guthrie (born 10 August 1961) is a Scottish actress. She starred as Carol in the 1981 film Gregory's Girl, Pauline in Local Hero and Katy in Chaplin. (October 24). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You were also sent a Welcome message on your user talk page in 2014, at User talk:Gabecooney#Welcome!. It included a number of useful links, including to WP:Your first article and to a tutorial. You ought to read those links. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gabecooney:. Sorry it seemed like nobody would explain what is wrong; that is not our intention. Please do take the time to read the instructions that David Biddulph mentions above. As well, the notice on the top of your article gives the name of the reviewer. A couple of things that stand out immediately are: the article's title should just be "Draft:Caroline Guthrie", not a whole paragraph; and every article needs references to reliable, independent sources (this is even more vital for biographies of living people), but this article has no references at all. I understand that the idea of references is difficult for a subject you are close to personally, but they are not negotiable in an encyclopedia. I added one reference as an example that you can use as a model, and cleaned up some of the formatting a bit, but I think your first task before the article can even be considered will be to find enough references to show that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's particular meaning). Find all those press articles about her, mentions in books, awards she has won, etc, then build the article around them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't archive talk page

I tried to archive the page Talk:Russell Peters but it isn't working. I used the

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo          = old(5d)
| archive       = Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| archiveheader = {{MonthlyArchive}}
}}

template. Can someone help me out? Verified Cactus (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Verified Cactus. You added it a minute before posting here. The archive bot runs once a day. Come back if it hasn't archived in two days. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Today I Learned. Verified Cactus (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the archiving bot isn't working at the moment, see the message on User talk:Σ. Joseph2302 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I get the cover of a book into the infobox?

Resolved

Same as the summary of the question.

~Kc229023:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc2290 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Kc2290 and welcome to the Teahouse. Go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and upload a picture of the cover, be sure you understand all questions in the wizard and answer them correctly. When finished, copy the name of the file you had just uploaded. Go to the article in which you want to use it and click Edit source. In the Infobox book, add the following fields:

| image =

| image_size =

| alt =

| caption =

Paste the name of the file in the field "image". The rest of the fields are optional and explained here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Or, that is how one would normally do it. However, since you are a very new user and are not autoconfirmed yet, you cannot upload files. I'm assuming this is about The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed and I can offer to upload the cover. You can use the above instructions in the future if you want to work on further book articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What is 'Associated acts'?

I just want to ask what is the term 'associated acts' (of solo artist, bands, etc.) in reference to Wikipedia. Thanks! ~Manila's PogingJuan 22:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PogingJuan, and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the information you are looking for is here: Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Article declined - notability clarification

Hello,

I thank the reviewer for taking the time to review my submission for Twin City Stage, which was declined for notability reasons. I get it. I do. Is this institution nationally notable? No. Is it regionally notable? In my opinion, yes, certainly. I believe, in my opinion I've cited enough sources to demonstrate that.

I guess I'm a bit confused because once I began my Wikipedia editing for this article, I realized that national notability might be an issue. Consequently, I asked in the teahouse about regional notability and seemed to get the message from editors that regional notability was acceptable. (Otherwise, I would not have gone to trouble of gathering the information)

I also see plenty of articles from similar organizations that don't have not any national notability. So, I'm confused. I might be able to find some sources that elevate notability a bit, but I doubt I will find enough to elevate it to national notability. I guess the long and short of it is, I'm asking if regional credibility is enough? If so, please inform him how to better demonstrate that. Or if national notability is required then I suppose I had best not waste any more energy on this effort.

There is a citation to a national award given to community theatres, not sure if that was observed by the reviewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Twin_City_Stage Philip.mark.powell (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philip.mark.powell: Welcome to the Teahouse. We do not really distinguish between "national notability" and "regional notability" although a topic of local interest is more likely to be judged notable if it has received significant coverage in non-local sources. In this particular case, the theatre company is located in Winston-Salem, the fifth largest city in North Carolina. References to media coverage in the larger cities in the state would help, or in adjoining states. The theatre company is over 80 years old, which is a plausible claim of notability, I suppose. Have any books about the history of community theater discussed this company? You may find some useful thoughts in an essay called Wikipedia:Places of local interest. This is not "official policy" but does describe the thinking of many experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philip.mark.powell: on Wikipedia, "notability" has a different meaning than it has in everyday language. Here, when we say "notability" we really mean "criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The criteria is usual interpreted as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." You said you might find such sources, and by all means, please add new information to the draft based on those sources. This is probably your best bet at demonstrating notability (i.e. that the draft meets our inclusion criteria). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philip.mark.powell: Regarding notability of organizations there is consideration of the audience a source reaches. See WP:AUD. Gab4gab (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I archive a talk page?

Also, what are the parameters for archiving a talk page? Verified Cactus (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean having it archived by a bot rather than manually, see User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for the code and parameters you need to decided upon. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to have the date included on the Unsigned template?

Unsigned comments signed by User:SineBot have dates attached to them. However, when I use the template {-{subst:unsignedip|x.x.x.x}}, there's no date. Is there any way to rectify this? Verified Cactus (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: yes just add the second parameter so you add {{subst:Unsigned IP|x.x.x.x|time and date (UTC)}} instead. Time and date is, in the format hh:mm, dd month year and you must include the (UTC) though for it not to mess up bot archiving. Nthep (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To find out the time and date, visit the page history. You can copy and paste the time (page histories display it in the format defined by Nthep above). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. Verified Cactus (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You presumably haven't looked at Template:Unsigned (or Template:Unsigned IP) to see what the parameters are? However, I find that Template:xsign is easier to use. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How Long before article is on Wikipedia or Rejected?

Hi! I submitted an article on the author, activist Richard Oppenlander back on September 28th, and haven't heard anything. I am new to this all, isn't normal to take so long? I did a small thing on Michal Siewierski that came back after a couple weeks because he wasn't well known enough, but still nothing on the longer article...Pepspotbib (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is normal that it takes several weeks for a review. There are currently 1,272 submissions waiting to be reviewed, so you just need to be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pepspotbib: Welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at Draft: Richard A. Oppenlander and in my opinion, it is unlikely to be approved. A Wikipedia article should summarize significant coverage in independent, reliable souces about Oppenlander . Your sources are not independent. They are to Oppenlander's book, speeches videos and so on. There are two non-notable book awards mentioned, which do not confer notability. Please read our notability guideline for authors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Help for User:Badol1234

Does someone here know Bengali, and can someone, at a minimum, give some advice to an enthusiastic new editor who is creating inadequately sourced articles with too many redlinks, or, even better, mentor an enthusiastic new editor? User:Badol1234 submitted a malformed sandbox for AFC review, which I declined, and then posted to my talk page, but now I see that they have created several articles in mainspace on actresses with inadequate references and with too many redlinks. I don’t know for certain what this editor’s first language is, but I think it is Bengali. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Robert I think a post to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics might work here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Fuhgettaboutit - Are you saying that someone should give them advice in Bengali, or that I should give them advice in Bengali? If I knew Bengali, I would write to their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what Fuhghettaboutit suggested was to do something such as this. FWIW, Badol1234 has been editing for over a year and has made some article talk page and user talk page posts in English, Perhaps Badol1234 does not feel too comfortable communicating in English, but this is English Wikipedia so a certain level of English ability is expected from editors, especially for communicating with other editors. If the editor seems to be repeating the same mistakes over and over again even after being warned, it starts to become a competency issue. At that point, it might be a good idea to encourage the editor to participate in another language Wikipedia instead by adding something from Category:Non-English welcome messages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

...Precisely:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

A few basic questions regarding my first article

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia, and I got some feedback on my first article about the Ezra Jack Keats Book Award. I posted some questions about that feedback in the “Talk” tab of the article, but I am not sure that was the right place, so I am going to try here instead.

• For the issue "contains content that is written like an advertisement", I really don't know which part this is referring to. Could you please let me know? (Note that I am not connected personally to the topic of the article, so there is no conflict of interest there.)
• For the "lists that would be better expressed as prose", do you mean the lists of Award Winners? How would that look like though? A list seemed like a pretty effective way of mentioning the winners. Could you perhaps give me an example?
• For the lack of links to the article, that seems to have resolved automatically, once I added a couple of relevant links myself (yay!).
• Any other hints would be really helpful (e.g., on the copy editing part, I did the best I could there).

I know these are very basic questions, so thank you so much for your patience!

Reinetteapi (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Reinetteapi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Another editor edited the article and resolved the issues. I removed the template and made some minor changes. All is now well with the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much User:Cullen328 and User:Theroadislong, that was really helpful. I understand the logic of the latest changes you made, and I am so glad the article is ok now! Reinetteapi (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I create a page about my blog?

I own a blog that writes about politics. It doesn't currently generate any revenue but it may do in future. Am I allowed to create a Wikipedia page for my blog? If I do what would I need to do regarding conflict of interest? I looked on the COI page but I didn't understand it. Theonereece (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Theonereece - Basically, probably no. Your blog is probably not notable. Has your blog been commented on by in-depth by multiple indepdent reliable sources? If not, your blog probably is not notable. Thank you for asking about conflict of interest; it probably isn't important unless your blog is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you Robert. I agree that by those standards my blog is not notable. If at any point it does become notable, could I create an article about it or would that be a conflict of interest. Sorry if this reply goes in the wrong place, I have no idea what I'm doing.Theonereece (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be a conflict of interest, although that doesn't technically prevent you from creating an article. Doing so would be discouraged, though. You would be required to declare your COI and it would be best to create the article as a draft for review, via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Another option would be to list it at Wikipedia: Requested articles, for someone else to write. But, as Robert says, the blog needs to be notable first in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft too basic?

Hi, I created this draft about a minor 1933 sport event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rugby_at_the_1933_International_University_Games but I've been invited to the Teahouse, probably because the draft is too basic or anyway not satisfying the wikipedia criteria. May I know how to correct it? I'm not going to be a prolific poster on wikipedia, I've simply found some old rugby scores and seen that the relative page on wikipedia was blank, so I had the desire to fill itBallabenovic (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ballabenovic - You were invited to the Teahouse because every new editor is invited to the Teahouse. However, I will comment that your draft needs at least one more reliable source. Welcome to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenonBallabenovic (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it wrong to add belated block notices to blocked users' talk pages if you're not the blocking administrator?

Sro23 was reverting an edit I made that added a block notice to a blocked user's talk page, saying that "If the blocking administrator wanted this here, they would have already done so.". I do not know any policies, guidelines or essays that tell us that we shouldn't add block notices to long-blocked users' talk page if we weren't the admins who blocked them and a block notice wasn't added already, the closest thing I know to it is wp:DTTR, and I can't seem infer what I can or can't do based on that no templating regulars rule, maybe it's just best to ignore that rule. And even though I don't really agree with Sro23's philosophy, I'd like to know about policies/guidelines that support/defend/justify Sro23's idea. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@UnforgivablyPotatoes: admins "must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked" WP:EXPLAINBLOCK but this does not necessarily have to be by way of a message on their talk page. The block log entry which will show if you look at a user's contributions page will suffice to meet WP:EXPLAINBLOCK if it is clear enough. There have been previous discussions about whether a talk page message (TPM) should be obligatory (example Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 22#Transparency) but the consensus is that a TPM is not always necessary. One of reasons for not using a TPM is WP:DENY because there are people who get their kick out of seeing their name in lights. My advice would be to ask the blocking admin if the absence of a TPM was an oversight or deliberate. Nthep (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wish to add a film credit to Robin Williams' Wiki page.

I'm new to the WIki ... but I frequently use it for reviewing a long list of topics because it is so stocked full of information!

The movie in question is: "The Final Cut" (2004). I know that the filmography list is only partial, but I feel it should be listed because of his profound portrayal of the character. The page is protected, and I have made entries in regards to my request to add the film credit. Any information you can give would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! >"<. Lady Jkattz (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lady Jkattz: Welcome to the Teahouse. As you probably know, Robin Williams was a prolific actor with roles in at least 106 films. The biography of such an actor will not list every film role, but only the most famous and iconic roles. Instead, we have a spin-off article, Robin Williams filmography, which lists all of his roles, and The Final Cut is in that article. You need to make the case that this role was highly reviewed, or award winning, or a major box office success, to such an extent that it should be listed in the main biography. Based on our article about the film, this does not seem to be the case. But I have not seen that film and therefore have no personal opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In addition, please be aware that the proper place to propose such a change to the article is Talk:Robin Williams, and I do not see that you have made any edits there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lady Jkattz suggested it last month at Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 8#Missing Film Credit. There were no replies but it was probably seen by users who didn't think it should be added. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I find images that I can use?

I can't find any relevant images to put on pages which I edit. That is, when I search Wikimedia Commons, I can't find anything relevant, and when I try and upload an image I found on the Web, I am prohibited from doing so because I don't own the image. How do so many images get on Wikipedia if it is this way? Is it indeed possible to use images from a web search for Wikipedia? Or do I have to hunt down an image in a library or something other source to add to a page?

Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Icebob99, and welcome to the Teahouse. Suitable images find their way to Wikimedia Commons in two ways. In the first instance, the uploader has created the image themselves and by uploading it to Commons they agree to release it under a free license. Many people own cameras (or smartphones with cameras) and take pictures and upload them to Commons.

The other way is if someone else than the uploader has previously published an image somewhere else. As you note, not any image you find on the web is okay to upload. The images need to be under a suitable free license, or be out of copyright altogether. It takes some skill and experience to discern if an image you find meets these conditions. There are a few rules of thumb though. Very old images (specifically those that have been published before the year 1923) are always out of copyright. With new images, you should be looking for notices on the web pages that explicitly say that anyone can use the image for any purpose, including commercially. This is often stated by saying that the image is licensed by some of the well-known free licenses that Commons accepts (see Well-known licenses). There are some means to find such images. One such place is Flickr where some (but not all!) images are okay to upload because they meet the conditions I've just described (see Flickr files).

Whatever you do, you need to familiarize yourself with the basic principles here: Wikimedia Commons: Licensing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can say it a little more simply. Yes, you're right; @Icebob99: it's difficult. Most pictures on the Web belong to someone, and most owners can't be found, and most owners who are found don't want to release their copyright. I have given up on that method. There are also millions of Public Domain pictures on the Web, but finding relevant ones is also usually difficult.

I have put thousands of pictures into articles. Mostly I got them the easy way, which is to snap those pictures with my own camera. See Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown which mostly I wrote. Other pictures, I found in Commons. Commons searching is mostly by two methods. First is by text search. This sometimes gets the right picture. Usually no, but it gets me a dozen pictures that are not right for my purpose but are somewhat related. From those near misses I use the second method, the tree of WP:Categorys to get to the categories that have actual, relevant pictures. This process usually takes a big part of an hour. After that, I generally give up, and try to illustrate something else. As I say, it isn't easy, so most days I spend more time in Commons than in Wikipedia. It's pleasant when it works. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the answers above: There are over 34 million media files on Wikimedia Commons, most of which are photos. If you develop your search skills, you can often find what you need there. Another source of free images are the millions of photos taken by by employees of the United States federal government while on the payroll. Those images are free of copyright and eligible for upload to Wikimedia Commons. Other government agencies may (or may not) have a similar policy. You need to check.

I agree with Jim.henderson that taking photos yourself is a great way to add images to Wikipedia articles. For example, if I visit a museum that allows photography, I will take photos of various exhibits that I find interesting. When I return home, I review the relevant Wikipedia articles. If the article is well illustrated, I move on. If the article is poorly illustrated, I upload my photos using the easy-to-use Android app for Wikipedia Commons, and then add those photos to the appropriate article. You have to be careful to ensure that the item you are photographing is not copyrighted itself. For example, a photo of a 19th century sculpture is fine, but a photo of a 21st century sculpture is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons since it is a photo of a copyrighted object. It may be allowed on Wikipedia but only in one article in the context of referenced critical commentary about that sculpture. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answers everyone! I appreciate it. Icebob99 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV violation on Social Science Citation Index?

Brief description of the Social Science Citation Index cites publication by Klein and Chang which identifies a bias against free market oriented research, as well as other defects. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_Sciences_Citation_Index&oldid=prev&diff=709308617 This is the ONLY source which makes such a claim -- furthermore, the article is published in a journal edited by Klein which openly proclaims a strong free market orientation as its ideological under-pinning. My edit (which was rather clumsy) was reverted by the free marketeers who have created this entry. Asaduzaman (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asaduzaman: Welcome to the Teahouse. The content which you added and which was reverted was:

"IMPORTANT NOTE ON PREVIOUS CRITICISM: Daniel Klein is the editor of the journal in which this research was published. The journal EJW itself has an openly avowed strong free market ideological bias. Thus the results of the survey are not surprising."

First of all, we do not include "important notes" in Wikipedia articles as this is editorializing, and editorializing is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. We never make comments in articles in capital letters, because this is equivalent to shouting. Also, your addition was not referenced to a reliable source, which is required. Accordingly, there were at least three good reasons to revert your addition to that article. In addition, your description of the other editors as "free marketeers" as if that is a negative thing is also not appropriate. People of all reasonable ideologies from left to right are welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as they avoid disruption and hate speech, and comply with our policies and guidelines.

So, go look for reliable sources that refute Klein's view of the index, or general sources that evaluate the usefulness of the index, and summarize those views, adding references to those sources. Referencing for beginners explains how to format references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that my edit was clumsy -- I said so in my post. I am not arguing against the revert -- I have no problems with that.

Also, I was under the impression that right wing, left wing, free marketeer, socialist, communist were all descriptive terms, not value judgements, but I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

My problem is that the section entitled CRITICISM does not satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for NPOV and this section itself should be deleted. My comment on it was a clumsy attempt to balance the obvious bias by pointing out the source of the citation. What is written in the section is available from only one source which is obviously a biased source, and cannot be confirmed or supported anywhere else. Asaduzaman (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Asaduzaman: You are correct that neutral descriptors of a person's ideology are appropriate. I interpreted your description of the ideology of these editors as pejorative. If I was wrong and you had no such intent, then I apologize.

How do other editors know that "the section is available from only one source which is obviously a biased source, and cannot be confirmed or supported anywhere else" is true? Let me start by saying that I accept the possibility that your assertion is completely correct. But so far, you have furnished no evidence that your assertion is true. How do I know that what you say is true unless you cite a reliable source? That is how we roll on Wikipedia - we either cite reliable sources or we say nothing. I linked above to a very useful essay explaining how to cite reliable sources. So, if you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then please cite reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Photo

How do exactly add a specific picture on a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RunningForMyLife1010 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RunningForMyLife1010. The general answer is that you upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons or possibly to Wikipedia using the File Upload Wizard, and then you edit the article to link the uploaded picture. But there is a lot of complexity, some of it technical, but mostly to do with copyright. Where does the picture come from? If you took it yourself (and it is not a photo of something copyright like an album cover or a screen in a game) then you can probably upload it, releasing it under a suitable licence as you go. If somebody else owns the copyright, then they need to explicitly release it: see Donating copyright materials. If it is a picture you found on the internet, you probably cannot use it at all, though there are exceptions. If that doesn't answer your question, please come back here with more specific information. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)