Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

(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.)

How to edit "top"

When I want to edit some section of an article, I can click on an "edit source" button near the section title. But when I want to edit the opening paragraphs, there isn't a section title, so I click on the "Edit source" tab at the top of the page. This works OK, but my edit summary doesn't say "top". I see other people's edits in the edit history that say "top", I suppose they could have typed it in themselves, but is there some automatic way to get that? Also, with a long article, previewing takes longer when it has to reload the whole article; it would be a bit more convenient if I could just edit the opening paragraphs. Or am I wishing for what ain't? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bruce leverett. What you're talking about is editing the MOS:LEAD section of an article and everything that comes above it. You can do this by simply clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of the article and open the editing window for the entire articles. This works pretty well for shorter articles and articles without subsections. Another thing you can try would be to set your user preferences to add an "Edit" link for the leads of articles. Click on your "Preferences" tag at the top of your browser and then click on "Gadgets". Look for the "Appearance" section and check the box "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Save the changes and you should see an "Edit" button now being displayed for the lead sections of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, just what I was looking for! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why this isn't part of the default. It seems much more useful to have the ability to edit just the lead without having to open up the entire page for editing. --Khajidha (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khajidha: If you click on any "edit section" link you end up on an URL ending with, e.g., for the 1st section …&section=1 in the address bar of your browser. If you replace the 1 by 0 and go to this modified addresss you can edit the lede (lead). It's one of those "once you know it" things, only a section instead of the complete page can be very important over shaky mobile broadband connections. –07:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I already use the method described above about adding a section edit button. I just can't see why that isn't enabled by default. --Khajidha (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Guessing, there's no "always correct" place for an edit link near the lede. Some template in the direction of {{edit}} could do it, but nobody bothers to add it manually everywhere. Logged in users could use a one-liner script in their custom JS to offer that link somewhere, I had a prefix index search for "subpages" in the sidebar (customized monobook).
Now trying four tildes: 84.46.52.84 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I also asked asked this recently, esp. related to editing from a Kindle mobile (tempting but frustrating). The Pref>Gadgets>Appearance setting described above works on my Chromebook (Desktop mode), but on the Kindle I see a new icon at the top rather like a simplified bust but it doesn't do anything--most internal links don't work in the Kindle/Chromium browser. I really shouldn't even try to edit WP from the Kindle, but it is so tempting while reading & looking something up to fix a minor punct or sp error etc. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Help - blocked on another Wikipedia

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place do ask this, but I need some help right now. My account on the Dutch Wikipedia was automatically blocked because it was caught using an open proxy – my IP is dynamic and shared with other people, so this happens sometimes.

Since this block makes me unable to log in or edit any pages there, including my own talk page, there is no way I can contact the nl-wiki admins. Could someone please copy this message to them so they can verify my IP and possibly unblock me?

In case they need to know this, my IP is 2804:14c:110:8469:a586:cf7a:cdb5:f64 - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 08:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your chances to find an nlwiki admin in the enwiki teahouse aren't good, this should be a known issue on Meta, maybe ask on m:Project:Babylon—their idea of a Village Pump—how that's handled. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've asked over at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg, which is their Village Pump. Maybe they can help here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The IPv6-range, the IPv6 is in, is blocked because it's a VPN. And I can't give the user a IP block excempt, because the accounts wasn't registered yet on nlwiki. This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I used to edit under my old account User:Alumnum. But something is wrong. I cannot log in there, create a new account, or anything. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You may ask the admins a password reset and then create a SUL-account on Meta. #HTH Klaas `Z4␟` V 08:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What would that solve? --bdijkstra (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Then Munmula can login everywhere (again). Klaas `Z4␟` V 17:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An account gets registered on a local wiki, the first time you log in. But the rules to be able to do that are the same whether you're a completely new user or an existing SUL user that doesn't exist on the local wiki. SUL only prevents others on locally registering an account that already exists on another wiki. We can make it possible for the account Alumnum to edit on nlwiki. This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 20:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Sadly I cannot log into that account anymore since I've lost its password recently (this is why I created another account), but even when I still used the Alumnum account, I was already having open-proxy problems in nl-wiki. This happened here in en-wiki too a couple of times (most recent example). Even if there was an exemption for my IP, it would eventually change again and the new IP could be targeted again. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As Munmula is not able to log in on the Dutch Wikipedia because his IP is locked there and the local moderator Mbch331 is not able to give an exemption as Munmula didn't make any edit yet, how about lifting the rangeblock for a short period (or forever), indicated by Munmula, so Munmula can make one or more edits and be given an exemption? RonnieV (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation and logged in edits from that range temporarily so you can create your local account. Someone can then give your account an ip block exempt, which should allow you to edit from that range without a problem. Afterwards the range will be closed again. Sumurai8 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Samurai8 and all others. As the issue is now solved, this section can be archived. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Bullet piont and wrapping.

A Teahouse cuppa for you whilst you enjoy editing Wikipedia!

Does anyone have a solution to enable bullet pointed text to wrap around other content such as image boxes, eg Heroes (American TV series)#Cast and characters?. Ozflashman (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ozflashman, welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't so much 'wrapping' as left-positioning. Our preferred position for the first few images is normally right-positioned. This is a parameter you can easily adjust in the image markup using source editor. (I simply inserted "|left" as the position command. No command simply puts the thumb image on the right side.) Thus [[File:Wikipedia Editathon - relax and enjoy.jpg|thumb|left|A Teahouse cuppa for you whilst you enjoy editing Wikipedia!]] moves the image to the left, as shown here. Be aware that images on the left right are the preferred position. See the 'Location' section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for more help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that having images on the RIGHT is the preferred layout. --Khajidha (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A Teahouse cuppa for you whilst you enjoy editing Wikipedia!

• I think
• that this example
• answers the question. Ruslik_Zero 13:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, however I still think there is a formatting problem in the template. It formats correctly in Chrome, but in MS Edge, the bullet points ignore the image to the left and appear imposed on top of the image although the text wraps correctly. Ozflashman (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it old or new Edge? Ruslik_Zero 12:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Checking an article

Hi!

I've submitted my article Colección SOLO, I added a lot of references, from Spain and abroad. I'll be very grateful if somebody could check my article, that still now as a draft. Thank you very much. @namile17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namile17 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Colección SOLO

Hello, Namile17, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have added several cited sources and removed some promotional language, and have resubmitted the draft. I note that the category links still seem to be the ones from the Spanish-language version of the article. That should be corrected. I see a few grammar issues. That is minor. Some citations do not include full information. A date of publication should be included where this is known, so should an author. The title of the source should always be included, and the name of the publication where the source is contained in a publication such as a magazine, newspaper, journal, or web site. An access-date (aka retrieved date) should be present for all online sources (not needed for online copies of print sources). That helps in finding an archive url if the online source becomes unavailable. None of this should hold up approval, but it might as well be fixed while waiting for review. The number of external links is on the high side, but I haven't checked individual links.

Please be aware that there are over 3,700 drafts submitted and awaiting formal review. It may be several months before this draft is next reviewed, although it may be sooner. Volunteers work on drafts in whatever order they choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh and please in future sign any comments here and on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this into your signature 9standard or custom) and a time- and date-stamp. This helps readers keep track of who wrote what, and is also helpful for some scripts that run on the site. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Im going to correct the things that you told me. Thank you, very very much!Namile17 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)@namile17

Is being a runner-up noteworthy enough to be mentioned under Honours?

User:Ooaaaa just removed the mentions of a bunch of footballers being a runner-up from their pages, is this per policy? Being a runner-up seems noteworthy enough to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davepeta (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davepeta. Providing the people are genuinely notable on other grounds, and that whatever they were runner-up in is a non-trivial competition (e.g. not cake decorating on a gameshow!), and is well-cited, I see no reason why it should not stay in the article. We have plenty of actors and musicians whose pages list their nomination for awards even when they fail to win them. Sounds like you should politely ask the deleting editor why they felt it was right to delete that info. If no agreement can be reached, seek consensus on the articles' talk pages. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I change the title of an article?

Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 06:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, By MOVING it. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Question

I saw, when viewing a user's rights, the term EPADMIN was listed as one of their rights, but it was not linked and I couldn't find any pages that discussed this particular user right. Can anyone tell me what this term means? Just out of curiosity! Thanks Aspenkiddo (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aspenkiddo. I think you deserve the award for "Most Obscure Question of the Year"!! I'd never heard of epadmin but, after a bit of digging, I also found EPONLINE and EPCAMPUS as some form of old user permissions. Very surprisingly EPADMIN has very little mention in our archives, but the others seem related to Wikipedia:Education Program. So it's a logical guess is that was some form of internal administrative right for helping to manage just that one program. Pinging @MartinPoulter: who's user rights show he once had the epadmin permission, lest he can shed a bit more light on it for us. Season's greetings, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah found it: Right at the bottom of WP:UAL is this section on Former access levels, indicating that EP staff, administrator, campus-ambassador, online-ambassador, and instructor [were] Used by users to coordinate and work with students, instructors, and institutions as part of the education program. Deprecated since 2013. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Still existing rights should show up on Special:ListGroupRights, hunting red links on this special page was fun. –84.46.53.228 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Are candidates for a political position, such as Congressman, automatically notable

I am wondering if the strict requirements for notability on Wikipedia are loosened in the case of someone with a small bit of notability (like as a writer, comedian, etc with a modest on-line presence) automatically become notable when he decides to run for national office, ie to challenge an incumbent. 64.112.181.11 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges requires that someone is elected to such a position or holds office, to be presumed notable. Simply being a candidate is not enough. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals gives the requirements for most of the others you mentioned. Our notability guidelines are not additive. If someone doesn't meet one of them, almost meeting a bunch of them is not enough. However, it's more likely that someone who almost meets several of them will have sufficient reliable secondary source coverage to meet the WP:General notability guidelines. But this will need to evaluated on a case by case basis by looking at the sources. Note that strictly speaking, there's no such thing as "a small bit of notability" when it comes to our guidelines. Someone is either notable or they aren't. Although there are some complexities in how we handle borderline cases, and also in the content that we may have in articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Good example of politician becoming WP-notable: Democratic Candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Didn't Even Have a Wikipedia Page on Monday. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing question

What are the quansequences that one may face if he or she incorrectly edited a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shezi Ayabonga (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shezi Ayabonga: it really depends on what is meant by 'incorrect'. Deliberate vandalism is usually met with warnings and can ultimately lead to a short block, or even a permanent ban in extreme cases. Making mistakes is usually handled by another editor simply reverting the mistake and perhaps pointing it out on the user's talk page. What is more difficult is where you think something is 'incorrect' and another user disagrees. In that case, we have a process called bold, revert, discuss. In other words, anyone can be bold and make a change if they act in good-faith and believe it is within policy, then another user can revert that change if they feel it is incorrect or inappropriate, then the first user must discuss the change on the article talk page if they still disagree, and consensus must be reached. I hope that helps, but if you have a specific example of what you are referring to, it will be easier for me to give you a more specific answer. Hug^syrup 12:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Taxobox for plant species

I'm writing an article about a plant species and want to include a species box. I want to copy, paste, and edit text from an existing article, so that it is formatted correctly, and because I'm using my phone. However, species boxes are partially generated from code, and no species of this genus have an article yet that I can copy. The page of instructions for how to do this is too long and not organized. Are there short readable directions I can follow to do this one thing, generate a species box? Can someone explain it to me?

Yes, the article belongs on Wikipedia, and yes, I'm competent to write it in spite of being confused by the speciesbox page.

Thank you, Farm lenses (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Farm lenses: I'd be happy to guide you. That said, while I could give you a theoretical explanation of how to do it, it's probably easier on both of us to show you how to do it with an example instead. The specific article you want to give a speciesbox would work well as such an example, but I would need to know the binomial name of the species you want to write about first. AddWittyNameHere 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll probably never write another plant species article, so I'm not looking for a guide. If the process is so complex users can't do it without tutoring, it's in need of a redo.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the offer. The species is Dinizia excelsa. Thank you, Farm lenses (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Farm lenses It's not necessarily that complex, if you're dealing with an area where the underlying infrastructure is complete, and if you're dealing with a "standard" species. Unfortunately, taxonomy is complex and things like monotypic genera means there's not really a "one speciesbox fits all" possible. (Hence me wanting to know the taxon: much, much easier to just give you the information relevant to you if I can first verify that yes, the infrastructure exists and no, you're not dealing with one of those complex cases)

Species where all the infrastructure is complete is pretty easy: you just write

{{Speciesbox | image = image name, or leave blank | genus = genus name, in this case Dinizia | species = specific name, in this case excelsa | authority = taxon authority, or leave blank }}

(Please add every parameter on its own line, makes it much easier to edit for the next person to come along. I would do so above, but well, the nowiki tags to make it show up as code make that useless.)

Of course, there's several other parameters that can be useful, like one to add a caption for an image that's there, to clarify conservation status, and so on. However, as long as the genus and species parameters are there and filled out, the speciesbox works.

Now, I checked and the infrastructure for Dinizia exists, and it's not a special case (the genus used to be, but is no longer monospecific these days) so you should be good to go with the above. AddWittyNameHere 12:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the template. Yes, I know it's not monpspecific; as I said above, the article belongs on Wikipedia. Farm lenses (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Farm lenses: I updated the genus article at Dinizia, so there's a red link waiting to change to blue. Plants of the World Online has good descriptions for both species, see here for Dinizia excelsa. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I don't really see how Template:Speciesbox#Simple cases could be made any more straightforward to follow. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You could just give an example, remove a couple hundred words. You might also see that this template the user AddWittyNameHere provided is in a different order, I don't know if it matters. It wasn't clear you were showing two examples on the simple examples, then nowhere was it explained if plant versus animal differed in parts, which is why both are included, and the boxes have images on top, simple has it on bottom, and it's indented in places, there are optional ways of writing species boxes, I didn't see info about how to tell if it would generate one from this species if there's a genus box, but are indents a thing. I'm an expert in my field, and I try to avoid writing walls of text for non-experts then telling them they're easy to use. But thanks, I suppose, for letting me know. I hoped Teahouse was a place where editors don't get told they asked the wrong question, everything was available, they shouldn't have bothered busy editors. Farm lenses (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

HOW TO INSTALL HUGGLE?

How do you install Huggle to fight vandalism? --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

James The Bond 007: Huggle, (and STiki, the other major semi automated tool), both require rollback in order to work. I'd do it with twinkle for a few weeks, and then apply for the permission. (Given you can practically rollback with Twinkle, the main point of the permission is for these tools.)

But to answer the question, it can be downloaded at meta:Huggle/Download. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Why was my edit for list of Dora video releases deleted? I don't understand why they keep doing this! The list was never finished until i edited it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The user didn't add an edit summary, but it's obvious, the 3rd = last column in all tables of this list is for dates. Your addition could work as footnote, but there are no footnotes yet, and all I know about it is "like references, only different" and Help:Footnotes as link without reading it. –84.46.53.228 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

query about getting pages reviewed by someone before publication

I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. I've been told I have a conflict of interest in what I published and it was stripped out - but I can ask for it to be looked at before I publish - but I couldn't see how to do this. Also I was told that I had plagiarised text - I'd copied something I'd written on our own website. How do I get around this, or do I have to rewrite everything. I want to put a list of our Presidents on our site, and some of what I put was direct quotes from something we published years ago. Please advise, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lis1913 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Lis1913 You obviously read your talk page and the clear warnings I gave you yet you've continued to re-add promotional and copyrighted content despite warnings and a warning that if you continued you would be blocked. I suggest you immediately revert yourself. Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've now taken everything out that I've added - not that I can see it was copyrighted - except I have corrected the Presidents name and some of the information about the structure, which was wrong. I've deleted all the information about membership as that was incorrect. How am I supposed to make sure the entry is actually correct, and add more useful information? Lis1913 (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Lis1913 Please refrain from editing the page directly and read WP:COI. You may request changes on the talk page of the article once you've disclosed your conflict of interest. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lis1913: I believe I want to put a list of our Presidents on our site identifies a mistaken impression that you may have. Wikipedia is an encycleopedia (like Encyclopædia Britannica). It contains articles about notable subjects, including people, companies, etc., that have been discussed in depth in reliable, independent sources. The articles are created by volunteer contributors of their own volition, and become part of the encyclopedia, subject to editing by other such contributors. It's not like social media or other webhosting platforms, where companies can have "sites" or "pages" that they can control. Naturally, it's in the best interest of the project that it be accurate, which is why information must be verifiable at those reliable sources. Subjects of articles naturally have a conflict of interest, and cannot be considered reliable without those independent sources. I hope this makes sense. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation

Hi there, I created a page Jason Criddle and on two attempts I have received information that the page does not meet Wikipedia page creation guidelines. I don't know what else to do. I have edited the page twice already with no success. I will appreciate any form of assistance you wish to render. Thanks. Best regards, Blessing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessing Adewale (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Blessing Adewale: I tagged the page for speedy deletion, and again when you immediately recreated it (which was not the best course of action). I think it is unlikely that the individual you are attempting to create a page for meets our notability guidelines but, if you think he does, I strongly recommend you create a draft and submit it through the WP:AFC process. It will then be reviewed by an experienced editor and only when it meets Wikipedia standards, it will be moved to mainspace. That process makes it far less likely to be deleted. Could you also please confirm what your relationship with Jason Criddle is? Hug^syrup 14:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup, I'm totally new here on Wikipedia - I'm just trying my best to find my way around the pages. I saw that you tagged the Jason Criddle page for speedy deletion but I had no idea whatsoever how to amend it. The only thing that came to my subconsciousness is rewriting the text, which I did. I believe that way I will be able to make it more encyclopaedic but you stated that, "it was not the best course of action." I will like to know how to go about WP:AFC process and how to create this page successfully.

As for your question, I have no personal relationship with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessing Adewale (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Blessing Adewale: if you click on this link: WP:AFC, you will find all of the details of how to create a page via AFC. I suggest that before doing so you read through the numerous links and other information that I placed on your talk page. This includes how to write a biography that complies with our standards, how to properly source your article, how to demonstrate notability, and so on. Had you read these originally, I think they would have given you a lot more of an idea on what to do, rather than simply redrafting and resubmitting the article.

I didn't just say personal relationship - do you have any kind of connection to Jason Criddle? Has anyone asked you to write an article about him?

Finally, please could you sign your comments by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ after your posts. Thanks! Hug^syrup 15:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup, thank you! I will read through them. As for your question, no, not at all. There has never been anything like that. No one has contacted me. Thanks for all of your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessing Adewale (talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I stumbled upon his name while doing some reading online so I decided to check him out on Wikipedia for more information about him. On getting here, to my surprise, he doesn't even have a page. And I have always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, so I say to myself, this is the best time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessing Adewale (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the reason he doesn't have a page is that he is not notable by our standards so I would probably focus on contributing in other areas, to avoid frustration. Also, could I ask you again to please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). And, when you reply to me, you can do so by typing immediately below this comment, not by creating a new section. Hug^syrup 15:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Porygon2 and Porygon-Z articles

Hi! Me and a few other people have started to publish the Porygon article on Wikipedia and I was just wondering if there was a Porygon2 or a Porygon-Z article either discarded, deleted or in progress because I do want to create one if it hasn't been created yet. Thanks. UB Blacephalon (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Blacephalon! As you can see, Porygon-Z is now what we call a redirect, the current thinking seems to be that it doesn't merit a separate article on WP. But yes, it was a separate article once you can see a version of it here: [1]. Same goes for Porygon2: [2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Where might I find a list or directory of articles with bad grammar instead of having to search for them?

A few years ago, I created an account on Wikipedia and was guided by some program to an article which had been marked by someone as having bad grammar. I don't know which article this was. I think it had something to do with Portugal, but that's not important. I proceeded to fix this article's grammar. Where might I go if I want to find similar articles? Table92 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Table92: Is Wikipedia:Basic_copyediting#Find_articles_that_need_copyediting, pointing to Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, what you were thinking of? (It is not grammar-specific, but it is the closest I can think of.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community portal may also be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

How to edit

So if l saw a mistake l must edit to correct the mistake.Also l can add some information to improve the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidzai122 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kidzai122! Try Help:Getting started. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kidzai122. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. That doesn't mean you can add your own personal opinions, but it does mean we rely on people like you to help improve articles. So, YES, you can correct mistakes and add further details. All we ask is that you give a short 'edit summary' whenever you make a change so that we know what you've done. And we also require new factual statements to be supported with references (=citations). Without a link to a published Reliable Source any new content you add might well be removed as not verifiable. If you do these two things well, you will soon be on your way to becoming one of the great Wikipedia editors of tomorrow. If you have any other questions - just ask. Good luck, and maybe you might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

How to archive messages

How do you archive messages on your talk page? --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

James The Bond 007, there are two main scripts to do this - either User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis or User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Place either of the templates on your talk page, and a bot will archive the page at the set interval. The instructions and parameters are detailed on both pages.

If you just want the most commons settings, use either {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}}

or

{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = User talk:James The Bond 007/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}

~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

For a user talk page manual archiving is an alternative, cf. Help:Archiving. It boils down to (1) create an /Archive 1 sub-page, content {{talk archive}}, (2) copy a section from talk to /Archive 1, (3) blank it on talk with edit summary "moved to /Archive 1" or similar, (4) add {{archive box}} before the first section on talk, it will be displayed to the right of the talk ToC. –84.46.53.228 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User box help

How do you organize user boxes? --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

James The Bond 007, you can organise them into a column with Template:Userboxtop and template:userboxbottom. See User:OxonAlex/userboxen for an example from my previous user page.

There may also be ways to organise them horizontally, but I haven't come across them. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Referring to a group that has changed names

I'm editing an article about a group that has often changed names. For this example, let's say the group was called "ACT on Campus" until 2014, then changed to "Young ACT" from 2014 onwards.

Which of the following sentences is best?

"In 2011, an ACT on Campus member said..." or "In 2011, a Young ACT member said..."

HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: It's hard to make a specific suggestion for a general scenario, but the easy solution is to just say "In 2011, a member said...".. You'd also ideally track and source the organizational name changes in the history section, so that if the statement also went in the history section, you could say "A member at the time said...". If this doesn't work, and you have more specific info such as the actual proposed text and the article, I can help you more. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Bottom bracket

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Stray thoughts, Questions Ild like answered and future reading on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_bracket page This section background on why I asking compatibility Longevity Question: (personally like 68,70,73, etc BSA) Currently building a bike, (Talked to both FSA & Shimano 800-) all Shimano, mixing road crankset & BB all else XT mountain to avoid compatibility issues, but (MegaExpo Vs Ultegra?)

QUESTIONS/wonder IF FSA BB and Crank would be a better, longer lasting choice from a longevity standpoint. ??? Mega Expo being larger will this affect chain line? Is Chain Line 1/2 of BB width or does it need its own column in table?

Random Thoughts: FSA MegaExpo one side floats and diameter changes so NOT interchangeable with Shimano according to FSA! Expo larger Balls bearings last longer, weight more? But which lasts longer? FSA? FSA weights more but since I not a racer who cares? Reciprocating mass farther from center, (Crank arms, rims, tires (folding), spokes), more important than static or mass at center? Weight of unit Shimano seems to be moving to lighter and lighter, but as BALL bearing size DECREASES so does longevity? Ultegra and XT on mountain side and higher component levels are SEALED units, so theoretically last longer? . Press Fit harder to maintain at home require more elaborate tools.

Further reading: FSA (Redacted)
1. ^ https://www.pinkbike.com/news/to-the-point-bottom-brackets-2014.html
2. ^ https://www.mantel.com/blog/en/bottom-bracket-shells-and-bottom-brackets
3. ^ http://www.bikeman.com/bicycle-repair-tech-info/bikeman-tech-info/1599-bottom-bracket-types
4. ^ https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/bottom-bracket-standards-and-terminology
5. ^ https://bikerumor.com/2010/02/17/bottom-bracket-tech-breakdown/

-- Beryl666 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Beryl666. This is not the right place for questions like this: this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. If you want to discuss how to inprove an article, the place to do that is the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Bottom bracket; but if I read you right, you are asking for advice about the subject of the article - bottom brackets. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not really the right place for that sort of question. You might possibly get a helpful response if you ask at the Miscellaneous section of the Reference Desk; but really even that is for asking questions that can be answered from definitive sources, rather than for opinions. --ColinFine (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Answering an editor

Hello, I have recently created my first article on wikipedia for a scientist on my area of expertise and, after the submission, it was quickly declined as it was not clear which notoriety criteria it fulfilled (which I totally understand). My question is how can I answer that comment from the editor? I want to write a small piece to justify why it deserves a wikipedia article, but I am not aware of the correct place to do it. Should I write on the editor's page? Or in the article's page? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpantonio (talk • contribs) 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jpantonio and welcome to the Teahouse. You can reply to the reviewer either on their own talk page or on the talk page of the draft article, but if you use the talk page of the draft, then it would be helpful to ping them to draw their attention to your reply. Your attention was specifically drawn to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and your reply should address this problem. In particular, you need to ensure that there are some independent references to WP:Reliable sources before resubmitting. Dbfirs 23:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Are vs Is

In a recent discussion about a metallic band, I found it odd that the grammar stated: "The Mentally Ill were a punk band". I thought that the band is singular, while the members are plural? i.e. The Kingston Trio: "... is an American folk and pop music group." If you take away the "name" and merely refer to the actual organization for what it is - "band"; one would not say: "The band were ..." but "The band is ...". The Juilliard String Quartet is a classical music string quartet; not "are" a classical music string quartet - regardless of the name. Also, "Vienna Choir Boys is a choir of boy sopranos" not "are". Pentatonix is an American a cappella group in its lede. Why are certain bands like The Who described on WP in the lede as: "The Who are an English rock band" and not "The Who is an English rock band"; like "Nirvana was an American rock band"? This: "Fleetwood Mac are a British-American rock band" just does not sound right. Doesn't the same principles apply? Curious. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's a British construction of long standing ("The Beatles are...") and seems to be preserved against American logical grammar. Dbfirs 23:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

They also pronounce aluminum: "aluminium". That doesn't make it right. Are these articles all written only by British WP editors? Maineartists (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES, but in general Wikipedia doesn't have one preferred national variety of English and generally the style chosen by the first major contributor or through consensus agreed to upon on the article's tall page is the one followed per WP:RETAIN. Same goes for dates, citation style and many other things. You can always be WP:BOLD and change things you think should be change, but you might want to check the article history or its talk page (including the archives) to see whether it's something which has been discussed before. In addition, lots of editors add Wikipedia:Editnotices like {{Use British English}}, {{Use American English}}, etc. (see Category:Use English templates for some more examples ), but whether these were just added by some random editor or based upon some consensus sometimes takes a little digging to figure out. Regardless of which format/variety is used, WP:ARTCON (at least within the particular article and then perhaps to some degree with respect to other similar articles) should be one of the main things considered since mixing multiple formats/varieties of English is not a good idea. Cleaning up for the sake of consistency is probably not going to be much of an issue, but completing changing from one variety of English to another or one citation style to another often turns out to be even if done with the best of intentions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maineartists: errm, actually, we spell it "aluminium" and we also pronounce it "aluminium", too. We think that makes it right. But, if you really want to pick on our pronunciation, you'd be better off having a go at us for things like this. I can't offer any definitive explanation for the vagaries of the English language, but certain is/are combinations sound right, whilst others sound wrong. This sounds right to me: 'The Beatles' is the name given to a group of four lads from Liverpool who formed a popular beat combo in the 1960s. The Beatles (meaning the four lads) were the top-selling artists in the 1970s... That's my two penn'orth, anyway. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating: Aluminum or Aluminium I learned something new today! Thanks! As for the other revelation as to "sound" versus correct terminology: I agree. In most cases, however, I do not believe it is being properly used here at WP: considering The Backstreet Boys has the same exact "sounds" (lede: Backstreet Boys is an American boy band) while your The Beatles has: The Beatles were an English rock band. Maineartists (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Our Manual of style has the valid option: "England are playing Germany", and this plural usage seems to be more common in articles on British bands. I recall a discussion some time ago, but I can't find it. Dbfirs 02:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As someone put it somewhere recently, this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so we over here in the U.S. have to live with the fact that most of the world speaks (or is it speak?) a variant of English that is different from ours. If it's consistent within an article with strong MOS:TIES to other countries, it's just something you get used to after a while. Now writing in those articles can be somewhat more challenging – it's easier to remember a valid difference in usage when you see it than it is to write with it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As a Brit, I find it annoying that this nonsense is blamed on us. I would say "Pink Floyd is a group"; and that is how I usually hear it said. Some people try to justify "are" by using "The Beatles" as an example; admittedly, I sometimes hear fellow Brits say "The Beatles are a group". But I don't believe that people in Britain generally treat singular group names as plurals. Maproom (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise, The GloWbE corpus shows "The Beatles are/were" outnumbering "The Beatles is/was" not only in British sources (153:40) but also in US sources (145:20). But this may be an oddity of the Beatles, or because "Beatles" is plural anyway. Radiohead shows the pattern I expected: are/were:is/was = 45:15 (UK) 7:15 (US). Aerosmith shows 11:4 (UK), 4:10 (US). (Struggling to find other bands which are 1) well-known enough to appear in the corpus 2) with a name not appearing plural, and 3) not a word or phrase which might turn up in other contexts in the corpus.) --ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine: try Google ngrams. Maproom (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine:Or this for The Who. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions of The Who, Maproom, and Metallica Nick Moyes, which give figures of 26:43 (UK), 10:38 (US); and 23:6 (UK), 7:23 (US) respectively in GloWbE. Metallica strongly shows the pattern I expected, but The Who doesn't. Not sure why you pointed me at Ngrams which a) is only books, and b) doesn't readily show the national differences which were my point. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking to a specific section in a template

I want to create an internal link that links to a section of a table within a Template: article, and displays only the rows and columns of the table within that section. How do I do this (without breaking the formatting of the table when it displays in the other page)? I tried inserting an {{anchor}} before the section of the table I want to link to in the Template:, and linking to the anchor, but it didn't work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reelcheeper (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reelcheeper. I'm not really sure what you're trying to do at Template:Table of Tunisian municipalities. Are you trying to add a WP:WIKILINK to Tataouine to that template? If that's the case, you can perhaps simply replace the WP:PIPE to Tataouine Governorate and simply link to "Tataouine". WP:ANCHORs can be used to add "invisible targets for internal links" to pages, but it's not clear why you would want to do that for this particular template. Are you trying to create link whose target is Template:Table of Tunisian municipalities#Tataouine?

It kind of sounds like you only want to WP:TRANSCLUDE part of the template onto some page, perhaps as explained in WP:SELTRANS. You might want to try asking about this as Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates since someone there might be able to help you better? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to add a photo of a person without having to obtain their consent?

I see so many wikipedia pages about people (without photographs)... However there are plenty of photos available on sites like imdb.com and others... I have been reading Wiki photo guidelines - they are very confusing. Can somebody suggest a simple, practical and perfectly legal way to add such photos?

Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikirapguru. I'm not sure if there's a simple and easy way to explain something that in general tends to be quite complicated, but in general Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts and probably even this file File:Licensing tutorial en.svg come kind of close. Basically, Wikipedia content is released under a license that allows pretty much anyone anywhere in the world to reuse it for pretty much any purpose (including for commercial purposes), and this applies not only to text, but also images. If you look at "small print" right above the "Publish changes" button when you make an edit, you'll see that you're agreeing to this every time you make an edit on Wikipedia. So, the content we add to or create on Wikipedia can be (with some minor restrictions) pretty much be reused by anyone anywhere for any purpose without our permission. When someone uploads one of their own photos to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, they are essentially agreeing to the same thing; they may have some options with respect to file copyright licenses, but the basic agreement they're entering is the same: they agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file they uploaded at anytime for any purpose. This doesn't mean they are transferring or giving up their copyright ownership over the photo to these other people; it just means that they are only making a particular version of their photo freely available for others to use as they please.

So, as long as the content we create or the photos we upload are clearly 100% our own work, there's no problem with use agreeing to release it under the types of licensing the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons accepts; however, if we try to release content created by others or partially created by others under such a license without their explicit consent to do so, all kinds of problems can happen since we are basically trying to do something that we have to right to do.

Most of the websites where you see photos online almost certainly have their own respective policies and guidelines when it comes to the content they host. Many of them are pretty proactive in removing content that is uploaded without the permission of their original copyright holders, but may aren't and don't worry about it until someone complains. Many may also host such content based upon the concept of fair use or fair dealing for educational or other informative purposes, etc., and English Wikipedia does allow this as well in some form and in some cases as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content, but they are many Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikimedia Commons which don't; so, often whether such a file can be uploaded and used depends on the particular policies and guidelines of the Wikimedia Foundation project in question.

Anyway, I hope I didn't confuse you even more, but basically unless you are the 100% creator of the image you want to upload and use on Wikipedia, it's best to assume that it's copyrighted and that someone other then yourself owns this copyright; so, without that person's permission to do so, you shouldn't upload the file to Wikipedia under a free license. Now, if you've got a particular image in mind and your not sure about its copyright status, you might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Wikirapguru and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a good question, but unfortunately most of the pictures you see online are somebody else's copyright, and there's no simple way for you to take their image without their permission and and release it here for commercial and non-commercial use. That would be stealing. So there is no 'simple' way to make them available. But there are lots of other ways which requires a bit of effort.

First you could look to see if the photographer has released their picture on the website with a special 'Creative Commons' licence that explicitly permits commercial use of that image. The absence of a copyright notiec doesn't mean you can take the image and use it here - it needs that explicit permission. If they've done so, there are ways to then upload the picture legitimately. You could make a point of taking pictures of those people yourself and then uploading them (that'd be fine); or you could contact the photographer (not the person being photographed) and ask them to upload their picture for use here. Or you could wait for the artist to die and then you'd be able to upload one image under a very special 'non-free use' basis. But all these routes are a bit complex, except for uploading images you personally have taken. I've not bothered to include links to all these special ways - but if you need further details just ask. But, again, the simple answer is 'no' there is no easy way. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To: Nick Moyes

And how does Wikipedia ‘know’ if the person uploading the photo is the person pictured in it? I work in rap industry, and personally know a lot of rappers who have an article about them without a photo. I can tell them to upload the picture, but how will Wikipedia be able to tell if uploading is done by the author/model?

Also, I have attempted to upload some photos of now dead rappers that I personally took a while ago, and ran into the blocking feature. I overcame it but then somebody took the photo I uploaded down, claiming that I was not a photographer. (And I WAS)

Please advise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Some quick shots, folks uploading photos of themselves do not necessarily have the rights to do this, e.g., the copyright of photos taken by professional photographers. Selfies would be okay. Fair use is a dead end for living people, the enwiki theory is that it should be easy to take and publish a new photo under a free licence (CC0 a.k.a. PD, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, but not NC or ND). The consent part can be handled by {{personality rights}} on commons, i.e., stay away from kids or anybody who is no "public figure", celebrity, politician, etc. –84.46.53.228 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Wikirapguru. The person who takes a photo, not the subject of the photo, is generally considered to own the copyright on the photo absent any official copyright transfer agreement between photographer and subject which gives the subject ownership of the photo. So, if you're attending a concert and you take a photo of the band playing, then you own the copyright on that photo absent any agreement that you might have entered into with the band, its representatives, or maybe even the venue which would transfer that right to the band, etc. Now, you might run into to problems depending upon how you try to use the photo, but that's a personality rights or maybe even trademark matter that's sort of different from copyright.

Now, if you uploaded a photo you took to Wikipedia and was subsequently deleted, then it might have been because there was no way to verify your copyright ownership. While it would be great just to take everyone who claims copyright ownership over an image at their word, often a more formal timetype of verification is required. You can find out more about it at c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, but mainly what you would need to do is send a consent email (like WP:CONSENT) to Wikimedia OTRS. This will allow an OTRS volunteer to verify that you're are really the copyright holder. This is a bit of good-faith being assumed that people emailing OTRS are really who they're claiming to be and not every email sent it is accepted as proof of copyright ownership, but the process is for the most part straightforward and deleted files subsequently verified by OTRS are restored and tagged as being "OTRS verified". If you do this, you should try to use some official (office) email address if you have one and may be asked to provide further verification by email by the OTRS volunteer processing your email. OTRS volunteers are required to sign a confidentiality agreement that they won't reveal the contents of the emails they see to anyone not approved to see them; so, you don't need to worry about personal or sensitive information being posted anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post editing by Marchjuly to change "time" to "type" (second sentence of second paragraph). -- 04:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)]

To: Marchjuly

Ok, that clarifies it for now. Thanks for taking thee time to write a thoughtful reply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::::Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wikirapguru: I can't add much to the helpful replies above. None of us here or at Wikimedia Commons are trying to be intentionally obstructive about photos. But the priority is always to ensure nobody's right are infringed by somoene else uploading images they don't own. So we always err on the side of caution. But may I say that it's fantastic to hear you wanting to make the effort to add pictures to articles. If only more people "in the business" appreciated the great position they are in to provide images of famous artists to Wikipedia that us ordinary mortals can't. I do have one final suggestion to make. You could create your own Flickr stream for all your photos, ensuring you set the image rights to 'free for commercial re-use'. (This can be done per stream, per album or per image.)  Any editor here could take and upload the relevant photos and upload them, linking back to the url on Flickr. One of our OTRS team would then check and confirm the validity of that licence. You'd have far less work to do, and maybe all you'd need do is drop a note and a url on the talk page of the relevant rapper's article, and someone else can have the hassle of mobilising the image. Just a thought. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Nick Moyes Thank you, Nick for help. I like Flickr idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Why was my article declined?

Hi, this is Anaya Sherifdeen and I'd like to ask- why was my article declined? Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Water light45 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Water light45. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more specific details, but basically only subjects which meet Wikipedia:Notability are generally only considered OK to create Wikipedia:Articles about. From what you've written in your user sandbox, it looks like you might be mistaking Wikipedia for a social media account or some sort of free website where you can post a profile. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Anaya and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a very useful resource to learn from, but it doesn't have an article about everyone in the world. Usually, ordinary people like you and me don't get articles because we haven't been written about elsewhere by independent WP:Reliable sources. Perhaps sometime in the future you might become notable in the Wikipedia sense, then someone else might write an article about you. Best wishes from the UK. Dbfirs 01:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Water light45. Your draft article says that you are 9 years old and that you are the "world's favorite children's author- at least, in her imagination". There are countless social media sites where you are welcome to post that type of thing, but Wikipedia is not among them. This is a serious encyclopedia - a reference work - that includes biographies of notable children's authors who have actual best-selling books that are issued by major publishers and that win major literary awards and are reviewed by major publications. I suggest that you read Your first article, and when you thoroughly understand that, you will also understand why your submission was not accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalized wiki

Hi ! How can I deal with a page that gets often vandalized? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.154.201 (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP if you want a specific protection, e.g., pending reviews (modern), semi-protection (older solution), etc. Tell folks here which page you have in mind, they can arrange it, WP:RPP itself is sometimes protected from IP-edits. –84.46.53.228 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Draft Page improving references

Hello - I do not understand why my page cannot be published - it is very short bio and has all the necessary details. I made changes as requested previously in the teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi FFeldspar. It looks like Draft:Colin Grubb (if that's draft your referring to) is still awaiting an AfC review; so, although it hasn't been approved, it also hasn't been declined. There tends to be lots of drafts awaiting review and only so many AfC reviewers doing the reviewing; so, you might just have to wait a bit longer. The AfC template on the draft's page currently says that more than 3,700 drafts awaiting review and that it could take up to four months to review them all. I'm not sure where your draft is currently in the queue of those awaiting review, but perhaps you won't have to wait too much longer. You can still work on the draft why your waiting for it to be reviewed and you might want to take a look at WP:SURNAME and WP:PUFF as well as WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPNAMES for some possible issues that I noticed about the draft after a quick look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FFeldspar. If I was reviewing Draft:Colin Grubb right now, I would not accept it. The draft completely lacks references to significant coverage of Grubb in independent reliable sources. Independent sources are mandatory to establish notability, and links to the websites of the show business projects that Grubb has been involved with are of no value in establishing notability. Have you studied Your first article? If not, I recommend it highly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not actually a queue - reviewers pick what they want to review from the list in no particular order (although collectively, they try to not let any get too old). While waiting, you might consider creating sections. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service

Regarding the referenced lists, I did not see NANCY PELOSI's name. She has been a member of the House of Rep for a very long time and should be listed also. (I am not qualified to do the editing.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:6c63:657f:95ba:b5c4:d71a:c8e3:a7dd (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP ‎2600:6c63:657f:95ba:b5c4:d71a:c8e3:a7dd. You're just as qualified as any other editor to try and improve an article by being WP:BOLD as long as you do so in good-faith and in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; so, you don't need to worry about making mistakes since any that you might make can pretty much be fixed by someone else. In this case, though if you look at the very top of the article about longevity of service you see that only those who have served 36 years or more listed; so, even though Nancy Pelosi has served for a long time, she hasn't quite reached the 36-year-threshold yet having been first elected to the US Congress in 1987. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Update Edit Summary

Is there any way to edit the Edit Summary (description of change made) in the history after my edit has been published? I accidentally hit some hotkey while typing my edit summary that got the change published with an edit summary of "c". It was a very minor change, and flagged as such, so it's not a big issue in itself, certainly not worth reverting & reinstating the edit, but based on experience it may happen again on my Chromebook. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi D A Patriarche. There's no way to really go back a change the edit summary of a previously published edit, but you can make a dummy edit which be used to create a new edit summary which can indirectly correct/clarify a previous edit summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Finance

Does Wikipedia (as of now) have enough funding to continue it's existence? In terms of being a source of information Wikipedia is by far the greatest thing in human history, and possibly hundreds of millions of people do not want to see it's extinction. 47.152.149.158 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. As I understand it, the Wikimedia Foundation's funding is stable (thanks to those who donate) and there is currently no monetary threat to the existence of Wikipedia. There is an end-of-year fundraising push right now, but this is a normal occurrence and not indicative of a funding problem. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with draft

Hello i m Ioannis, I m from Crete and I wrote an article about my homevillage in Crete, as I did in german wiki and in greek wikipedia. MY article is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agios_Georgios_Lassithi_Crete, and I want to publish it. Plz help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis1981dr (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ioannis1981dr: Welcome to English Wikipedia, and to The Teahouse. You have submitted your draft, so all you need to do now is wait and at some point it will be reviewed. I think it is likely to be accepted - we have quite a low bar for acceptance of geographic places, and as long as it is a legally recognised village or town, it doesn't necessarily need a lot of sources proving it is otherwise notable. I don't have time to properly review it myself right now, but I will keep an eye on it and will take a look next week if no one else has got to it by then. Hug^syrup 09:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks a lot!!! Ioannis1981dr (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ioannis1981dr: Yassas! I've just tidied up your draft a bit and marked a few things that need references, such as the population statistics. Anything you cant substantiate should be left out. I suggest you add Template:Infobox settlement to your draft, ensuring you insert some coordinates so it can be mapped. (As an aside, I think I must have been to Agios Georgios many years ago when I climbed Dikti/Spathi, though my favourite mountain route on Crete is doing the 40km 2-day traverse of Psiloritis from the bus stop in Fourfouras back to the bus stop in Rethymnon!) Regards from a cold and wet UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: @Ioannis1981dr: Another editor has now added cooordinates, and I have added an Infobox and replaced some rather weak sources (like trip advisor) with properly published books, and added a hatnote to help distinguish this place name from the myriad of others of the same name in Greece. Please could I ask you to add a citation to the 1981 census figures? I could only find later figures, which didn't fully tally with your uncited figures. If you can't find a citation to add to the statement "Many people with ancestry from the village of Agios Georgios live now in Heraklion and in Hersonissos", I suggest you remove it. I am confident your article will now be reviewed and approved in due course. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I post this article to mainspace when finished?

I'm working on an article in my sandbox about the artist/painter Emil Armin. He is definitely notable, as you can see that he is one of the 25+ artists on this page for which Wikipedia has not yet created a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_painters_in_the_Art_Institute_of_Chicago. He is a Chicago modernist and his Luce biography notes that "By the early 1920s, he was a star on the Chicago art scene..." So, definitely passes the notable test. I am spending a lot of time on this article, and will probably spend another eight to ten hours finishing it (I'm going to go through old newspaper archives that mention Armin and have one more book to go through). My question is: once I'm done, can I just post it to mainspace? In full transparency, my mother is related to the painter. She is elderly, and has mentioned that it annoys her that all of Armin's peers have Wikipedia pages but he doesn't. So, I'm doing this for her, and it's the holidays, you know. My worry is that if I put it into Drafts and ask for a review, it might get into a two-or-three-months-long queue. On the flip side, I don't want to post it to mainspace and quickly be spanked with an auto or manual delete that makes it unlikely the article will ever see the light of day. Please advise, and I thank you so much for whatever it is you recommend. I had never really appreciated Wikipedia and all of the people who build it until I got into it myself, and I hope to one day contribute more...hard to do with current workload :-(. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntegrityPen (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

IntegrityPen Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that submitting a draft for a review using Articles for Creation will likely have a wait involved, but it is better to get feedback on a draft than have an article potentially deleted or treated more critically than it would be if it were just a draft. It is always a good idea for users new at creating articles to run it through the draft process first. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for the fast response. Will do. Just so I know, is another option to find a very experienced Wikipedia person, ask them to review it and then have them post it? Is that common? There's one person who has written the pages for three of Armin's closest peers that I was thinking of reaching out to. Also, one last question: is it best to ask for review via the button in my sandbox when I'm ready or should I move it into a Draft status and then push it to review? Thanks. IntegrityPen (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

IntegrityPen If you know of a user who you think could review it for you and give their advice or even move it to mainspace for you, you can certainly approach them. You can certainly just use the button in your sandbox; it doesn't matter terribly if the page is there or in Draft space. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

331dot Got it. Thanks!

Emil Armin is now in mainspace. Maproom (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IntegrityPen. Emil Armin is definitely notable, and you did an excellent job for a first effort. The Articles for Creation process is entirely optional and editors who can write articles like you have done can ignore it entirely. Thanks for your contribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 Wow, Jim/Cullen. Very high praise from somebody who has an amazing track record at Wikipedia. Thanks! IntegrityPen (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, IntegrityPen. Holiday greetings to you and your mother. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to admin

Hello all respected administrators.

The article was created by few people in last 1 and half years both time it got deleted because it has no notable links , so someone last month created this article again which was in draft , today i got to know that it was deleted twice , i checked all the previous references deleted it and today i recreated the article with enough references of dawn newspaper , tribune , thenews and others. i would like to know can someone approve this and check ? it will be good as the artist (Serial suno chanda) is becoming famous and virual in india and pakistan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memon KutianaWala (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Nabeel Zuberi then you have not yet submitted it for review. If it has previously been deleted for lack of notability, then you need to find new WP:Reliable sources independent of the actor. See WP:NACTOR for the requirements. Dbfirs 15:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi I have added all new references in english , and removed all old non notable references , here is draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Memon KutianaWala: Can I just give you a tip? You have 24 sources, for an article that is only about 100 words long. That is completely excessive and, rather than making me look at it and think 'this must be notable' it makes me thing 'this probably isn't notable, and the author is trying to hide that behind a wall of citations, but either way I can't be bothered to look through 24 sources right now'. Of course, not all reviewers are as lazy as I am - but you're not helping yourself by including so many sources. You can demonstrate notability with as few as two or three really high quality sources, and massively increase your chances of having your article quickly accepted. When you're asked for additional sources, what we almost always want is quality not quantity. If your best three sources aren't good enough to show notability, then I highly doubt the other 21 are going to change that. They might be necessary later, as the article expands, to back up specific claims, but for getting this very brief draft published? Nope. Hug^syrup 15:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Memon KutianaWala: For what it’s worth, I personally do not think that Nabeel meets WP:NACTOR. The criterion that he comes closest to meeting is #1, but he has only had a significant role in one notable drama serial (Suno Chanda); on the other hand, his role in Yaqeen Ka Safar, for example, was not significant, and therefore would not contribute to notability. NACTOR #1 requires multiple such roles. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 15:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed and added Lux style award links too and i will fix it more , i have removed 12 references out of 24. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

mohammadmahdiazizi

Dialog-warning.svg Oops! This doesn't look like a gallery. Your attempt to create a page in the main namespace of Wikimedia Commons was automatically prevented.

This usually happens for one of the following reasons:

You tried to create a Wikipedia article – but this is not Wikipedia. The website you are on right now, Wikimedia Commons, is a media repository used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others. Unlike on Wikipedia, pages in the main namespace here are not articles. Instead, they are galleries that showcase media files. To get to Wikipedia, visit wikipedia.org. The English Wikipedia project has information about how to create your first article. You tried to create a gallery but used the wrong format. If you are trying to create a page showcasing media files, you should include gallery tags, media files and categories, as explained in the gallery guidelines. You just wanted to experiment a little. That's okay. You can do that in the sandbox. If you have any questions, please visit the help desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.25842 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This User:Ali.25842/sandbox, which may or may not be about Mohammad Mahdi Azizi, does not look like an article. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for your time, but I have just created a brand new page on Radmila and attempted to publish. Did I do something incorrectly or do I need to revisit the first attempt?

I was informed by Robert McClenon that I need to revisit an article's draft page, but I have since created a brand new article on Radmila Lolly. I am not sure if I did this properly as I attempted to publish the edited article as a new page under the same name. What is the most efficient course of action to create the new and adjusted Radmila Lolly page? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlden10 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Carlden10, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The main issue here is that at the moment, the community has determined (based on this discussion) that Lolly is not currently notable, i.e. they are not sufficiently written about and cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Realistically, some years may need to pass before this person does enough to make them notable to be on Wikipedia. At this time, I do not recommend you work on Lolly further. Creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You are likely best served by working on editing existing articles to get a feel for how Wikipedia works. Please feel free to ask any other questions you have about Lolly, or Wikipedia in general. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

is there a phone number I can call to use my credit card to donate

is there a phone number I can call to donate with a credit card — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D60:8CEB:DC5C:F750:69BD:703C (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a staffed phone bank to take donations; if you don't wish to donate using a card online, you can read this page for other ways to donate, including cryptocurrency or mailing a check. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Anna Barbara Speckner

Any editors have a free moment to gloss over this article: Anna Barbara Speckner translated from the German Wiki? Thanks in advance! Maineartists (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I tidied up a bit, and learned something new: {{Draft categories}}. I can't see the content of the BMLO source without allowing scripts, which I'm too tired to look at carefully. Does it cite the place/date of her death? (I added it as a cite for the last sentence in the Life section.) Also, DMY dates would seem more appropriate per MOS:TIES, no? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Stub?

What does "stub" mean in the copy-editing world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTHanna3602 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Stub. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please help align the pictures

Hello everyone! I was trying to add paintings of the artist to my article but it doesn't work perfectly for me. I was looking here but I can't find how to align the pictures in the row. Can someone please help me (I'd be grateful for a link to how-to to learn for the future). Thank you in advance. --Less Unless (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Less Unless. We have a special 'gallery' command which we don't encourage to be used willy-nilly. But in this instance it seems appropriate for the three example images you want to show. So I have added it for you, and you can see what I've done by looking at this diff. There are various parameters which one can use to change image appearance, size and layout. I tried centring first, but felt the page was too short for that to work, so I left it defaulted on the left. The key thing is that the <gallery> and </gallery> commands both open and then close the selection of images. Each image goes on a separate line , with just the File:filename and caption - no other square brackets or thumb commands are needed. For more information for use next time, make a note of this link: Help:Gallery tag. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for your help and detailed explanation. It was my fist time adding images, I'll need to catch up on that. Best, --Less Unless (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome - a pleasure to be of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Notable issues

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

This is my draft, it was un accepted by the reviewer. I didn't understand why is the section (About plays) is not notable. I was referenced by articles reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manar Wehbe (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Last edit said the following "10:21, 21 December 2019‎ MurielMary talk contribs‎ 18,179 bytes +182‎ Declining submission: Suggest the sections on the plays are removed and this article is published as a biography only. If the plays are notable in themselves, could create an article for each play. (AFCH 0.9.1) undo" Not sure on logic itself or notability etc. may just need a tidy up, link to other wikis, and categorizing differently? Hope this may help

121.99.108.78 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Th answer is that the article is meant to be about a notable person, not their works, whereas you have branched off and went into great depth about each play what they wrote. You can read more about that issue at Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, and hopefully understand why that amount of content is not needed. It's equivalent to an article about an author who published 50 books having a massive article about the plotline and writing history of each of those books in an article about them. A balance needs to be struck, and unfortunately you went slightly too far the wrong way in your enthusiasm. But enthusiasm is a great attribute! I do hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What are Portals and why are editors requesting moves one at a time when the general "move all Portals" failed consensus?

My view is a portal is an entry point, to a subject or area of interest, they are also an entry point for potentially new editors or registered users to engage, so should cater towards them almost exclusively.

The above should dictate that no internal wiki move request, WP redirects etc. are present, they should look clean and be immediately engaging.

Unfortunately, many of the pages prefixed with Wikipedia, Contents and Portal are loaded with internal notices, are bland, are long-winded and not engaging at all.

While there is much work to resolve the engagement issues itself, a well defined process and a detailed expectation of what we would like to see on each section of name space could help focus and provide a consistent approach and further drive users and improvements.

So, the question remains, Why, specifically, are a few editors requesting moves one at a time? and to what end?

Thoughts

121.99.108.78 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) aka USER:The Original Filfi

IOW, too many portals are messy, lack maintenance, can be abused, and cause conflicts. Some are perfectly nice. Check out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals for a current conflict. –84.46.53.208 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Welcome back, IP editor! That's a difficult question to answer because there are many different perspectives on the matter, so I can only give my own perspective in an attempt to answer you. Others, I know, would not agree with me, and I confess to not having kept up with recent development. There are, however, a small number of editors who seem to have taken a strong and active dislike to Portals, believing them to be outdated and not having sufficient numbers of pageviews to justify their existence here (I would note this is never a factor we consider when it comes to Articles for Deletion).

About 2 years ago their was an RFC proposal to delete all Portals. At first, that proposal wasn't even advertised on the Portal pages themselves until someone undertook to inform everyone. After a lengthy discussion, that proposal was closed with a decision to retain them, and a desire to see Portals revitalised. A handful of editors undertook to address the concerns of the community and try to reinvigorate them. Unfortunately, one particular editor (who's activities I initially admired) went far too far and made it possible for anyone to create new portals on almost any new topic in a couple of mouse-clicks. Sadly they did just that, and made numerous pointless new portals. The portal nay-sayers jumped on this and (I think) the creating editor was topic-banned from making new portals and many of the new Portals they created were deleted; I think that was probably fair. The nay-sayers then appeared to continued their quest to delete portals, and so a period of attrition has set in with a wide range of potentially quite useful Portals being deleted one at at time. E.g. Portal:Earthquakes (where even its creator was in favour of deletion). Walls of words appeared to anyone arguing on one side or the other and, I suspect, some people feel rather demoralised by how this has worked out, and have stayed out of lengthy discussions. Rather like a game of Jenga, the nay-sayers seem set to inevitably manage to undermine the whole Portal structure until we all think the best thing to do is to knock it down and sweep them all away. They would counter by highlighting that everyone is welcome to monitor WP:MFD and put forward their opinions on each deletion proposal.

Personally, I would find the gradual erosion of Portals to be a great shame and a huge loss. Portals are poorly advertised within articles, yet they could do far more by offering a bright 'shop window' into a topic than any number of blue wikilinks in a wordy article, or a simple Category or two at the bottom of the page, cannot provide. As long as their content is good, and not too out-dated, they don't need to be constantly edited. After all, not all articles don't get that kid of attention, either. They could certainly have been better linked from every 'See also' section within relevant articles; to me, the number of views is wholly irrelevant - it's the quality and breadth of content that is important. And I suspect this may well become a lost opportunity which few will grieve over.

I will end by explaining that I have spent nearly 40 years of my life working in the museums profession, where education and communication with an audience takes place at a wide variety of levels and in a variety of ways (permanent exhibitions, temporary displays, books, guided walks, enquiries, talks and lectures etc). Some are incredibly well attended, whilst others are less so. If we only try to engage an audience in one or two ways we limit how we get our message across. I've seen people's lives utterly changed by the tiniest spark of knowledge that fell on them in the most unusual of ways and, to me, Portals are a cost effective, yet low-traffic means of communication across a broad topic that I would hate to see us throw away, whether on masse or piecemeal. I believe there are now discussions going on about drafting proposals for discussion about what Portals, and I suspect the nay-sayers might succeed in persuading the pro-portalistas that only the broadest highest level topics should have Portals, whereas it's actually about breadth of coverage that seems most relevant to any sort of 'topic-taster'.  Bear in mind this is just me view, and I've not been deeply involved in these discussions at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with checking a draft page ready for publication

Hi. I have created a draft for a proposed new page: Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities As this is the first page that I have created, please could someone take a look and let me have any advice for changes - and how I then go about getting it reviewed to be included? I have read plenty of your help pages, and tried to ensure that I have included the necessary citations. Thanks, Malcolm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmwoodhams (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Malcolm, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem I see with the draft is the lack of independent sources. The question to ask is "where have people wholly unconnected with the Association or the Bailiwick, and unprompted by the Association, chosen to write at some length about the Association?" If there is no answer, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the Association at present because it is not notable. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article, or people associated with it, say or want to say about it: it is only interested in what independent people have published.

I am a bit concerned by your statement that this is the first page that you have created, since the messages on your talk page indicate that you previously attempted to create the same article in 2015. --ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)