Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

How to know if my contribution is approved and how long does it take to be approved

Hello everyone

I am new around and have decided to contribute my quota in this amazing website called wikipedia.

I want to know how long it takes for my contributions, citations and dead link correction to be approved and how do I know if it was approved by the moderators in the house?

thanks Rebecca Exlink10 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. Changes you make to Wikipedia are live the second you save the page - there isn't a moderation process. If you make a change to an article, that change is immediately visible. There are a couple of exceptions (when you create a completely new article as a draft, for example, or if a page is under pending changes protection), but as a rule, when you save, the edit is live straight away. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Exlink10, and welcome to the Teahouse! To add to what Yunshui said: Wikipedia also has a Recent Changes Patrol who ensure your edits are not vandalism. There are some pages that unregistered users, or users with a low edit count, cannot edit. This is because they are often vandalized. To answer your question - all of your edits are live on Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution to our project! Keira1996 12:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a tip, Exlink10: when you replace a dead-link reference, as you did here, you can remove the dead link template message (the code {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}} in this case). Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case you also needed to change the name of the reference to match that of the article which it pointed to - as it was, it was misleading as it referred to a different year. I've made both changes. If you want to see what I did, you can take a look at the 'diff' in the edit history. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're creating a new article, you can save it as Draft:.... (see HELP) and it will automatically be reviewed for approval fairly quickly. If it's just a change to an existing article, as others have said, it's IN unless someone objects to it. Some important or popular pages are monitored by a senior editor, and some editors keep a watch on pages of particular interest to them. When you make a change, check off the "Watch this page box", and it will be added to your Watchlist. Check your watchlist regularly (should be a link on the top bar) -- if nobody's changed or reverted your edit, it stands -- for now (Wikipedia is always in flux). D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My article is getting deleted often along with the reference

May I know that why are you deleting my articles along with the reference. If there is any problem, please report me. Last time, I wrote the article Moon that earth had 2 moons. I wrote it as a proven fact. Then it got deleted and a Wikipedian wrote in my talk page that I din't write as the collision would have formed 2 moons not 1. Then yesterday - 3rd of June, 2017, I wrote it as it would have formed 2 moons and I din't write it as a proven fact, but it also got deleted, so I want to know the reason. If you want the link of the reference which is a video please visit K. Badri Vishal (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, K. Badri Vishal. You have been trying to add a fringe theory to an important scientific article using a YouTube video as a source. This is disruptive editing and there is no way that you will get consensus for such edits. You must use high quality, respected, peer reviewed scientific sources for such claims. Examples would be articles in respected astronomy journals or books published by respected university presses. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

K. Badri Vishal, User Tomruen has now added the information to the article, with a more reliable source. Rojomoke (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP was unable to find Claimed moons of Earth. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Clean start

Nearly two or three years ago, I used accounts to edit Wikipedia. I initially used one account, but I made disruptive edits in good faith. Then I had a clean start under a new name with less disruptive editing. However, there were still some serious embarrassments. I then drastically decreased my activity level, editing as an ip (without disruption) sporadically. Both old accounts are fully abandoned. Is this reasonable under Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Clean start? Should I create a new account to restart for the second time? Thanks. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor using an address ending in ...204, and Welcome to the Teahouse. It is perfectly acceptable to edit while not logging in, i.e. to use an IP address as your user name, provided that you do not also use your old accounts to edit the same topics, or otherwise edit deceptively. You could think of it as a second clean start, and all the same rules and principles described at Wikipedia:Clean start apply. This is, of course, assuming that you were not under any actual sanctions (as opposed to loss of reputation).

You are in no way required to create and use a new account. However, as you should know, there are some benefits to using an account, including: a useful user talk page, user sub-pages and sandboxes, increased privacy, a watchlist, , the ability to receive notifications, and the ability to build positive reputation. If you therefore choose to edit from an account, you may create and use one if you choose. I would urge you to follow all the advice at Wikipedia:Clean start, and very carefully stay clear of any disruptive editing. DES ^(talk) 12:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have another related question. Wikipedia:Clean start requests one to use {{retired}} in order to indicate inactive accounts. Is this necessary if the account is inactive for the long period of time stated above? (please note that the new IP address in the signature might be different due to address changes) 211.100.57.204 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Sorry, I forgot to use this to notify last time. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that WP:Clean start says: To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account (while logged in under that account) that it is inactive, by using the {{retired}} tag or leaving some other message. This is never required, although it is a good idea. Whether to use the Retired template or a simple note is a matter of style and preference, the only point is to let people know that you do not intend to return using that account. People have been known to return after breaks of multiple years. Note also that if you do it, it should be done while logged in under the old account, so as not to make any public connection with any new account or IP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Therefore, no notice on the old user page is strictly required if the old account is clearly abandoned due to the clear lack of activity in the last few years? Thanks. 211.100.57.204 (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• No. I think it is required. It is under the "How to clean start" section and it says you should. If not required, why it is under the section "How to clean start"? BTW why this anonymous user do not want to add this template? 185.197.72.213 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, "should" means "strongly advised", but not required. If it were required, the page would say "must". And if done, it need not be by template, simple prose such as "I have ceased using this account." will do. The page also says If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use.(Emphasis added) And remember that all Wikipedia editors are anonymous except for the few who have disclosed their legal names. The editor with the IP ending in 204 may not still have gthe password to the old account, or may not want, by editing it now, to suggest a connection to this posting or any about-to-be-created account. Or there may be other reasons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Not sure. If so, it can be misused or abused. It may be a kind of socking. E.g. when someone is noticed for their disruptive edits and their account become infamous, they can simply abandon them and become a "new editor". By using the new account, they may be target the same articles with the same form of disruptive edits but they be less likely to get banned, since no one will be able to know their past actions. There is something unfair here. It is open to abuse. 92.63.109.253 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, a clean start can be abused. So can editing while not logged in. But in practice, if an editor returns to the same topics after a clean start, the identity is quite likely to be detected, which will not improve the editor's reputation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • But may not be detected too? Especially on low-profile articles. And does this have a limit? Can an user request a "clean start" second time, third time, fourth time? It is silly, i think. It must have a limit. I think an user has only one right to clean start. Otherwise, it is also very open to abuse. 92.63.109.253 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with DES. Editors are advised to indicate the old account is retired to reduce the chances of accusations of improper socking being levied. If they are willing to take that risk (and consequences) then they're not forced to use any template or message. And multiple clean starts are not disallowed. We don't block an anonymous editor whose IP changes on a regular basis so why should we block someone, editing uncontentiously, who decides to start afresh every so often? It's harder for them, making sure they follow the provisions of a clean start with every new account, but as long as they do, they can edit in peace. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Question1: If an account gets blocked for socking, can't the sockmaster use this an excuse to escape the block? They may say that the account was not a sock, but a new account for a clean start.This might be very abusive. Question2: Lets assume that i am a disruptive editor. When my disruptive edits are noticed, i request a clean start and continue obviously the same behaviour. Then again, others notice me and i request an another clean start and continue the same thing...This is undermining all the WP sanctions and policies. Based on this, every abusive editor can easily manages to jump from gun. Am i wrong? 92.63.109.253 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're wrong. "Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions. Whether a new account is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny is determined by the behavior of the new account. A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account." WP:SCRUTINY is key. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) To save jumping down all the hypotheticals, regardless of an IP (or account) being used as a clean start, if they edit disruptively or in a manner which is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia they'll end up being blocked -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Don't have very much to add other than there's no need to worry about abuse of WP:CLEANSTART, because it's supposed to be an option available only to good faith editors who at least try to abide by policy. Say you're being harassed or something like that, you may abandon your current account and create a new one, and that's fine. When currently blocked/topic banned users try to make a clean start, it's just called sock puppetry. Sro23 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

So the interpretation seems to be different for every person. Thanks to everyone who have discussed their views. (The IP is different this time) 211.100.57.174 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not. WP:SCRUTINY is key as NeilN said and it is only for good faith editors as Sro23 said. 62.109.16.184 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

World Cafe

Hi DGG and Justlettersandnumbers - you commented recently on a message I posted on the World Café article. The thread of the post seems to have disappeared. It may have been archived because the request appeared to have been answered. However, I didn't see a response to my last message in the thread and wondered if you might give some thought to the points I made?

Essentially, I was saying that, as it stands, the article doesn’t really give an understanding of how World Café events actually work and how they differ from other types of group activity. I thought it would be useful to include an explanation of this.

Additionally, while the older version of the article indicated the range of organisations that have used World Café events, both in terms of type and geographical location, this is missing from the article as it now stands. I made the point that this underlines the notability of the article and so may be worth including. What do you think? Fbell74 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The thread is archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 621#Request: World Cafe. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Fbell74. I haven't been to look at the earlier discussion, or the article. But just reacting to what you've said above: If an independent reliable source has discussed how the events differ from other kinds of group activity, then it may be appropraite for the article to summarise what this source has said. If not, then such a discussion does not belong in the article, as it would be original research. Secondly, notability is defined very precisely in Wikipedia's terms, and the number of customers (or fans, or associates, or whatever) does not figure in it. In most cases, a selective list of significant customers or partners is more appropriate than an exhaustive list. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a ping link. CiaPan (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

... but of course the ping link won't ping as it wasn't added in the same edit as the signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You have once again failed to declare your WP:PAID relationship to this topic while discussing it, Fbell74. Why exactly is that? Just as before, declaration is obligatory, not optional.

I assume that you have by now looked at DGG's clear and detailed reply to your previous post. It seems to deal with all your concerns.

As for what I think … well, I think that paid editors should stick rigorously to the conditions under which their presence here is – for reasons that I am quite incapable of understanding – tolerated. And I think that someone, or perhaps a small army, needs to go into John Travis (physician) with heavy equipment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph for pointing out the link to the previous thread. I can see the detailed response left by DGG to my other post, which addressed the points I had made before.

ColinFine There are independent reliable sources that were included in the previous version of the article, which describe the World Café method. These tend to focus on the latter rather than discussing several kinds of group activity, so they don’t necessarily make comparisons between the different types. Do you think they would still be worth using? DGG picked up the point about not including a long list of customers and suggested inputting references instead. That’s probably a better way to go, maybe mentioning types (e.g. local government, oil companies).

Justlettersandnumbers - apologies, I had previously indicated in the article that I was a paid contributor, but didn’t repeat this in the Teahouse posts. Hopefully this will rectify that. Fbell74 (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

is Wikipedia considered as a social media?

Wikipedia is an inforation business,although Wikipedia is considered as social media by some sources,Wikipedia is actually about information sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.250.241.7 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the question. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. It is emphatically not a social media site. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

While Yunshui rightly points out that the aim of Wikipedia is not to be a social media, de facto it is a place where people with somewhat common interests discuss and share content, even though discussions should remain germane to the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Said otherwise, while you may make friends here, that is not the goal.

In the future, you should use the Teahouse (and the similar Help Desk) for questions relating to editing Wikipedia; questions about the outside perception of Wikipedia or other subjects should go to the suitable Reference Desk. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, to the OP, you said that Wikipedia is an information business. Just want to be clear that isn't correct. It's not a business, its a non-profit institution similar to the open source movement in software development where people contribute things for the satisfaction of the work and the experience of working collaboratively with a great community, not for monetary gain. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NOTFACEBOOK. It is definitely not a social media. 62.109.16.184 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I'm Braden

Hi I'm Braden can you be my friend we can play infinite warfare and slouch people. We can also make a family friendly YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Familyfriendlybraden (talk • contribs)

Hello, Familyfriendlybraden. I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place to ask this. This is a help facility for editing Wikipedia, not for any other kind of activities. You are very welcome to get involved with editing Wikipedia, but please keep social activities, game playing, and making videos, to other sites. --ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Hi Colin, when something like this happens, does the post get removed? Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 01:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Checks_Facts. Normally, we only remove a post if it includes things like gross personal attacks on other people, obviously obscene language without any intent to improve the encyclopedia, or complete gibberish. Otherwise, we leave posts intact, since someone may learn something from them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. Every day you learn something new. Checks Facts _{will happily talk} 20:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

addition of photos/graphics

Nice to meet everyone. As someone new to Wikipedia, I am wondering about the importance of images. How important, to what extent do graphics play a part in my article? thanks!Kirschnik (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kirschnik, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm wondering what you mean by "my article": Wikipedia articles don't belong to people. Incidentally, I see that the only article you have edited is Sam Spiegel Film and Television School, and in one of your edits, you removed two paragraphs, including five references. I assume that this was an accident, and I've restored the article to the state it was in before the removal. Maproom (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much.

I guess the terminology is still new to me - but that is true, I did take out two paragraphs and replaced them with updates that more accurately reflect the current state of the Sam Spiegel Film School. How do I make sure that the new paragraphs are updated? Instead of those previously there? Kirschnik (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kirschnik. To answer your actual question: images are a good thing to make articles more attractive, and sometimes to help understanding. But they are not usually essential - which is just as well, because copyright restrictions often mean that there is no image available that can reasonably illustrate an article. Always concentrate on getting good references and a neutral tone before worrying about images. If you want to start working with images, User:Yunshui/Images for beginners is a good place to start. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Kirschnik: you deleted two paragraphs, with the edit summary "added chair of the board as well as a list of award winning graduates along with their films". That misleading edit summary makes your action look suspicious. If you want to remove those paragraphs, you should first explain on the article's talk page why you think the information in them is false or irrelevant, and why the references in them should not be trusted. If you want to add new material, you should include references to independent sources. I see that you have admitted to being a paid editor: please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I now understand what you meant by "my article". That article is not yours, it is WIkipedia's. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How to add Infobox?

I want to ask how to add Infoboxes to wikipedia articles. I use mobile phone for editing articles. I want to discover how to add Infoboxes to wikipedia articles by editing articles?

Sinner (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sinner. I have little experience in editing on my mobile, so I can't speak to that. In general, the way I would go about adding an infobox to an article is to find an article on a similar subject, Edit Source on that article, and copy the whole infobox (from "{{infobox ... " to "}}") into the new article, and then edit the parameters as appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Permission needed !

The article Moon was last edited by me featuring that the Earth might have 2 moons, not 1. But user Tomruen has redone my paragraph along with another reference. So I just want to know that can I delete his parafraph of Moon and make it as mine. But if I make it as mine, will it be deleted. This time a got a perfect reliable source. So just check it that it is a perfect reliable source. Sorry, I can't put the reference because some unwanted things like 20%. Because of this, it won't open the page and my article get deleted. So please teach me to get rid of some unwanted thing which are there in my referenceBadri Vishal and Mansi Krishna (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K. Badri Vishal. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely; see the user page and contributions listing. --CiaPan (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Question re: the latest feedback on my article

Hello, I recently go the following feedback on my article in Wiki and I don't know what it means. Could you please help?

"Needs to be rewritten entirely now that copyvio has been removed."

I don't know what a copyvio is. RLowery (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey RLowery. Copyvio is shorthand for copyright violation, which usually means that significant portions of the text were copy/pasted from another copyrighted source, or was closely enough paraphrased that it wouldn't legally constitute an original work. On Wikipedia, we shouldn't be going beyond the information in the sources, since that would be original research, but we also have to rephrase that information so that the presentation is "our own". TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I know if what im posting is appropoiate content ?

Hi editors, first time attempting to contribute-

How do I know if my content is appropriate to post? eg. If I did a post like "Things to do in Cape Town, South Africa", or would I have to refine the topic more? Editorguy 919 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Editorguy 919, and thanks for planning to contribute. When thinking about what to write an article about, I find it's helpful to look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you read this policy, it mentions that Wikipedia articles should not read like travel guides. If you find a location or business in Cape Town, on the other hand, that has been covered by reliable sources, that would be a good topic for an article. Let me know if you have any more questions! Margalob (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Margalob, thank you for the feedback.

Was very helpful. So just to clarify, if I did decide to write about a business how would I know the line? Because as far as I know, you can't write about businesses entities (may be considered promotions)? 12:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorguy 919 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You may certainly write about business entities, Editorguy 919. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of such articles, or more. The trick is to write neutrally. State only facts, and only those facts for which you can cite a source. Any opinions should be those of a named person or entity, preferably in a direct quote, and should be directly supported by a citation. Terms such as "best of its class" ,"extraordinary", "Committed to customer satisfaction", "World renouned", "famous" and similar marketing talk should be left out. That is the line. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Des,

Thank you, very informative. Really like the community here. Everyone is very helpful.

Sorry to ask another question, unrelated and probably silly. But how do I tag/link someone in the post, so they know I'm addressing them? Editorguy 919 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Explained at WP:Notifications. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

how to get book jacket cover to use in Wiki

How do I get a book jacket cover to use in Wiki article?MoondawgII (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moondawgll. If you have the book you can take a picture of the jacket, or take a screenshot if you can bring it up online. However, please note that, unless the book was published prior to 1923, it is under copyright and the picture can only be used via fair use reasoning on the book's article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MoondawgII.White Arabian Filly is correct. For complete details, please read Wikipedia:Non-free content, especially subsection 3.1.3. If the cover is copyrighted, which applies to the vast majority of books published since 1923, you need to upload a low resolution image here on Wikipedia, not on Wikimedia Commons. A book cover image can be used only in the article about the book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Citeing myself as 'real'

Hi, I have created the page Andi Bonsai, and it is saying I need to cite a valid reference or it will be deleted. I am a music producer and I have cited discogs website, a cite that I have an endorsement with....does anyone have a tip on best way to do this before I am deleted.

Andibonsai (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether you're "real", it's whether you're notable, in the strange sense in which Wikipedia uses that word. To establish that you are notable, you'll need to cite several reliable independent sources that discuss you. At present there are four references, but

1. does not give an issue number or page number, so it's not practicable to check it
2. does not discuss you
3. does not even mention you
4. does not discuss you

Maproom (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition, as I noted on Help Desk, where this was also asked, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography - you should not be working on an article about yourself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

identity problem

Is it required or just preferred that we sign in with a user name other than our own? Why is this? Jean-ramon (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jean, it is suggested that you select a user name that is different from your given name, as revealing your real name may leave you vulnerable to harassment from malicious editors. Many editors, however, do use user names that include all or part of their given names. In the end, the choice is yours. Feel free to read more about the user name policy at Wikipedia:Username policy. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jean-ramon, I for one, edit under my full legal name, and I wish that more editors did so. But that is each editor's choice to make. It is a good idea that an editor be aware of possible downsides when choosing to edit under a name easily linked with his or her (perhaps particularly her, from what I hear from female Wikipedians) off-line self. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Mascot Infobox

I was making an edit to a college mascot page (Wilbur and Wilma Wildcat, University of Arizona). I thought it would be fun to add an autograph or signature to the Infobox on the right, which is when I learned what an Infobox was. I tried to mimic the page from Bill Clinton to add the signature, but it didn't show up on the page. Then, I tried to add an autograph key to the mascot Infobox template, but that didn't work either. What am I doing wrong? Thanks! Adamjaffeback (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Adamjaffeback. You're not doing anything wrong. You could try forever to add the autograph to the infobox and it will never work--because the parameter is a phantom. While the template documentation lists the facility, no actual code for an autograph parameter is in the template's code. It could be that the person who made the template planned on adding it but never did, or maybe they copied the documentation for the template from another one that did have the facility, and then never removed those instructions from this template's documentation. I'm not a great coder, just a dilettante, but I think I can add the code to make it work. I'll report back in a little while. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adamjaffeback: Done. Autograph is displaying.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Fuhghettaboutit! AdamTWildcat (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Deadlock on a low footfall article

Same question, different day. I made some, to me, pretty uncontroversial edits to the Origin and meaning section of Redskins (slang). Before, and after.

It's a low footfall article. The one editor that seems to be interested in it took exception, reverted even incremental changes where the source did not confirm the statement made, refused to talk, took it to NPOV (still open, and used as a justification to block all editing), took it to ANI (closed, content dispute). I can justify all the changes, the majority of which were just to get the references to support the text, although it was the removal of OR and my questioning of the impartiality of one of the sources that seems to have cause the problem.

Once the ANI closed, I opened a WP:3O and summarised on the Talk page, but that timed out with no input. We've managed to have a little discussion since, but the other editor is not budging in his insistence that various sources are good and need to be in the article when it's quite clear to me that they're not. I've even used WP:RX (who were excellent, as usual) to access the relevant book for one of them, and there is literally no research or support in the chapter for the one sentence statement, which appears to be merely a shock statement. And yet the editor is suggesting that this somehow doesn't just carry weight, but it carries broadly comparable weight to a 20 page journal article by a Smithsonian academic and should be in the Lead!

Anyway, I'm going on, but it's been a month, and a lot of wasted electrons. I'm fairly convinced that the editor is going to continue to be obstructive, and that he can't be neutral on the subject (ironic, given the NPOV), but that will likely change in the face of consensus. What would you recommend to break the deadlock? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bromley86. I do not see the other editor refusing to talk, as you claim, but rather I see that editor explaining their position quite clearly and cogently. The bottom line is that you have been unable to achieve consensus for your proposed changes and Wikipedia operates on consensus. My suggestion is to drop the matter and work on other articles instead, but that is just my personal opinion. The Teahouse is not a place for resolving content disputes, but is instead a place for answering questions from inexperienced editors about the basics of editing the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. Actually, he is refusing to discuss most matters, but that's beside the point, and I'm not too keen on dropping it just because someone thinks they own the article. But you're right, I should have stuck to the point: I was really asking what the correct dispute resolution procedure is. Another try at 3O, RFC, or something else? Bromley86 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Bromley86, an RFC has the best chance of attracting input from thoughtful, uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, much appreciated. Bromley86 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploading pictures

How do I upload pictures.

Try this: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-clickable images

Hello, I was wondering if it is possible to make an image which cannot be clicked (which leads to the page file). Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Nikolaiho, but this should generally not be done in article space. Also, this may not be done anywhere with images that are licensed anything other than public domain, because clicking on the image will take you to the license terms. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, can you please tell me how it can be done? I am not planning to use it in an article but simply for knowledge. Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: I don't actually know how to do that. I know some templates do that (those based on {{ombox}}, and {{portal}}, for instance). It's not in Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Need help moving page

I need help changing the page name from reabiliti(https://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reabiliti) to reliabiliti. The page was misplelled. Reliabiliti should be the translation from reliability. Hayate891 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hayate891 and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for help with the English-language edition of Wikipedia. What you want is the move function, but I do not know what it is called or where in the interface it is for the version of Wikipedia that you re working on. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hayate891:, a help desk for ms-Wiki seems to be located at ms:Wikipedia:Meja_bantuan - you could try asking for additional advice there (I don't speak the language myself). All language-specific Wikipedia projects have their own autonomous policies, administrators and forums, so we can't help you here on en-Wiki with ms-Wiki questions. Hope that helps a bit nonetheless. GermanJoe (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks @GermanJoe: and @DESiegel:. I will try over there. I was looking for the move function. I can't find it. It's not in en wiki or ms wiki. I don't know why. Hayate891 (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hayate891On the en-Wikipedia, The Move fn is restricted to Autoconfirmed users, and your account is not listed as such, although I think it should be. Perhaps a few more edits will do it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

Yes, indeed. I got a notification of 10 edits just after that. And the move function is then available in en wiki. I don't really need it now in en wiki. But at least I know why. I will just have to make some more editing in ms wiki to unlock the move function over there too I think. I guess, the case is solved now. Thanks DESiege. :) Hayate891 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How to remove the "too much primary sources" warning at the top of the page

"This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources."

I have read the instructions that follows and I am still confused. I addressed the issue and want to remove this warning. According to the instruction, I should be able to do it in Edit. I didn't see the message in there.

Thank you in advance for any help on this.Afunai (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The template which gives the warning is the one that says {{Primary sources|date=June 2017}}, but you oughtn't to remove it while 2 of the 3 sources are from the company's own website. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Afunai, and welcome to the teahouse. I take it this is about Roman Meal. (In future it is helpful to give a link to the article when asking for help, althoguh we cna often figure it out.) There really should be at least three independent and reliable sources cited, more if possible. The one in place is a fairly through coverage, but a single source is always a problem. The advice above from David Biddulph is quite correct. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Afunai, here is a link to a promising source:

International Directory of Company Histories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hello, Im new to wikipedia.. How do I get an article i stumbled upon approved in here? I have been editing wikis at wiki.teamliquid as well.. Shikarath (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shikarath. I suggest that you begin by reading Your first article. To get a draft article reviewed by experienced editors, use Articles for creation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Shikarath. Is this about Draft:Kyoto eSports?. That draft has several problems.

1. It uses other wikis as sources: wikis are usually not considered reliable sources.
2. One cited source is another Wikipedia article, this is never acceptable.
3. It includes lots of game results, rather than content about the gaming company that is the nominal subject. Those should probably be removed. If they stay, they must be cited to a reliable source.
4. Several of the cited sources seem to be affiliated with the subject. Fully independent sources are needed.
5. Because of the previous issue, the notability of the subject has not yet been demonstrated by this draft.
6. It seem there is also a problem with conflict of interest on the part of at least one editor. This means that editors need to be particularly careful that the article is neutral, and does not contain unsourced opinions or promotional content. Everything in the article should be derived from a cited source, and anything at all controversial or surprising should be cited to an independent source if at all possible.

Until those issues are dealt with, the draft is unlikely to be approved. If you have more specific questions after reading these pointers and Your First Article please do ask them here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page

My page has been deleted because it was described as promotional. How do I get back the content of my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YanniYanni (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You presumably haven't read the message given to you by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi at User talk:YanniYanni#Speedy deletion nomination of User:YanniYanni/sandbox/LendMart.com? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't that page a personal sandbox? I'm confused as to why it was deleted.Margalob (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It was a sandbox, apparently intended as a draft article. But while sandboxes and drafts do not need to comply with all the standards that articles do, promotional pages can be and often are deleted under speed deletion criterion G11 even in draft or user space. Phrases such as It is the first lending marketplace platform in Canadian that helps small businesses identify, compare, and apply for loans in one place, all in under five minutes. made the draft quite promotional. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC) @Margalob: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cant get my page published

Hi,

I cannot seem to get my page published even thought I have followed the template of a competitor brand.Eosonaike (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

On wikipedia, pages need to show the notability of their subject. A way to check notability is to see if this company has been covered by independent, reliable sources. I noticed that you cite the company's website in your article, which is not an independent source. If you're unable to find independent, reliable sources, this company is not notable enough for an article. Margalob (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Eosonaike and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that the "Our history" source goes to a UK government site, but it seems to be simply copying from a company provided listing, and in any case is just a directory entry, and gives no detail about the firm. The same is true of the "CIO Review" cite -- no real detail is given. The offline source i cannot evaluate, of course. To be approved, the draft must cite multiple, independent, professionally-published, reliable sources, that discuss the company in some detail, normally several paragraphs at least. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference; Draft:Orbus Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How to report vandalism in an article?

I just found an article with a frivolous edit that was made just yesterday. It appears to be vandalism. How do I report it as vandalism? Lupine453 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You can correct it yourself and warn the editor. See WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating Family Tree for individual in Wikipedia article

Hi - I was wondering how best to create a family tree for an individual who has a wikipedia article published already ("Edward Howell died 1655"). His ancestry has been proven by genealogist Douglas Richardson Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study In Colonial And Medieval Families, 2nd Edition (2011) and thought this may be worthwhile/valuable information to publish considering Edward Howell has a wikipedia page? Wasn't sure, if worth creating, if this the tree should be published separately or included in the Howell article itself as an edit? Kind thanks in advance for your feedback/advice. Carterclewis (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fred J. Dodge

Posting here to seek assistance from someone versed in welcoming new editors. A large amount of unformatted text has been added to this article by a new editor. It needs formatting, better referencing, etc. The change broke the existing infobox. They did ask for assistance in an edit summary. I reverted once, but don't want to be too WP:bitey. Should the updates be moved to the user's sandbox so they can be worked on there. This is almost like a new article, but since there was a stub, directing the editor to the AFC process doesn't seem to quite fit although they do need to learn almost everything. Thanks. MB 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi MB. The text that was added was a copyright violation from the book the user cited, Under Cover for Wells Fargo. As such, it had to be removed and the article history redacted. The book might be a good source for mining and verifying additions to the article (but, of course, cannot be copied from, or, as was the case here, too closely paraphrased). Checking for copyright violations is often a go-to starting point when you see any large additions of content. This content had many hallmarks about it that made me think it was likely to be a copyvio, which was then confirmed by looking at the source. I recently wrote a guide to recognizing such hallmarks, provided material on checking for them, and procedures for dealing with them when they are confirmed, at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for taking care of this. I am on vacation now with a small keyboard and slow internet connection, so I can't do that much easily. I didn't think copyvio because the tone seemed rather informal. Glad you had the time to check more thoroughly. I read what you put on the editors talk page. Hopefully they will follow those guidelines. MB 04:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between "Alert Articles for creation: QWERTY has been accepted" and the "Notice The page QWERTY has been reviewed"?

Hello again. Maybe I should just ignore this, but I can't resist. I got an "alert" indicating that an article I wrote, Golgi matrix has been accepted. Later, I got a "notice" indicating that the matrix page had been reviewed. The 2 messages were from 2 different editors. The notice appears in "public logs", but not the alert. What is the difference between "acceptance" and "review"? What is the difference between "alerts" and "notifications"? Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi JeanOhm. You got the alert because a user posted to your talk page: [1] Any post would have caused an alert. In this case the post informed you that your draft had been approved and become an article. It's possible to make this approval without posting to you and causing an alert. The later notice about the review is part of Wikipedia:New pages patrol which can apply to all new pages anywhere but is mostly used on new articles. The feature ignores whether an article started as a draft and was accepted there. You can just ignore this, or read the link if you want to know more. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How can enable the toolbar that suggested articles that need help

Right after creating an account, there was a tool bar prompt that suggested articles that needed basic help (grammar, formatting etc.).

The tool bar has since disappeared. Wondering how to get it back? Thanks.

AllenAdam76 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi AllenAdam76, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:GettingStarted#Try it out, or click Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create a page and I am struggling with it. Can you help?

Hey guys, I hope you can help. I am trying to create a page and I am really struggling to bring it together. Is there anyone able to help me out? It is for Edgar Phillips.

Thanks.

Georgiethejourno (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference Draft:Edgar Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Georgiethejourno, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is not a bad start, but there are a number of issues.

1. It definitely needs more sources. Much of the content is currently unsourced. Don't include contnbet until you ahve a source for it, then cite the source promptly.
2. Please Don't include exact dates of birth for living people except under the limited circumstance s allowed by WP:DOB.
3. When using citation templates, each source must have a title, and any source URLs must be full urls, starting with "http://" or "https://". Please read Referencing for beginners for more detail.
4. Don't date things from the current moment. Don't use phrases such as "currently", "This summer", "was and still is", or "now lives at". Suppose the article is accepted, and then is not edited for 5-10 years. Will those statements still be true? Will a reader know which summer is meant? Use phrases such as as of 2017 or planned for the summer of 2017 or the like.
5. Use a somewhat formal tone. Along with this, always refer to the subject by last name after the full name at the top.

Get all that done, particularly additional sources and removing anything still unsourced, and you will be in much better shape. Fell free to ask if there are any further questions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Georgiethejourno: please read the message I left on your talk page regarding the content in the draft that was copied from iMDb. In short, you must write in your own words. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I missed the copied text. Thanks for spotting it, Fuhghettaboutit. Georgiethejourno, Wikipedia absolutely cannot and will not accept improperly copied content. The talk page message spells out the rules in more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anytime. I spend of lot of time on copyright issues so it is automatic as my first check of any addition I am looking at. Unfortunately, DES, this was also the case with the article two threads up, Fred J. Dodge. This was harder to spot as much of it was [far too] close paraphrasing, but since not word-for-word in all cases, spot checks could easily miss the copying. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that also, Fuhghettaboutit, and I feel some egg on my face just now. I trusted a novice contributor without checking the source, merely copy editing it. I should know better. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Thanks for all you do. What would be really nice is if somehow we didn't have to do this for every page; if the problem wasn't so damn pervasive. Oh, well, back to the salt mines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for help with biased User

The article I am trying to edit is highly inaccurate and each time I try to correct it there is a particular User (perhaps more than one person but one user account) who is just undoing it each time. The user account seems to have been created solely for this purpose. I'm certain that they know the page is inaccurate but they want to keep it that way. What can I do? Thanks Banjo92 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

for reference: Kenja Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Banjo92, and welcome to the teahouse. It appears that you and the other editor are at least talking on Talk:Kenja Communication, which is a start. There are several methods of dispute resolution available. Since there seem to be just two editors in dispute, a Third Opnion might be a good place to start. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the article Kenja Communication and see that you were forced to change your user name from KenjaAus that you appear to have a conflict of interest with the article. I would suggest declaring the conflict and maybe taking your edit suggestions to the talk page of the article. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DES, will do. NZ Football, thanks for your suggestion. It is clear that there are other users on here who are biased. Talking to them isn't going to change that, as you are probably aware. Just aiming for accuracy so I'll get more input as suggested. Banjo92 (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Help me look at my draft page for Magnus Penker

Hi!

I have created a draft, and waiting for a review, for the page "Magnus Penker" (Draft:Magnus Penker). If anyone have time to help me look at it I would be very grateful! :)

Best regards, Strongline123 (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at Draft:Magnus Penker, and at several of the sources it cites, and I'm still wondering why he's notable. A reviewer will be looking for reliable independent sources with significant discussion of him. They won't be interested in what he has said about himself. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maproom! Thank you for looking at the draft! Do you mean "Talarforum" or cites from his books? I used his books to explain his works/methods. I also added a few independet sources. Several of his books are "best-selling". His been cited on several wikipedia-pages: Hans-Erik_Eriksson#Eriksson-Penker_Business_Extensions, Unified_Modeling_Language, Enterprise_engineering and Business_process_modeling

Best regards, Strongline123 (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've now looked at the "Talarforum" source, and I strongly recommend omitting it. For one thing, Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject says about himself. Also, it can give a negative impression of him: "Mr. Penker is driven by the recognition that in these turbulent times, we must understand what we are really good at" makes him sound (to me, anyway) like a self-promoting bullshitter.

Which of the sources do you consider as independent? Maproom (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

new page about me and my group

Hey,

My name is Philippe Lemm. Im a new york based drummer and leading my own trio for about 5 years. I wanted to make a Wikipedia page with information about the group and its collaborations. My first attempt got denied :This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Can anyone help? There is a lot of interesting information about this group, the awards it has won etc that i think is relevant to be on wikipedia.

Best, Philippe

Philippelemm (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Philippelemm. I'm afraid that the best advice for you is, Don't! Autobiography - and, by extension, writing about your own group, band, company, organisation, etc - is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If there are substantial materials about your group, written by people unconnected with the group, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers, then there could be an article based on these sources; but you should not be the one to write it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which the subject of an article has said, or wants to say: it is only interested in what independent people have publishd about the subject. If there are such sources, your best bet is to post a request as requested articles: there are no guarantees about when, or whether, a volunteer will pick up your request: but if you find some solid sources, this will make it more attractive. --ColinFine (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Philippelemm. Even if you're absolutely sure, afer reading what ColinFine wrote above, that you are able to maintain a neutral point of view and objective tone when writing about your group or yourself (see WP:NPOV and WP:OR policy pages), you would have also to clearly disclose your conflict of interest (as described at WP:COI). Those policies are considered very important by Wikipedians' community, so please stick to them, or you risk your contribution will be deleted and your account blocked from editing Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine, Philippelemm, the backlog at requested articles is so large, and so few users seem to create articles based on requests there, that I no longer advise users to place requests there: I think it a waste of time and server space. Otherwise i must agree with most of what ColinFine and CiaPan said above. I will add that if you do decide to go ahead in spite of this advice, please read Your First Article and referencing for beginners first, please use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project, try to work with one or more experienced editors, and listen to their advice if they are willing to give it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it a single or not

How to identify is the song a single or not? What if the song has released on Spotify, YouTUbe, Shazam and SoundCloud but not iTunes, is that still consider as a single and put in the "Single" category? Or just put it in another category that's not in the "single" section? Thanks :) JustofiedT147AG (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What is Defaultsort?

I often see people use the defaultsort template on top of categories but I don't understand what is does or why it is necessary. Thanks in advance for any info! hillelfrei^{• talk •} 16:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello hillelfrei. By default, articles are sorted in category pages according to the first letter of the title. Sometimes there is a need to override the default criteria; for instance, Albert Einstein would be sorted by default under the letter A, but the correct way to sort his article would be under his surname rather than his given name. This is achieved by adding the {{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}} tag to the article; this way, the article for Albert Einstein will appear under the letter E in category pages. Hope this helps! –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

...and for more info, Help:Category#Sort_order is a good starting point. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As ever in Wikipedia, there are some do's and don'ts, as to how to use defaultsort, especially with non-standard characters - please see Wikipedia:Default sorting.
Some articles have unusual defaultsort formats - Louis V of France is "Louis 05 Of France" so he comes before Louis IX of France who is "Louis 09 Of France" as otherwise, IX would sort before V - and they need the preceding 0, so that 5 and 9 come before 11 - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey hillelfrei. The gist of what the template does is explained above but I thought you might want to know why we need it in addition to the native way to sort by piping categories (which if you follow the links above you will see explained). Using the example above of Albert Einstein, you could sort a category by his surname by piping it like this: [[Category:XYZ|Einstein, Albert]]. But to take advantage of that, you would have to do that for each of the categories on the page. One advantage of the template, then, is that it instructs all the categories below it to sort by what you place, without having to pipe each one. It's also useful to know that if you use the template, but pipe one of the categories, the piping will overrule the template for that one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Great answers, thanks! hillelfrei^{• talk •} 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for inviting me. I used wikipedia a few years ago but forgot everything even my login and password lol. I am now back. I will create new articles soon and clean Wikipedia and contribute to making a change. I love this portal. I would like to get templates and codes please suggest where do I find them Prof.Marlin (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prof.Marlin. I think that you will find WP:CHEATSHEET to be a good place to start. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

When to use Americanised words "z" usage in particular e.g. Globalisation and Globalization?

AvatarofPride (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi AvatarofPride Use American spelling when the article is written in American English. See WP:ENGVAR for the more specific detail. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It is often said -ize is American and -ise British but note that -ize is generally an acceptable, if slightly unusual, spelling in Britain as well, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#International organizations. Also, even in America, some words are -ise such as revise. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Info box templates (for company)

Hi, I am looking for pre prepared templates for info box of companies. Where I can get that?HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox company}} is one of a few. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Welcome to Wikipedia. There is {{Infobox company}}, which is probably what you want. You can look at other articles about companies (such as General Motors) to see how it looks. RudolfRed (talk)

Thank you guys HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal picture on Userpage?

I am new here to contribute to Wikipedia. I want to ask you seniors, Can I post my personal picture on my Userpage? Muhammad.IQ (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as it meets the requirements to be uploaded to Commons. See here for details. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be on commons, it just has to be freely licensed. I keep my personal picture on the en-wikipedia, not commons, with a very precise attribution requirement, precisely to discourage reuse, although it is freely licensed. See File:David_Siegel.jpg for details. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement?

I'm trying to write an article but received feedback saying that it "reads more like an advertisement". I don't see where this is true. The article is about a business but there is no advertising language used. It is mostly an expanded list of notable mentions of the business activity.

It was also noted that there was a "large number of low-quality references". I've removed anything referencing the business' own website, and any other references from an industry site that could be construed as a press release.

I'd love some more feedback or more detailed criticism of my article. Draft:Russell_Reynolds_Associates

TLCWiki (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@TLCWiki: Hi, does the industry business are related about you? If so, you're in WP:COI, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, see also the WP:ACTUALCOI policies guideline, thanks. `SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The draft is completely riddled with advertising puffery, for example... “advises based on a rigorous evaluation technique to build strong leadership teams” “considered one of the world’s “Big Six” executive recruiters.” “Evaluating culture, aligning culture with strategy, and assessing culture and talent together are all important aspects of boosting organizational performance and the effectiveness of the leadership team.” These are totally inappropriate for a neutral encyclopeida article. Theroadislong (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In case you still don't get Theroadislong's point, TLCWiki: Who says it's "rigorous"? NOT WIKIPEDIA: Wikipedia articles should never express judgments about anything, unless they are explicitly attributed to independent reliably published sources. Who considers it one of the big six? NOT WIKIPEDIA. Who says that those are important aspects? NOT WIKIPEDIA. (And if the subject of the article says these things, Wikipedia isn't interested. Find somebody completely independent of the subject and quote them - and attribute the quotes - fine. But not in Wikipedia's voice). --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

ColinFine, TLCWiki, I would phrase it a bit differently. First a subject's notability must be established. For that purpose, what the subject says about him-, her-, or itself makes no difference and is not considered. Once there are sufficient independent, published, reliable sources cited in an article (or draft) to clearly establish that the subject is notable, then and only then, what the subject says does matter and is of interest to Wikipedia. But even then, any statements by the subject must be clearly attributed to the subject, and cited to a source, just as quotations from anyone else must be. ColinFine is absolutely correct that no opinions or judgements may ever be expressed in Wikiperdia's voice, as if Wikipedia itself had made or endorsed the judgements. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Theroadislong, ColinFine, DESiegel, SA 13 Bro Thanks. I've reworked the Business Overview section and added a reference for the "Big Six" mention. Is there any other changes/recommendations/suggestions for the rest of the article? Do I have too many references? Do I need to elaborate more on some of the Notable Clients section? I've spent a lot of time gathering these tidbits about the company and I'd hate for it to be deleted because I'm not following the rules. TLCWiki (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi TLCWiki. The examples of problematic text above were just examples and addressing just them does not address the many other parts that, as Theroadislong's said, are "riddled with advertising puffery"; the page remains so.

"The year 1994 marked the opening of the Russell Reynolds Associates office in Palo Alto, Ca. This office serves as the only dedicated sector-specific group, as is appropriate in the ever growing Technology sector."

This is dripping, promotional ad-speak. No, 1994 did not "mark" the momentous event of RRA opening an office → "In 1994 RRA opened an office in Palo Alto, Ca." It does not "serves as" but "is". "[T]the only dedicated sector-specific group" – what is this sounds-like-English, corporate mummery? "As is appropriate"? Says who? The "ever growing Technology sector"? This characterization appears in the sentence not because the continued growth of the technology industry has any focused relevance to this topic, but solely to make the inappropriately-worded, superlative claims from earlier in the sentence sound more grandiose.

This excerpt is unsourced, and would have to be cited to a secondary source, rather than a primary one, as it's full of evaluative analysis rather than straightforward statements of fact. This is just another example, where there are others. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Claiming a redirect to create a new page

Hello I work for a registered charity in the UK (The Officers' Association) and have joined Wikipedia in order to create a wiki page to represent our organisation. When I search for "Officers' Association" there is a redirect in place that points to the Royal British Legion (RBL) - Another much larger UK charity who we work closely with. As you can see from their page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_British_Legion) it lists the Officers' Association as one of the merged organisations that formed the RBL - This is factually inaccurate.

Can you recommend the best course of action to create this page and remove this redirect? We have a good relationship with the RBL so I could approach them but would like advice on what I should be requesting first.

Many thanks

James

Officersassoc (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Officersassoc. Well first you should register a new account since your current one is a violation of our username policy since it appears to be promotional and implies shared use. Nearly anything will do just fine, including "James at OA" or just literally gibberish.

Second, you should carefully review our policies on conflicts of interest and take care to abide by them, since failure to do so can result in a lot of unwanted attention.

Finally, if you would like to attempt to write the article yourself, and you're pretty sure it meets our standards for notability, you should start it as a draft, which can be done by clicking here -> Draft:The Officers' Association. When you think you're nearly finished, you can submit it to our Articles for Creation project where a volunteer can review it and offer feedback.

You probably also want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. There's a pretty big learning curve in writing for an encyclopedia, and these can save a lot of trouble if get a feel for things first rather than jumping right in. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, Officersassoc, to add to what TimothyJosephWood says: No Wikipedia article "represents" an organisation, other than Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has an article about your organisation, it will not "represent" your organisation, it will not be owned by your organisation, and your organisation will not have control of its contents. It is basically not your job to write a Wikipedia article about your organisation, because you are likely to find it hard to judge what is and what isn't promotional. This is why editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged. My recommendation would be to drop the idea, and (if you want to contribute to Wikipedia) find other articles to work on. But if you choose to continue, follow TJW's advice. --ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I create this page?

I want to create a page of a celebrity dietician based in India. She is a consultant with NDTV health section, very popular with media - print and digital.

If I create this page will it be accepted?

Shilpa Arora (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Shilpa Arora. This really depends on what types of sources are available and whether or not the subject meets our standards for notability, which is normally shown by demonstrating that the subject has received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the correct protocol for adding a photo?

How do you know if a photo is "cleared' or okay to add to a page, what is the protocol for adding a photo? Cydorsm (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Cydorsm. The answer really depends on which particular photo you're considering, since the legalese justification for using a photo can vary greatly. Maybe if you can be more specific we can be more helpful. TimothyJosephWood 13:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

For example, a book cover or a photo from someone's private collection.Cydorsm (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Cydorsm: Again, it depends. So, for example, a book published in 1850 is different than one published in 1950. A book published in Jamaica is different than one published in the US. One published by a Frenchman who died defending France in WWII is different than literally anyone else in the world.

So we really just need a link to the image you propose using. Or if no link is available, just an indication of exactly which book. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploading a profile picture for one magazine I work for, creating an entire page for another

Dear Wiki Users,

I am an editorial assistant working for The Magazine ANTIQUES (TMA) and MODERN Magazine (MM). I have two questions:

1. I noticed that TMA doesn't have a header image and I was going to add one. We have the rights to use whatever was on our covers, so I was going to upload our May-June cover. However, since it's the company and not I who specifically owns the copyright, is it ok for me to upload it using my user account?

2. MM has no page. Is it conflict of interest for me to create it, using just basic info (publisher, editor, owner, basic history)?

The magazines have been around for, respectively, 95 and 9 years. I've been working for them for a little over a year.

Thank you. Samg0DD^m (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(2) Yes, since you work for them it is a conflict of interest not only to create the page but to work on it at all. See the guideance at WP:COI. (1) The image must be released under a free licence that allows for re-use. RudolfRed (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, RudolfRed.

Samg0DD^m (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Samg0DD^m you not only have a conflict of interest, you are a paid contributor. You must disclose this in accordance with the instructions at WP:PAID.

When RudolfRed says the image must be released under a free license, that is correct, but you cannot release it. The copyright holder must release it. Once it is released, anyone in the world will be able to display it, sell it, create modified versions of it, or muse it in pretty much any way at all, provided that the source is attributed. See the details at Donating copyrighted material. Oh your employer having the "rights to use" an image would not be sufficient, the actual copyright holder must consent to the release.

Once you disclose your connection, you could use the article wizard to create a draft, under the articles for creation project, which will need to be reviewed and approved by an experienced editor before it goes live. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DES. I've learned a lot. Will try to familiarize myself with the procedure before attempting anything else. Samg0DD^m (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On building a new page in an established genre

I am editing (and writing) a page on the urban fantasy series The Tony Mandolin Mysteries. It is an established series in the same genre as The Dresden Files, Garett PI, The Nightside series, the Discworld Vimes novels and others. How far into the build should I wait before posting for review? Please note that I am adding images, reference links etc as I go along. It's almost like being back in grad school. RLBeers (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi RLBeers, and welcome the Teahouse! You can submit your RFC whenever you are ready. Good luck, and happy editing. DoABarrelRoll.dev(Chat!)(Contrib's)(Email)(???) 22:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. BY the way, I am writing as a reader with permission from the author of the series, also an unpaid reader to avoid any conflict. How would I disclose that, if needed?RLBeers (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RLBeers. If you have permission from the author, that suggests that you have some connection with the author, and therefore that there might be a conflict of interest. But it will depend on the case. Incidentally, permission from the author is a complete irrelevance for Wikipedia: permission is neither sought nor required. If there has been substantial independent information about the series, published in reliable places, then an article can be written based on those sources, whether the author likes it or not. If there has not been such material published, then there cannot be an article in Wikipedia, whether the author wants one or not. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

How sould a ranking be done in long tables?

I have seen a couple of articles with tables like this. This does not look correct, but I don't know the correct way to do such a table, should i just ommit the rank table or should I somehow add it to the main table?

GrahamCracker325 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent Changes namespace

After finding out I could save filters on Recent Changes. I had the namespace set to "Article", but sometimes when I click "Show" it automatically sets the namespace to "all" and gives me changes for non-articles too. (but it does follow my filter) So the question either is "what's causing the bug" or "how do I get around the bug". -- MrHumanPersonGuy (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Do I have enough references?

My article Draft:Ken Clark Artist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ken_Clark_Artist was declined because of no references. I am asking how many is enough?.. Thanks all- Obie Willis Obie Willis (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)