Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

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

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

NOT in category?

Is it technically possible to have a template or link that gives you a random page that is NOT in a category? BEANS X2 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe not, but there might be workarounds to whatever it is you actually want to achieve. What is it? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BEANS X2: You can go to Category:Wikipedia backlog then find the categories on the left titled ‘Articles needing additional categories from (date)’. These categories have articles in that have no/very few categories in them. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, try going to Category:Uncategorized pages then click the bold, blue sentence after the second paragraph. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I want a link that gives me a random page that has not got a short description (Not in Category:Pages with short description) to get numbers up. Thinking about it, if that was possible, it would probably have already been done. BEANS X2 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BEANS X2: Thanks for revealing what you actually want so we can give proper answers for it. Category:Pages with short description only contains 30 pages. I guess you mean one of the subcategories. The search -incategory:"Articles with short description" gives mainspace pages not in Category:Articles with short description. -incategory:"Articles with short description" -incategory:"Disambiguation pages with short description" also avoids pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with short description. Searches produce a non-random list of search results. You could add some random words to the search to make the results more random. -hastemplate:"Short description" also works since both categories are added by Template:Short description. This will probably use less server resources. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you for your help! The teahouse has been very useful. --BEANS X2 (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing page?

I'm not sure how to edit pages on Wikipedia but would like to add an additional, worthy, tourist attraction to Moose Jaws wiki page. The city is Moose Jaw and the attraction I would love to add is the grant hall hotel. Its a very unique boutique hotel with a rich history here in moose jaw. The experience in the hotel is outstanding with a 1930's feel an absolute must see if visiting the city. Any help would be much appreciated thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klautamu (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages on Wikipedia can be edited by clicking the “edit” button on the top of the page. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... but any changes you make need to be supported by references to published independent reliable sources. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Klautamu and welcome to Wikipedia. I actually know the place you've described, and was even inside it a short time ago. But as David Biddulph noted, Wikipedia only cares about what reliable sources have said about a topic. Only if several reliable sources have given the place extensive coverage would it be considered notable enough to mention. Wikipedia has no interest in unpubished personal knowledge, experience or opinions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lazy ed's way to type "template:"

When I want to talk about a template or search for a template is there a shorter way add a link to the template namespace or call up the template documentation other than typing out the entire "t-e-m-p-l-a-t-e-(colon)" portion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. There is no Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases for Template. For wikilinks in discussions it's common to write {{tl|Example}} to produce {{Example}} instead of Template:Example, but it's mainly because it looks better and be copy-pasted for uses, not to save a few characters. You can choose namespace at Special:Search but it ends up taking longer if you have a normal type versus click ratio. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, I knew I'd seen something like t1 but couldn't remember. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy Just in case... it's tl (L for Llama), not t1. The font in code format makes them look very similar. There are lots of related templates in the documentation for {{tl}}, of which the ones I use most often are {{tlp}} and {{tlx}} for adding parameters to the example, and (mostly in my cheatsheet) {{tbullet}} to demonstrate what a template does › Mortee _talk 23:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks Mortee! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please help me in my discussion with User:Justlettersandnumbers

Hi everyone, I am new to Wikipedia and have done extensive research about a top 20 highly competitive and selective FDS-accredited drama school in the UK (Drama Studio London) and Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) has literally removed everything based on one-sided accusations without giving me a chance to explain myself (which I have done with Ganbaruby (talk · contribs) who kindly helped me and made me feel welcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) has refused to discuss anything with me and automatically deleted everything from the article without giving me a chance to edit it and has labelled everything automatically as an "inappropriate edit" or a copyright violation, when everything I have done so far was in good faith and had references. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) himself added red links back to the article (which I have since had to remove yet again before he blanked the entire article) and highly inaccurate information to the article while claiming ownership of this article (such as saying that it is a "distance learning school" when in reality it is a top 20 FDS accredited drama school in the UK which is highly selective and you can only audition for and attend in person, but user:Justlettersandnumbers refuses to acknowledge any of this), which I understand is against Wikipedia policy in itself. I would very much appreciate it if an experienced editor could kindly join in this discussion to allow me to edit the article again without everything automatically being removed by user:Justlettersandnumbers who seems unwilling to discuss anything with me. User:Justlettersandnumbers even listed one of my edits on the article of Middlesex University as an "inappropriate edit" when all I did was refer one word to its own Wikipedia article........User:Justlettersandnumbers has not made me feel very welcome so far on Wikipedia and has not given me any chance to explain myself or to even edit my edits in the article, when he himself has violated Wikipedia policy by adding red links and inaccurate information to the article of Drama Studio London (which I have subsequently removed), but everything I have edited has been deleted yet again by User:Justlettersandnumbers, which I find very sneaky of him to do so, when in all honesty I do not want any arguments and just want to fairly have a discussion in order to edit this article, but I have received no response so far to my invitation to discuss all of this with user:Justlettersandnumbers--Coreyar (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it very strange that User:Justlettersandnumbers first deleted everything by saying that everything I have added is an "inappropriate edit" and when I tried to edit it again and explained that he added inaccurate information and red links back to the article, he suddenly said that everything is a "copyright violation", which is also untrue, and he has not given me any chance to edit or explain anything, but just automatically deleted everything that I have edited again. I find that very strange and unwelcoming of him and it seems like he is claiming ownership of the article without giving me the chance to edit it.--Coreyar (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I also did not copy/paste anything, I directly referred back to the article that contained the information, but User:Justlettersandnumbers could have just discussed this with me and I could have edited it, but now I am not even allowed to edit anything anymore from him since he has blanked everything and does not allow me to edit the article again. Isn't Wikipedia a free encyclopedia for all to edit? He was not even willing to discuss this with me first before deleting everything, which I did with User:Ganbaruby who kindly discussed everything with me and we came to a consensus, but User:Justlettersandnumbers has refuse to discuss anything with me to give me a chance to re-edit it and now I am not allowed to edit anything from him anymore........
- Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) has also made it very clear by reverting on the article of Drama Studio London that he is unwilling to discuss anything with me and refuses to go onto the talk page before reverting all of my edits yet again.--Coreyar (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Coreyar. Your edits were reverted for a number of reasons:

It was a clear violation of our policy on promotional content. Here at Wikipedia, we write in a Neutral point of view which you did not do. You promoted the company heavily.
Verifiability is a key policy of Wikipedia which is taken very seriously. Your edits did not have Reliable sources to back up the information you added. Instead, you used your own Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
It appears you copy and pasted information from another website which is copyright violation. This is not permitted on Wikipedia.

I suggest you take the Tutorial and see Help:Editing before continuing, so that your edits are not reverted in the future. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Willbb234 (talk · contribs). However, is User:Justlettersandnumbers allowed to add red links to an article, inaccurate information and claim ownership of the article by blanking it and not allowing me to edit it again and reverting all my edits and refusing to discuss anything on the talk page with me? Aren't those Wikipedia policy violations?--Coreyar (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - It is such a shame that I have received rather hostile reactions from editors on my talk page instead of anyone kindly giving me help and advice. The only decent editor so far who has objectively helped me and came to a consensus was Ganbaruby. I thought the Tea House would be a friendly place where I could expect help, not be attacked and scrutinised based on one-sided accusations without giving me a chance to explain myself, which has made Wikipedia very off-putting and not a free place to edit at all in my opinion.........such a shame and I hope that someone can still decently help me in a friendly manner to re-edit the article of Drama Studio London--Coreyar (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the serious copyright issues, you added ridiculous trumpery to the Drama Studio London "one of the twenty most prestigious and most selective officially accredited leading drama schools" which was quite rightly reverted by User:Justlettersandnumbers. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk · contribs), Since I am a new editor, all of you could have at least discussed this with me first so that I could have re-edited and removed edits from the article instead of being hostile towards me....I do not appreciate one-sided accusations without giving me the chance to explain myself or correct my edits........However, is User:Justlettersandnumbers allowed to add red links to an article, inaccurate information and claim ownership of the article by blanking it and not allowing me to edit it again and reverting all my edits and refusing to discuss anything on the talk page with me? Aren't those Wikipedia policy violations?--Coreyar (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Justlettersandnumbers is allowed to add red links there is nothing in the guidelines to stop him and it is actually encouraged. The content at Drama Studio London has been blanked pending an investigation into copyright violation which Wikipedia takes very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See your Talk page as to why you are temporarily blocked. Standard practice is add, if reverted, discuss on the article's Talk. What you wanted to do is re-add your content and keep it in the article while discussing at Talk. Finding one editor who agreed with you (Ganbaruby) is not consensus. David notMD (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coreyar: being a new user does not give you the right to violate Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia takes its policy on copyright violation particularly seriously, as allowing it to be violated could have legal consequences. Maproom (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Coreyar, I have attempted to discuss your edits with you, as you can see by looking at your talk-page, User talk:Coreyar. Matters I've raised with you have been:

the remarkably promotional tone of many of your edits, in my view wholly inappropriate to an encyclopaedia (e.g., "the most prestigious and most selective officially accredited leading drama schools")
compliance with our copyright policy
the possibility that you may have a conflict of interest or paid relationship to one or more of the topics you have written about.

Your "chance to explain [your]self" was to reply to those messages, which you chose not to do; instead, you started edit-warring to restore the same inappropriate content as before, and got yourself briefly blocked. Once you return, perhaps you would care to offer some explanation here? Specific questions you might consider are:

are you connected to any of the topics you've written about, such as Drama Studio London or Drama UK?
why do you use such promotional language in relation to them?
how did you end up writing content identical to that here if you didn't copy it? Was it copied from somewhere else?

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and tables

If I create a table based on information from a source (or sources) cited several times previously in an article, must I still refer back to the source(s) in every entry of the table?—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J.S. Clingman. WP:HEADERS suggests that column and row headings are a good place to reference sources, which is what I tend to do when creating tables. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cordless Larry!—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J.S. Clingman: Looking at your Draft:Kingdom Studios, you could, above the table, add a short sentence with a description of the table including the reference, like Following is a table of planned films:<ref>...</ref>. Also note that, if you want all the text to be centered, you don't need to specify it for each cell; just change the table header to:

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center;"

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AlanM1! Il do that.—J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching all projects?

There are times that I would like to search certain words/phrases on all of the various wiki sites - I call them portals, I believe you call them projects (en.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, commons, etc). But short of opening each individual site and entering my search criteria, I don't know of another way to do it. Any ideas? Quakewoody (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quakewoody, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of an in-house tool to do this, but if you type site:wikipedia.org "my search term" into Google, results from all the subdomains (en., es. etc) will be included. Commons is on Wikimedia.org so you'd need to run a second search to cover that. Hope this helps. Depending on what you're trying to achieve, it might also be relevant that if you go to a particular article on Wikipedia (in any language), links to the equivalent articles in other languages are given in the bar on the left (assuming someone has linked them). › Mortee _talk 22:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, doing that on Google doesn't show all results, just most. But also, that is a delayed search. I am really just trying to prevent certain spam, and some vandals have started learning to use "other than" en.Wiki to spread their disease. Wikipedia search is fairly instant, plus I get the info like "last updated" or being able to search just talk pages of discussion pages, etc. Quakewoody (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Perhaps someone else knows of a tool that I don't and can tell us both about it. › Mortee _talk 23:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Quakewoody and Mortee: Global Search

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could get more out of it if it came with instructions. But, as of right now, I can tell you that this link is nice but heavily flawed and in no way a complete result. But I will spend some time toying with it using some of the terms I regularly search for. Maybe I can add it to my regular arsenal of spam fighting. Quakewoody (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image

https://thecreative.cafe/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none-610d01afd6a8 Does the image here meet the threshold of originiality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Mulch Civic (Pro) (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve Mulch and welcome to the Teahouse.

We most often speak of the threshold of originality in discussing logos; some logos are simple enough that they are considered to be uncopyrightable, at least in some jurisdictions.

Your chart, as part of the webpage, would generally be treated as copyrighted material. Whether that copyright belongs to you or to someone you closely copied it from could be a matter of dispute; most likely, in that case, yours might be considered a derivative work. The idea of a two-by-two matrix with labels and items in the quadrants is by now fairly commonplace and I'm fairly certain the general idea of such a chart is not subject to copyright.

But what are you really asking? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did 2605:6000:1711:C8C6:6DB1:34CA:FC05:4A8A get a new I.P address so fast?

2605:6000:1711:C8C6:6DB1:34CA:FC05:4A8A How did the ip get a new address so fast? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humorous1234 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) This one: 2605:6000:1711:C8C6:A451:EC6E:A430:D49[reply]

Humorous1234: some ISPs have a pool of IP addresses, and each time one of their customers connects to the internet, they are allocated an address from the pool. (This is of course nothing to do with Wikipedia.) Maproom (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Humorous1234: At least the last half (64 bits; four hexadectets) of IPv6 addresses are generally assigned on the local network. The ISP assigns no more than the top 64 bits, and often the top 48 or even fewer, to a particular customer. The user's local network hardware is doing it, and it's not unheard of (though I don't know the reason). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation for image descriptions

Should I or should I not be adding periods in the descriptions of images? I see both descriptions with a period and without one (seemingly more without one), so I thought I'd better ask here to get a concrete answer. For example, which of the following would be correct? I would assume with a period, but since I see so many descriptions without one, you know, doesn't hurt to ask.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralPunger (talk • contribs) 06:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No periods when caption is a sentence fragment. See WP:CAPFRAG. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting edits to an article

I am curious about under what circumstances an article can be, or will be, restricted to open editing? I understand that if there is vandalism, or an editing war on a page, the page might be restricted temporarily, but what if the subject of a bio of a living person wants his/her page closed to edits? Is that ever done? Thanks for your time and consideration. 218.101.176.213 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. No, that cannot be done. The only times when pages are protected are when there is persistent vandalism, edit warring or lots of unsourced content is added repetitively. I think there is a couple more reasons but these are the most common. Protection is never precautionary nor can it be requested from the subject of the article. I hope that helps, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: protection can be requested by the article subject, but they would need a valid reason (most likely persistent vandalism). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Willbb234 is right. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. Indeed, if the subject of an article requests protection without what that policy page describes as a valid reason, it is likely to arouse suspicion. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you said "living person wants his page" - you should read up on the Conflict of Interest guidelines. Person X can't edit Person X's article. I can't even correct my dead gf's birth name. However, I do have some sympathy for a living person that has an article. Not because they have a page (you seek "fame", you give up certain amounts of privacy), but because some of the stuff that is written can become a bit tabloid-ish. "Recentism" can be a problem. I have seen major movie stars of the 50s-70s with 10 line written about them. While today's people on the "D-list" have these big huge articles with so much trivial detail - and that is simply because of the way we require sourcing. The modern internet media puts out enough press, everyone can be famous for 15 minutes. Whereas the olden stars, well, it cost money to print magazines, they are limited in the amount of pages they can print which limits the amount of people and topics they can cover. Quakewoody (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And its then far worse trying to find equivelent sourcing on people of merit (and especially women) who lived and worked a hundred years ago or more. Sadly, its far easier to trace sources about today's cultural non-entities that meet our notability guidelines than it is to find it for those historic characters who actually helped shape today's societies around the world. But that's the choice Wikipedians have made. Only we can change that. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this particular place/topic is not where to do it. Quakewoody (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taudhakpur

Hello, I just want to know whether my article has been submitted successfully or not. Please check and inform. Thank-you.Rushdesk2017 (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rushdesk2017. Yes, you’re draft has been submitted for review and a reviewer should be able to review soon. Please be patient as it make take several weeks for a reviewer to do so. The draft looks good after a glance so it should be accepted. If you have anymore questions, please do ask. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Draft and Accepted. The article is at Taudhakpur. Editors feel free to have a look and review my review. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 09:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your first articles, Rushdesk2017. I hope you got the same sense of achievement that I got when I created mine. Just one thing: it looks like you might be trying to prepare them on your Userpage, which isnt really the right way to go about things. That page is for you to say a little about yourself, your editing interests and related stuff. Drafting new pages is best done in your own sandbox page (see link at top), or as a draft via the Articles for Creation wizard. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles from French Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia, I'm a new one here, and i'm a french student. I'm working on Jocelyne Saab's films, who released a lot of her movie in different country. I have been trying to write articles about her on the french wikipedia plateform in english, but it has been locked. Would it be possible to transfert my articles to the english plateform (i'm working from english sources) ? How can i process ? Thanks for the answer Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZLMV (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RZLMV: welcome to the Teahouse! In order to get the text from your deleted articles at French Wikipedia, you'll need to contact the administrators there. Hopefully they will be able to send you the text, and you can then create the articles here. Please use the Articles for creation process or the so-called "Article Wizard" for your first articles, to help you through the process. New accounts cannot create articles on English Wikipedia until they have made a number of edits - this is different from French Wikipedia. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RZLMV:, just as an additional tip, please note that film articles on English Wikipedia should meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films) (and WP:GNG in general). But of course any sourced contributions within these guidelines are greatly appreciated. I also cleaned up some formatting issues in the main article for Jocelyne Saab - hope this is helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thank all Thank all of you for the answer, i actually trying to understand all wikipedia's rulls to the english plateform, and really thank you GermanJoe for helping me improve the English page of Jocelyne ! Regards. RZLMV ([User talk:RZLMV|talk]]) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this significant coverage for wiki notability?

I am looking to write an article in the english wikipedia about a well known state lawyer of Mongolia. There are mentions and citation found in english to the works of the laywer, but there are no articles or biographies in english about this laywer. So my question is can I write about this person in the english wiki, with only his works and research papers as his notability? Additionally, his works are in Mongolian, but there are research papers done in english that cite the laywers works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Буддаа Батнаран (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Буддаа Батнаран, You can use Mongolian sources that talk about his life. It's not easy to say he's notable or not without actually seeing the sources. So please start a draft and use all relevant sources in any language. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write the article for Mongolian Wikipedia? Quakewoody (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Буддаа Батнаран Sources to demonstrate that a subject meets our Notability criteria here on English Wikipedia do not themselves have to be written in English. It helps, but it's not essential. There are innumerable brilliant lawyers around the world who would fail to meet those criteria - very few get written about by independent sources in a way that easily demonstrate notability, as defined by Wikipedia, whether in English or otherwise. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Custom spelling list?

In an edit window, I get red squiggles under words the internal wiki spellchecker does not recognize. This is a great feature unless such phrases are intentional and frequently recur (i.e., a name in a BLP). Is there a way to add a custom list of words for use by the internal spell checker? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a Wikipedia spellchecker, but the spellchecker in your browser. Most browsers have a custom dictionary to which you can add words, usually by left- or right-clicking on the word. Dbfirs 20:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Who knew! Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I check my account security?

I got home and went on to wikipedia, however I had to log back in, with some message that my account had be logged out due to attempted logins. I was wondering if there is a way to see who is trying to get into my account or not? Govvy (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Govvy. There was a spate of attempted logins some time ago. I had hundreds of attempts, as did many others, so I made my password a bit more secure. Checkusers can see the IP addresses of edits, but I'm not sure whether failed login attempts have their source recorded. If your password is strong then I wouldn't worry about it. Hackers will only succeed if the password is weak or used elsewhere and hacked there. Dbfirs 20:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

k, I used generated chain passwords, so should be okay. Govvy (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

need help with understanding "reliable sources" for new page on Cronyn Observatory

This is my first wikipedia page, and I realize that at the moment there are no references included.

Much of the information comes from my having worked at the observatory for 34 years.

We've been working on the history of this institution for the past 5 years. This includes many successful searches in the archives of The University of Western Ontario and other archives. Much information is first hand knowledge, a good example being the sizes and parameters of the telescopes. Certainly there are references available for all publications mentioned in the "Research" area.

I've been using as an example the pages for Scotlands "Mills Observatory", which interestingly has the telescope that we were offered for purchase in 1939 (Western archives private communication).

Thanks so much for so promptly looking at my submission.

Please help me understand what is needed for reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocet7 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avocet7. Have you tried taking a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources yet? If not, then try looking at it because it pretty much explains how Wikipedia defines a "reliable source". You might also want to look at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth because these pages explain why editors who try to base article content on their own personal knowledge often find themselves running into problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge , sharing with other language in wikipedia

first of all , i'm french . i watch some french article in wikipedia and sometime i wanna know if the english version is a better one than the french one (and vice-versa) .

Generaly , it's quiet the same thing , but sometime , it's outdated . i'm just coming from the Syphilis page (the french one and after , the english one ) and it seem that the english page is outdated So i have a few question. Can we updated it with french material? some "free" french source (from scientifics articles) are well cited in the french page of the Syphilis , who updated the knowledge we know about this desease .

it is not unusual to see sometime, in the french side of wikipedia , some english source . so i wouldlike to know if we can put some french source and , to an extent , wanna know how these different side communicate .

Ps: sorry for my bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldiran (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eldiran, French (or any other language) sources are more than welcome on English Wikipedia (and to my knowledge, any other Wikipedia project). Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, so be mindful that content decisions (and guidelines governing them) may be different on English Wikipedia than on French Wikipedia. That having been said, most of the time adding additional translated content from another Wikipedia is fine and welcome.

Additionally, if there's something you want to add but aren't sure your English skills are good enough, another option to consider is to write a comment on the talk page providing the sources and a brief explanation of how/why they should be added. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eldiran Greetings. Additional note - sources can be in any languages and not just French and secondly, please translate the content in your own words and not using machine translation. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing An Article. My Article is In Sandbox

My article is in Sandbox. Do I need to complete other action. I'm unable to pull it up in the search box. Is in an active/live content document or do I need to complete another step in the content publication process? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pflovett (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pflovett. Techinically what you've created is an userspace draft, not an article. The "Publish changes" button can be a bit confusing in that it really means to "Save changes" (in fact that's its previous name); so, when you hit it you're basically just saving all of the changes you made in that particular editing session to the page's history. Userspace drafts or regular drafts are not automatically "published" per se; they need to be manually WP:MOVED move to the article mainspace before they are truly considered articles.

After looking at User:Pflovett/sandbox, I would not suggest trying to MOVE your work to the article namespace just yet because it's not nearly ready to be added as an article. It looks like you might've made an OK start, but none of the content is supported by any citations to reliable sources and the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clear. So, if you MOVE your work to the mainspace as it is, it's almost certainly going to end up tagged/nominated for deletion (perhaps even quite quickly).

You might want to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to gain some insight as to what types of subject are typically considered to be sutiable for a Wikipedia article about them. Then, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTMEMORIAL), and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends since those pages also contain information you might find helpful. You might also want to take the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure since you can learn about Wikipedia editing while actually editing. If do all those things, you have more specific questions, feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask them. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language link issue

When I go to Simon I (High Priest) and look at the bottom left, there is a Hebrew link to the page for שמעון השני (which is incorrect). When I click "Edit links", however, the Hebrew link that appears is to a different page (the correct page) שמעון הראשון. Why the inconsistency, and how can we make it link to the correct page? Ar2332 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ar2332. I can see and even recreate the problem your describing but can't read Hebrew; so, this is just a guess. It seems like it might be a WP:WIKIDATA problem. You might want to try asking at WP:VPT since that's generally a good place for asking technical questions like this. he:שמעון הראשון and he:שמעון השני are different articles, but maybe there's something about their respective Wikidata that's causing the software to treat them as same one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Language link issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Size

I stumbled across the article Kamla Persad-Bissessar which has a very long infobox, longer than the article text actually. A general question on that: Are infoboxes meant to be used to that extent, or should they be kept short to provide a first overview? And should infoboxes contain citations or should citations be placed in the appropriate part of the article text? Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 08:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grueslayer, WP:INFOBOX has something to say about some things you want to know. For example, citation should be minimal. Not necessary if the information is well cited in the article. Infoboxes are meant to be a summary overview of the subject, so it mostly repeats info already in the article in which case citation is not needed. A few citations are acceptable for highly controversial claims, for example in a biography of living person,or if the information is added to the infobox but isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't think there's any rules against long infoboxes. But if there is enough info to have such a long infobox, same info can be used to expand the prose as well. And if the info isn't in the prose because there are no good sources to cite, it would be wrong to include such info in the infobox, wouldn't it? Hope this helps! I'm sure others will add more. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Usedtobecool, that helped! Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing my company Wikipedia Page

Hi Folks,

Quick question - I have a few edits I want to suggest for a company I work in but of course I don't want to break any Wikipedia rules. I was thinking of suggesting my edits here at the Teahouse along with their citations - is this a good practice? If not, can you please link me to a page where I can suggest such edits? This will be my first time editing/suggesting edits.

Thank you to everyone in advance for reading and replying to my question. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SManiar (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SManiar Greetings. You could Wikipedia:Edit requests at the article talk page and provide the sources accordingly.Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I think "a company I work for" is fairly vague. God help us if every person who has ever been employed by a place like China Mobile Communications (currently employing 460,000), or McDonald's or Wal-Mart (fewer current employees but high turnover rates); never be able to edit their articles? But, yes, as previously mentioned, use the article talk page to make a request. Quakewoody (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can a "how to pronounce" audio clip be added to a page or pages?

Good Morning Teahouse - (first timer here) I'm curious if an audio snip with the correct pronunciation of the search topic could be added to a page or pages? If that detail is already part of a page(s) I guess I've overlooked it. The impetus for my (first ever) note to the Teahouse was prompted by a revision to a page I follow. I enjoy getting an email notification whenever a page has been revised. I always try to revisit the page, not necessarily to see the change but because at some point in the past I found the subject of interest and bookmarked it. More time than not the edit is to a page that I'd long forgotten about, and upon seeing and reading the page I'm almost transported to the time and mindset that originally prompted the search on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia and have been a small supporter/$$contributor for many years. (I even have the stickers and a gray hoodie from the wiki-store LOL)

So back to my question about embedding a pronunciation snippet into a page, is it possible or is it already on pages and I'm just overlooking it? The page that brought me here this morning is the one. The Wikipedia page Triskelion has been changed on 26 August 2019 by anonymous user 98.165.105.12, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskelion for the current revision.

I see the phonetic information on each page, but I think (at least for me) that I'd benefit from hearing it pronounced. Soooo, to hear the work "Triskelion" spoken I searched and listened to it here. (sorry for the long link) https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS841US841&q=how+to+pronounce+triskelion&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRowy3w8sc9YSnjSWtOXmPU5eINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLjYglJLcoV4pPi4eIqKcoszk7NAYpbsSgxpebxLGKVzsgvVyjJVygA6soHaktVQCgCAHUJdnNfAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9i7yBtKDkAhVGQ6wKHTtGB1IQ3eEDMAl6BAgAEAg&biw=1366&bih=599

I think upon hearing it I can more confidently use it in conversation and of course, that applies to all the subjects I have bookmarked or saved in my Wikimedia account.

Based on the Teahouse bio it looks like this is a supportive place and part of the goal is to answer page questions, entertain suggestions and help encourage new page editors, thus my rambling note this morning... ;-)

Thank You James Ashley user name Oneluckydog1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneluckydog1 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oneluckydog1, good morning! If you go to WP:AUDIO and through a couple of sections, you might get all the information you are looking for. My personal answer is this:

I have seen Wikipedia pages which have pronunciation files. As you say, it's quite helpful in cases of complex/interesting/foreign/technical words. The only barrier I can imagine is copyrights. If we have pronunciation files that are of good quality and legally allowed to use, I think we usually do. Fortunately, anyone can record such audio files and upload to Commons. More info on that is also on the page I linked previously. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 13:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending upon the word there are some fairly major barriers to determining what the "correct" pronunciation is. Consider the case of "lieutenant", is it "lef-TEN-ənt" or "loo-TEN-ənt"? Do you pronounce "brass" to rhyme with "ass" or with "arse"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. But it's hardly a unique problem. We have the same problem with trasliterations, phonetics, and even variations of names and spellings of names. Guess the community processes take over. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 15:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary often has audio pronunciations, but not often enough, and not for triskelion. We need more volunteers with resources for recording pronunciations. Dbfirs 15:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what you're looking for is at Audi. If there are variations of pronunciation, there is nothing against having them both in the article. For example, the infobox of Aluminium has UK and US pronunciation sound files.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to ...?

... licence newly uploaded files — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwakebe1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwakebe1 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can't freely license an image if the copyright belongs to someone else. The safest advice is to upload photographs that you took yourself, then, as copyright holder, you can release the image under a free licence. See WP:Uploading images for general guidance. Dbfirs 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to upload photos, please assist

Hi, I'm trying to insert photos into a draft Wiki page I've already submitted about my late father, Sherwood Ross. When I try to upload the photos, I get a message saying that they can't be published because of questions about licensing. The two photos I tried to upload have been in my family's possession for more than 50 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kross305 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kross305: Welcome to Wikipedia. We prefer you don't post the same question in multiple places. Please see the responses at the help desk (WP:HD) RudolfRed (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Declined Due to Unreliable Source

I recently had a post declined for a unreliable references. I would love to get some further guidance on what sources I would require to get my post about Plevo posted on Wikipedia. Please see below the post?

‘’Plevo’’' is an American travel and lifestyle brand that develops and produces technology world class travel products.[1][2] Led by founder, Federico Pelatti in Buenos Aires. The brand launched an smart luggage line, The Plevo Series One, on the crowdfunding websites, Kickstarter and Indiegogo in 2018. The campaign raised $403,762 USD in contributions after 45 days.[3][4] Since its foundation in 2018, Plevo has raised $1.4 million USD in financing.[5]
References

Sarang Sheth (July 30, 2018). https://www.yankodesign.com/2018/07/30/if-silicon-valley-designed-the-travel-suitcase/.Yanko Design

Jonathan Margolis (August 16, 2018)https://www.ft.com/content/c4398806-a06b-11e8-b196-da9d6c239ca8

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/plevo-the-world-s-most-innovative-smart-luggage/x/19131051#/

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/plevo/plevo-the-worlds-most-innovative-smart-luggage?ref=user_menu

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/plevo#section-overview

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMackay11 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomMackay11, I can't comment on the Financial Times source because it's paywalled, but looking at the other sources:

The Yanko Design article is clearly promotional and thus not reliable (The currently provided link is broken. Here's the real source for anyone else interested)

The indiegogo and kickstarter pages are directly affiliated with the subject and thus not independent coverage.

Crunchbase (RSP entry) is an unreliable source which has been deprecated

Additionally, the paragraph of text that you have written here is blatantly promotional. Wikipedia should never describe something as "world class travel products" in its own voice. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomMackay11 - You will need at least 8-10 sources of media coverage, including at least two in-depth profiles to demonstrate that the company is notable enough for an article here. I did a quick search and can't find other sources that are not advertisements or the company's own press releases. See WP:RS for proper sourcing guidelines. Since the product just launched, it seems that trying to get an article is premature. See WP:TOOSOON. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TomMackay11, and welcome to the Teahouse. One thing that may help is to realise that Wikipedia has almost no interest in anything that the subject of an article (or associates of that subject) says about themselves, whether in their own publications or websites, or in interviews or press releases. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it, in reliable sources. I realise that your question is primarily about what is a reliable source, but the other replies you have had suggest to me that part of the issue is the independence of the sources. (I haven't looked at any of your sources myself) --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less a question and more of a suggestion

I don't really know if there is a specific place to put suggestions regarding the Wikipedia UI, so I'll just stick it here for now. I would like to suggest that an option to filter out edits by username be added to the UI of the Recent Changes page. I want this because it would make patrolling the RC page easier if I could filter out edits by, say, the MediaWiki message bot. The existing option to remove edits made by bots and only show human edits doesn't seem to work, as it seems not all bots are categorized as such by the RC UI. If there is a better spot to place this, please tell me. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 17:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jebcubed You can set the filters in the Recent Changes page to exclude edits by bots. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jebcubed I just went to [[1]] and the default setting shows no bot edits, at least that I can see. There may be some that are missed, but perhaps it's better to contact the operators of those exception bots and alert them? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring some articles over from English Wikipedia to Urdu Wikipedia by translating them

But I'm having hard time fighting out the large amount of formatting code used in different cases. Any idea how to get comfortable with these ? Also I see that many articles at Urdu Wikipedia appear to be marked as either stub or disputed. However, their counterparts at English Wikipedia are almost complete. So can I edit those and bring them up to par with their English counterparts? Alifarhadd (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alifarhadd Thanks for trying to help Wikipedia. You can make any edits you want as long as the translation is correct. Here's the help info for the English Wiki - not sure where you'd go if you want the info in Urdu. Help:Wikitext TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alifarhadd: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. To get familiar with Wikipedia formatting and editing, check out the WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. This should help you become more comfortable with editing. Then, check out Wikipedia:Translate_us for guidance on translating into other languages. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edited PH name template

Hello! Can I ask you about the newly edited version of Philippine name template. I really edit the template by replacing the words "Matronymic"/"Patronymic" intead of "middle name" pr "surname" to make it more shorter and more interesting as well. RenRen070193 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RenRen070193: I'm not sure what you're asking, and I'd like to help, but can't find the template you are referring to. Can you provide its name inside code to prevent it from functioning, like this?? <nowiki>{{template}}</nowiki> TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RenRen070193: Your edit to {{Philippine name}} was reverted by another editor. Please discuss on the template's talk page to get consensus for the change. RudolfRed (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki

How do you add the History bar and Personal Life bar? I'm not completely finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.p1 official1 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A.p1 official1: Here's the link to the draft in question for other editors' convenience: User:A.p1 official1 I recommend you read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE before proceeding any further. Your draft will not be approved without sources that show notability, and linking to a Soundcloud page is not nearly enough. To get more familiar with Wikipedia formatting and editing, check out the WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. This should help you become more comfortable with editing. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @A.p1 official1:Unfortunately, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not to write your autobiography - have you been talked about in many news articles? It may be better to work on establishing fame first - you don't need a Wikipedia article to be famous. Besides, the thing is that you seem to be writing about yourself - if you write your own article, you will have a conflict of interest (that just means you might find it hard to stay encyclopedic, and write neutrally), and we'll have to stick a bright orange tag on top telling everyone that you wrote it. That doesn't look super great. Best of luck in your career! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Article

Hi everyone,

I trust you are well.

How do I know that my Draft Article has been approved to the main space of Wikipedia?

Do I randomly check at intervals or I shoumd get some sort of notification from Wikipedia?

Kindly Advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.12.1.33 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You won't get a notification, you will need to check periodically. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so it may take some time as there are thousands of drafts waiting. The edit history of your IP does not indicate edits to a draft, so I cannot give you more advice than that unless you want to link to the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A registered user can set email notifications enabled for talk page messages as well as review of pages created by self, two of the things that should invariably happen when a draft is approved and published. Talk page message is customary also in case the draft is rejected. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 06:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges

Excuse me, but is there a Naturopathic Medical Doctor in the house? 4Cancer (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4Cancer: What are you asking? We cannot offer medical advice. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4Cancer: No, without sufficient sourcing, but you can read about Bastyr University. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are no editors on Wikipedia that are Naturopathic Medical Doctors?

Well, that explains what is happening to all the herbal remedy/traditional medicine sections of various nutritional supplement pages.

Absolutely no one at all? I would think that the Naturopathic Medical Doctors (as a whole) would at least dispute the neutrality of these pages after what has been going on...they represent a significant minority and therefore their voices should be heard as well as the voices of regular medical professionals...there is a serious imbalance in content that I find shocking for Wikipedia. At least, what I remember Wikipedia being. Just because a group of medical professionals has created a sub group of editors with their own set of rules, above and beyond Wikipedia rules...and then started mucking about with all pages with herbal remedies on them saying that there is no clinical evidence and no other sources that support the Naturopaths position...

I think this is appalling. GNC, Natural Grocers, etc wouldn't exist if there wasn't a clear margin beyond placebo effect of happy customers.

4Cancer (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Cancer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4Cancer: You can add anything you want, as long as you include reliable sources. See WP:RS for more info. Your concerns and newness come across as WP:SOAP, and in your short time here, it suggests WP:NOTHERE. It's not too late for you though. Since the Teahouse is a general forum for editing advice, you're better off discussing your concerns on Talk:Alternative medicine or a related page, where others with similar interests congregate. Good luck. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FALSEBALANCE - If you had used that I don't think I could have argued. 4Cancer (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would suggest, more specifically, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Also, from my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "Naturopathic Medical Doctor", NDs are not MDs: one is either a Naturopath or a Medical Doctor. BTW, they have tried to dispute the neutrality, and they lost. The simple fact is this: the evidence doesn't support the Naturopaths' positions, in general, and Wikipedia must reflect that. The accusation of imbalance seems to come from the false premise that to be "balanced" we should give equal weight to the claims and beliefs of everyone. Also see WP:UNDUE.VdSV9•♫ 21:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that they lost. The Alternative Medicine Talk page was quite informative on just how much they lost.

You can't argue with regulation though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Supplement_Health_and_Education_Act_of_1994

The fact is, these nutritional supplements are sold, in real brick and mortar stores and online. And they are regulated and allowed to do so by DSHEA. So, I guess that adding "Sold and regulated by" sections to each herbal remedy that is used is now my mission in life.

4Cancer (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 4Cancer. Your mission here on Wikipedia must be to edit neutrally in full compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines. Any edits to medical content must be based on neutrally summarizing what sources that comply with WP:MEDRS say about the topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, for advocacy or for righting great wrongs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add sections titled "Sold and regulated by." DSHEA allows sale of dietary supplements without sufficient science support of efficacy. Lay readers assume that "regulated by," for example the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, means approval. This is not true. Under DSHEA and subsequent laws, dietary supplement manufacturers, have to comply with labeling and manufacturing rules, but again, not meaning efficacy. David notMD (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming requirements for an uploaded image

Hello. I just uploaded an image (File:Stephen_Gogolev_SP_ISU_2019_World_Junior_Figure_Skating_Championships.jpeg) and I wanted to be sure I've done what's required of me in uploading this image. I previously sent an email to the photographer who gave his approval to share photos from his site, but I am not sure if a screenshot of that email is required and if I need to upload that screenshot somewhere. Or what more I need to do for the description of this file. I would just like to be sure the image doesn't get deleted. Thank you. Flyingspacecat (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyingspacecat: See Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries The photographer will have to send the approval email. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyingspacecat. This image is not acceptable at present and must be removed. Only the photographer can release this image under an acceptable Creative Commons license, and the photographer must provide that certification in acceptable legal language to the WMF. An email sent to you is not adequate. The easiest way is for the photographer to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons himself, with the proper licensing. It can be done by email but this is slower and more complex. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies. I will get in touch with the photographer to attempt to initiate the process. I am not sure how to delete the image myself so I will await its deletion.Flyingspacecat (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Colella's Page

The link on Jenn Colella's page for her personal website is incorrect. The link takes you to a list of options related to broadway shows, but once you clink on one of those, you then get a link to porn sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.216.153 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. I removed that invalid website link. If there is a valid website, please let me know and I will add it back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how do I write my name on Wikipedia

how do I write my name on Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph ogera (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)‎[reply]

Hi Joseph ogera. I'm not sure what you mean by "write my name on Wikipedia".

Do you want to know how to add your signature to the Wikipedia posts you make? If that's the cse, please take a look at Wikipedia:Signatures.

Do you want to know how to add an article written about you to Wikipedia? If that's the case, please take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. I realize that's a lot of stuff to look at, but those pages contain information that you will most likely find helpful; so, read through them and then feel free to come back to the Teahouse if you've got any further questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Hello,

I just created a draft but I don't know how to submit for review. Thanks, Nadine Dewi (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nadine Dewi. I've added a template to the draft. You can submit for review by clicking on the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. The review process can sometimes take a bit of time since there are lots of drafts submitted and only so many reviewers; so, be a little patient. You can continue to work on improving the draft while you're waiting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, Appreciate your Support and your prompt reply. Nadine Dewi (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil-France insults

Hi!, Brazilian President name-called French President "idiot", "stupid" and mocked his wife, while Macron responded that he "hopes a change of President in Brazil soon". Can I add that to Brazil-France relations? Thank you! --CoryGlee (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CoryGlee, this is a discussion to have on the talk page for the article, in this case Talk:Brazil–France relations. If you have reliable sources to back up these claims, you can add them. However, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not news; think about whether the namecalling between Bolsonaro and Macron is likely to be relevant to diplomacy between France and Brazil a year, two years, five years from now. If the answer to that question is no, then this content probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about bilateral relations between France and Brazil. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi CoryGlee. In general, Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles; so, if you believe you can improve an article, then go ahead a do so. Sometimes, however, another editor may disagree with the changes you make and WP:REVERTs them; when that happens, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and try and establish a consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. It is through discussion that disagreements among editors over article content are expected to be sorted out.

Now, in this particular case, I would suggest that it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS than BOLD because what you're describing sounds like something which almost certain is true and even possibly verifiable, but which might not really be worth something mentioning in the article unless it has a lasting impact on the relationship between the two countries. Policticians often say things that makes the news and stirs up a bit of controversy in the short-term, but is really not of any lasting importance (at least encyclopedic importance). So, it might be a good idea to discuss this on the article's talk page first and see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, @Marchjuly:, perfect friends! understood! thanks for your quick help! :) :heart: --CoryGlee (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles on the Republic of Korea Constitution

Hello everyone, I was looking around for some possible topics to create an article on (in English WP, obviously) and I found that on the Korean Wikipedia there is a whole series on the Republic of Korea Constitution with basically a stub (or sometimes start) class article on every article and section of the constitution that explains said article's legal significance, cases relating to such section, etc. So, I thought creating articles for each section and article would help out the English wikipedia greatly. Now, I can find sources on all of those sections and create (short) articles that would meet WP:GNG with around 3 or so WP:RS for an article (Korean Constitutional Court proceedings and lots of newspaper articles). However, would creating such articles be OK in terms of policy and etc? Like only the Korean Wikipedia has 100+ articles on each section, so which of the two: 1) expanding the English WP article on Republic of Korea Constitution to include all the sections (creating a very, very long article) or 2) creating separate (presumably) stub-class articles on each section of the constitution be preferable? (there are 100+ sections but I will create articles on the most notable sections for now) Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good grasp of policy when it comes to creating articles (I am an AfC reviewer) but I am asking about this case as it is something I have never dealt with (but want to) Taewangkorea (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at similar articles that are more comprehensive and get your ideas from there. There is the case of the Constitution of the United States. This article contains links to separate related pages. The Background section, for example, has a link to the History of the United States Constitution. Darwin Naz (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Taewangkorea. I took a quick look at Republic of Korea Constitution and noticed that it is a C class article with only a sentence or two about each of the articles of the Constitution, which sentences are poorly referenced. I suggest that you begin by systematically improving that Wikipedia article, expanding the coverage of each constitutional article and relevant subsection to a fully referenced, informative paragraph or two. Strive to bring the article to Good article or even Featured article status. If the article is improved to that degree, and the article is getting bloated, then that would be the time to start considering spinoff articles. Bottom line: do solid work to improve the main article first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to retrieve my deleted draft by editor for future reference and improvement

Hi, my draft page for review was recently set for speedy deletion and I couldn't retrieve the draft for future improvement. Please can someone guide me how to go about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsson Tan (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Carsson Tan. The draft was deleted as "unambiguous advertising and promotion" and I agree with that assessment. As an administrator, I can read the deleted draft which describes this person as a "digital influencer, fashion, lifestyle and beauty blogger". That is the type of description that pretty much hollers that the draft article is promotional, not neutral, and unacceptable for the encylopedia. The working assumption among reviewers will always be that articles about "digital influencers" and "beauty bloggers" are promotional BS, unless the highest quality reliable independent sources devote in-depth coverage to the person. I will not restore this draft article in any form, unless you can convince me that this person stands head and shoulders above all the other influencers and bloggers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to create Wikipedia

How to create page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheera raj illalai (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atheera raj illalai. Your question is pretty vague, so I will tell you that an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what independent, reliable, published sources say about the topic. Please spend some time reading and studying Your first article, and then feel free to return to the Teahouse to ask more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atheera raj illalai: In addition to the good advice given above, you might then like to visit the Articles for Creation page. There you can start work on a draft of a new page and then submit it for review when its ready. As creating a new article is the single most difficult task here, it is far, far better that new editors first learn the basics by making smaller improvements to existing pages. Do have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Promotional Articles

I wont understand what kind of articles called promotional articals? Please explain me with examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama ohm (talk • contribs) 08:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Osama ohm: - Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. It's hard to provide examples because promotional articles tend to be either deleted or edited to remove the promotional content. There are a lot of factors which would make me view an article as promotional - these would include:

Being written in a style that sounds like advertising, and not objective and balanced.
Including too much information about a company's products and services, especially combined with the point above.
Containing unnecessary external links to commercial websites.

However the biggest factor is simply an article that is not sufficiently notable to appear on Wikipedia at all. An article should generally only be included here if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. If that is the case, then any issues of being 'too promotional' can generally be dealt with by editing. If it is not the case, then the article being 'promotional' doesn't really matter, because it will probably be deleted regardless. I would suggest reading WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV and WP:COI for more information.

Finally, can I ask why you are interested in this topic? Have you previously tried to create an article here and had it rejected for being promotional? Hug^syrup 08:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Osama ohm: - I noticed after writing this, that your userpage was deleted for being promotional. As I'm not an admin, I can't see what content was there so I don't know why that was, but usually for a user page to be deleted as promotional, it must have included content that sounded like an advert for a company or individual, and/or inappropriate external links. One of the admins who answers questions here can probably take a look at the page history and tell you exactly what the problem was. Hug^syrup 11:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate to nominate this article for deletion?

Given the rampant issues with criteria and notability, List of film director and actor collaborations seems like it would be suitable to be deleted on the rationale of WP:TNT. There hasn't been much discussion about the article so would it be appropriate to nominate the article for this reason? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: In my opinion, no. Firstly, WP:TNT is specifically not appropriate here - in fact it's almost never appropriate because it is for cases where a page is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia but has issues so severe that they cannot be resolved by normal editing. The assumption with WP:TNT is that the page would later be recreated in a better form. In this case a) I don't see any signs of problems so severe that normal editing can't resolve them, and b) your thinking seems to be that the page shouldn't exist at all, not that it should be deleted and then recreated.

So then the second question is should it be nominated for deletion under more normal criteria (i.e. failing WP:GNG)? I can see an argument for that, given the total lack of sources and the issues with inclusion criteria. However, I would be surprised if an AFD would !vote to delete, as I think sufficient sources are available to make this a worthwhile page, it just needs some close attention, discussion on the talk page to agree criteria, and a good edit. The fact that there hasn't been much discussion so far is not a reason to delete.

Overall, the only way to really find out if a page should be deleted is to nominate it, but I'd probably !vote to keep personally. Hug^syrup 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Right time to publish

Good Day

Lo From South Africa here, I have been Editing my personal page here for the past 8 weeks or so and I feel like I have gotten very far and I think I'm ready to submit it for review. My Question here, is there a certain criteria list that I could look at just to check if my page is on the right path. and What happens when your drafts are not considered ??

Lo Squared (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lo Squared, and welcome to the Teahouse. I saw your personal page, and it shows that you made a draft about yourself, which is not an accepted practice here because it is seen as conflict of interest editing. See WP:Autobiography for more information. You also haven’t provided any reliable sources in your draft. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lo Squared:. I assume we are talking about User:Lo_Squared/sandbox? Just to clarify, WP:COI editing isn't banned, although it is frowned upon and should be declared. However the problem that you are likely to have is that you are probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and, if you are, your current draft does not establish this because your only sources are Soundcloud, Facebook and a hospital website that seems to have nothing to do with you. The lack of sources is the biggest problem, although there are other issues with the promotional tone and far too many external links. There is not exactly a checklist for whether your article is ready, but the closest thing is to see if you think it meets the general notability guidelines. Namely: has the subject of the article received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'? There is a lot more information available about how to define each of the terms in that criteria, but that line is at the heart of what makes an article acceptable. If you can find significant coverage of yourself in independent, reliable sources, then your article will almost certainly be accepted. If you can't, then it almost certainly won't. Hug^syrup 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my edits

Good day to all Wikipedia editors, I came to ask a question. Why are you deleting my edits on 2019 Pacific typhoon season? Is it because its too long? I havent introduced wrong information, unlike my previous edits. Why are you removing my edits even though the information is right and with links? I had this issue for a long time now and came to complain. If my edits are not accepted for not a valid reason, I would leave Wikipedia. I like being here, but the service is not that good. Please answer this question accordingly.

Thank you. Duckno. Quack!

Duckno (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)DucknoDuckno (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duckno: - Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a venue to ask general questions about how to use Wikipedia, it's not really somewhere you can address "all Wikipedia editors" (in fact, there is no such place). It looks to me as if your edits were undone by A1Cafel primarily, so your best bet is to post a message on their talk page to ask for clarification. If they don't answer, or that doesn't help, you should discuss your edits on the article talk page to get consensus for whatever changes you wish to make. Hug^syrup 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thank you. I will ask on the help page. Thanks again for including me in the Cafe. Duckno (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)DucknoDuckno (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckno (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duckno: I have looked at your most recent edit to 2019 Pacific typhoon season. I see that it removed a referenced sentence, along with its reference; and added several unreferenced statements. References play a very important part in Wikipedia, in providing evidence that the information presented here is correct. I am not surprised that another editor reverted that particular edit. Maproom (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at many of your edits to that article and for none did I see that you added a citation. Wikilinks are not citations. The content you added may be true, but without citations it will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback required on the content

I have prepared the content for the Financial Technologies Group page. Since the page has been subject to repeated edits, I want someone to review it before I post it. Please let me know what you think about the content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Titan356/sandbox Titan356 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like an official website, which is probably where it should go, rather than here. GMG ^talk 14:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit or add to HOODOO .. don't know now ..

just visited Drumheller in the Badlands, Alberta in July 2019, and took pictures and it read clearly the description of it .. The word Hoodo originates from the Housa language of West Africa, meaning "to arouse resentment, produce retribution". Hoodoo was a distinct magic practice introduced to North America in the 18th century, although different in nature than the more familiar voodoo. Aboriginal people used "hoodoo" to refer to evil, supernatural forces. Some believed hoodoos were giants turned to stone by the Great Spirit due to their evil deeds. Royal Tyrell Museum, Alberta

will be glad to provide pictures if you need it ... also have it in French, which is my maternal tongue and more easy for me; just tought I would bring this up so someone could add this

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capri128 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Capri128: The best place to raise this would be at the talk page of the article Hoodoo (folk magic). However, if your source is a picture you have taken yourself then it is unlikely to be accepted - you would need a reliable source such as a published book, journal or news article. Hug^syrup 14:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is of interest to these Wikiprojects..."

Hey! So I'm still extremely new to wikipedia editing (I still have to find another article to copy for things like tables and such.) Recently I took interest in a WikiProject called WP:SPEAK. I've taken notice of the category in the Talk page of every article "This article is of interest to these Wikiprojects." I'm wondering, should I add WP:SPEAK to this list, and if so, how so? For some clarification, I'm currently in the process of recording the Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini articles for WP:SPEAK. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheTeaDrinker. There is no hard and fast rule about what articles belong under which projects, and projects are more-or-less just a convenient way to organize content so that hopefully things are a bit easier to find. When in doubt, be bold and add the template if you feel it is appropriate. If anyone disagrees, then you can discuss it with them, and then explain that you added the tags because you are in the process of recording audio versions of the article. GMG ^talk 15:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article

Please,How can you write your own articles and attach images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quophiasare (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Quophiasare. You might want to start by reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. There can be a big learning curve when you are brand new to Wikipedia, and these can help catch you up on how a lot of different things work. GMG ^talk 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Including important elements in articles

How do I include all the important elements into an entry, such as:

Born Residence Nationality Education Occupation Current group Former groups

1 Early life and education 2 Career 3 Awards 4 References 5 External links

Early life and education

References

External links

Is there a template that I can insert into my Sandbox, using the Visual editor?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipszp (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philipszp: I took the liberty of editing your question. When I do a new article, I find one that is most like the one I'm going to create and cut and paste the code into the draft space. I then edit, adding and removing items as necessary. The first set of info you are asking about usually goes in the infobox. There may be a more elegant solution that I'm not aware of, but not every article has the same elements. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with adding additional content to an existing article page with little conversation in the "talk" section of the page

Hi everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and I understand the process of going in and actually editing an article/page but I need help with doing this the correct way. The article/page I want to edit and add additional information to is Bug-A-Salt. I have a ton of additional information and sections, with references to external news sources and articles, that I'd like to add, but there doesn't seem to be much conversation going on in the "talk" page. How do I go about getting this information added and ensuring the information is within the guidelines. I'm pretty certain I've followed the guidelines and the information isn't biased or opinionated, and it's very factual. What's my next step from here?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks everyone! Tayloreyelash (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]