Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, 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

How to be sure the file will NOT be deleted if it is nominated for deletion?

The file was nominated for deletion in commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Man_with_a_full_chest_tattoo._Le_Petit_Prince,_Yuri_Gararin,_Hitchhikers_guide_to_the_galaxy._Space_background._Color.jpg

Questions:

• What is the procedure to explain that this nomination is wrong? What happens if nominator just does not anwer to the questions in the nominations page or does not provide any reaction to the explanations why nomination is wrong?
• How can I "ping" the user? I am getting sometimes notifications from my Talk page. If I edit user's Talk page, does he/she receieves notification? Sometimes people just don't react to the mofications of their Talk pages. Is there a way to be sure the user really READ your statement?
• How to provide consent of the creator of art object (in this specific case, tattoist) to use the image of art in Wikimedia Commons (under free license)? He is OK with this but how shall he let it be known?

Vitaly Repin (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Browsing Draftspace?

Is there a way to browse the names of the articles that are in Draftspace? Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Citations not on the web.

I have original newspaper articles about a chef i am creating an article about but 50 percent of them are from the year 1989 to 1999 and it is not available anywhere or the newspaper is nomore. Can anyone please tell me what i should do now ? how can I use those? Those citations are very important to the article Islammanwarul (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Islammanwarul, and welcome to the Teahouse. Newspaper citations do not have to be online, although it is nice if they are. Just cite them in the usual way, giving the author's name, work (name of newspaper), title of the article, date, page number etc.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I find the answer to my teahouse question please?

Hi, I have posted a question about inline citations and I see two people have responded but I am having trouble finding the original question and their answers. What is the trick to find my question? Thanks in advance :-) VirginiaHalford (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi VirginiaHalford. It was a week ago and has been archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 428#Inline citations. There are archive links and a search box to the right of this page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@VirginiaHalford: To expand on Prime's answer, questions are archived after a few days of inactivity (as is the case on most active discussion pages). Using the search box to search for your own username is a quick and easy way to find your previous Teahouse questions and comments. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

why is this being deleted

ALCO entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyclopsga#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_ALCO_Villager_threewheeler_bicycle_.28December_20.29 Cyclopsga (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Cyclopsga (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have referenced all of the news sources of the copy and still received a "missing notable citations" message from Wiki. Not sure what else to do to improve it. Welcome any help! Croudsourced content16 (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cylopsga. The draft is not being deleted: it has not been accepted at present, but it will remain in Draft space for you or somebody else to work on it. The explanation is in the message "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", where 'reliable sources' is in blue, indicating that it is a link to a page that explains it (I have made it a link in the passage I quoted). In short, your references are all user-generated. We require that somebody unconnected with the product have written about it and had that published somewhere with a reputation for fact-checking. If you can find a genuine product review in a reputable cycling magazine (and preferably more than one) that might do it: they don't have to be available on-line, as long as you give enough information that a reader can in principle get hold of the source, perhaps by ordering it through a library. --ColinFine (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I know when my Wikipedia page has been published?

How do I know when my Wikipedia page David Ballantyne has been published?Ballantyne2209 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ballantyne2209, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presuming that you are referring to the content at User talk:Ballantyne2209, that page is your user talk page, which is intended for other editors to communicate with you. It is not the place to create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah! In that case how do I convert the contents of my talk page into an article?Ballantyne2209 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, before discussing that, Ballantyne2209, can I check whether you are the David Ballantyne that you are writing about? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I amBallantyne2209 (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I recommend that you have a read of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which strongly discourages contributing to Wikipedia about yourself. If you still decide that you want to go ahead, then rather than creating an article directly, I suggest that you use the article wizard, accessed via Wikipedia:Your first article. This way, you will get feedback on your draft before it is published. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I now notice that the article wizard isn't accepting autobiographical articles. That reinforces that you shouldn't be writing about yourself. You might want to list yourseub lf at Wikipedia:Requested articles, to request that someone else writes an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything I have written is factually accurate and verifiable.Ballantyne2209 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ballantyne2209. I regret to say that I do not believe that you meet our notability guideline for musicians. It seems you had two singles on the Radio London chart in the 1960s. However, that is not a chart that establishes notability per WP:CHARTS. You say that everything in your draft article is verifiable. It certainly isn't verifiable by reading the three references you provided. Two are from an unofficial Radio London history site, which discuss you very briefly. I do not think that this website is condidered a reliable source in any case. The third is a brief IMDb page, which does not help establish notability here on Wikipedia, since it is user contributed material. Unless you can provide evidence of significant coverage of you as a performer in independent, reliable sources, I think that it is unlikely that a biographical article about you will be accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Curation tool

how do I get the Curation tool to pop up on New Pages Feed when on previous username it came on automatically. do I need to change something on gadgets in preferences to activate it??? thanks. -- --MoshPit~8D---- 21:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi --MoshPit~8D-- when you click on a new page you should get a link in the "Tools" section of the left menu "Curate this article" click that to get the tool up. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know for sure but you probably need to be autoconfirmed for it to show up. -- GB fan 21:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Source Editing.

Hello!

So I am new to editing on Wikipedia, and so far I have only edited the PS4 games list page. I have found a number of errors with very simple fixes. Such as dates, or exclusivity which was very simple to figure out how to edit. My question is adding new games to the list. I am not familiar with source, and several games aren't on the list that I would like to add. I was wondering if there is some template I can take, and add the information for the specific games in question? Thanks! Spenok (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Spenok, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wow, I see what you mean - that's a heck of a table. The closest thing to a template is to copy an entry that is similar to the one you want to add, paste it where you want and edit to create your new entry. A couple of suggestions: table formatting is tricky, and often goes wrong because of a mis-placed bar that you don't notice, so PLEASE be sure to Preview any change you make, to ensure it is like you want. Or if you're not confident then feel free to copy the whole table to your own Sandbox where you can experiment as much as you like, and just copy your entry back into the live article once you are happy with it (and even then, still preview the article before saving). Read the instructions in comments on the first couple of pages of the page when you open it for Edit; that won't answer all your questions but it will give you some help. Finally, there is a active Talk page for that article (Talk:List of PlayStation 4 games), so if you have specific questions they should be able to help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing account that edited post

Hello Everyone,

I am new to editing, and I accidentally edited a post without signing into my account so my IP Address is visible. I am concerned about this. Is there a way to delete that post and redo under my user account, or hide my IP address.

Thanks. Americanhis76 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Americanhis76, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there is a way to hide the IP associated with an edit. You can read instructions on how to request this at Wikipedia:Oversight. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Passage withdrawals

Hello, many thanks for accepting my submitted article "Éric A. Cohen" on Wikipedia. Also, thanks for constructive feedback throughout the process, highly appreciated !

I have a few questions about my initial submission, since certain passages seem to have been withdrawn by Wikipedia reviewers following my submission. I am looking to find out why this was the case and how could these passages be reintegrated to my article, if possible please.

1) In the "Awards" section, 1st sentence, there initially was a passage which went : "…in recognition of his research and for his contributions to the development and standing of the IRCM" right after "In 2012, Cohen received the Marcel-Piché prize awarded to an IRCM researcher...". I'm not sure why "…in recognition of his research and for his contributions to the development and standing of the IRCM" was withdrawn, since it simply describes the focus of the prize as such. For instance, the following sentence of the same section goes: "In 2014, he received the Pierre-Bois prize bestowed to an IRCM researcher for his philanthropic and institutional activities as well as his scientific outreach.". The part "...for his philanthropic and institutional activities as well as his scientific outreach." was maintained by reviewers which describes the prize, so why not keep the same in the previous sentence ?

2) Initially, the "Awards" section ended with this passage: "In 2015, Dr. Cohen and Dr. Mariana G. Bego, research associate in his laboratory, were named "Personalities of the Week" by the Montréal newspaper La Presse, which highlights the achievements of Quebec or Canadian personalities from different fields." I'm also wondering why this passage was withdrawn by the reviewers, since it is a notable award bestowed to this person and is also well documented through this reliable reference: http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/da9ced03-0a00-4d75-8b04-165f72a5d442%7C_0.html. Could the fact that the reference is in the French language be the cause ?

3) In the "Biotechnology" section, the last sentence was initially "He was also the co-founder and chairman of Ecopia BioSciences, a Canadian genomics company developing novel drugs from microbial sources.". The reviewers took out "...developing novel drugs from microbial sources.", leaving the sentence as "He was also the co-founder and chairman of Ecopia BioSciences, a Canadian genomics company s." I don't understand why this is, since the passage which was taken out simply gives a short description of what exactly the company was developing. (Note that I then transformed the sentence into "He was also the co-founder and chairman of the Canadian genomics company Ecopia BioSciences.")

4) Initially there was a section named "Most Significant Publications" in the submitted article. This section was completely withdrawn. I don't understand why, since I observed this type of section for other Wikipedia articles about living persons, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_S._Fauci (see the "Selected publications" section in the latter article)

5) Lastly, I see that the "orphan" tag is still indicated at the top of my article. I read about this on Wikipedia and on how to de-orphanize an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan). My article is among a list: See "Éric A. Cohen" here): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:HIV/AIDS_researchers. Hence, if this counts as a link towards my article, shouldn't my article be de-orphanized ? Or may I proceed myself with removing the orphan template, would this be o.k. ?

Many thanks for your valuable help and insight! SabbagsSabbags (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your last question first, if you read Wikipedia:Orphan you will see that your article is still an orphan. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sabbags. The deletions, as I'm sure you realise, were made by individual editors. When you don't agree with somebody's edits, it is always best to start a discussion with the individual, rather than bringing your question to another forum. Even if they are an experienced Wikipedia editor, many details come down to personal preference, and you can probably reach a compromise that you are both satisfied with.

Several of the changes seem to have been made by DGG, so you could ask either on their User Talk page, or on the article's talk page.

I'll address a couple of your points: 4) Wikipedia has over five million articles, and many of them are not very good. There may be good arguments for having a particular section, but other stuff exists is never a good argument. ON being an orphan: anybody may remove a maintenance tag when it is no longer applicable; but that is not the case here. Picking "What links here?" on the article page gives about twenty links, but not a single one is from mainspace, i.e. from a Wikipedia article. It is therefore still an orphan. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sabbags. The content that was removed seems promotional to me, and the result is an article that is more neutral and therefore a better encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at exactly why I removed the phrases. I can specify, because it was not done at random,: 1)to say that a prize was given to a IRCM researcher in recognition of his research and for his contributions to the development and standing of the IRCM adds no information whatsoever. ButI did make an error--I should have removed the prize entirely, as an in-house prize. In-house prizes are meaningless as an indication of notability, and including them at all is puffery. 2)"Personality of the Week"in a Quebec newspaper or anywhere else is utterly trivial. 3)Saying Ecopia Biosciences is sufficient to show the field of the company, but your revision was actually a good idea, & better than mine. 4)"Most significant" needs a criterion. The criterion is normally "Most cited" But in this particular case it was altogether duplicative to have either, because what would presumably be considered the most important papers were already listed one by one in a description of the research. Actually, altogether too many are listed there, and are described too vaguely and without any 3rd party refs to show their importance.For example a). "Cohen’s studies have contributed to a further understanding of the role and function of Vpu in HIV pathogenesis" followed by 4 references, It should be followed by one, to the most important paper. b)"His laboratory demonstrated that Vpu enables..." Saying this implies that other people have recognized his paper as sufficient demonstration of the concept, but not evidence of that is provided. c) ."elped shed light on..." is meaningless to indicate the importanceo f his contributions--any information on the subject however trivial it may be can "help shed light" on it. d) "He is team leader [of a group] that is developing developing intervention strategies towards an HIV cure." but "is developing ... towards .." something is meaningless unless it indicates what results were achieved. And since it mentions a cure, it needs a WP:MEDRS source, a third party published critical review of the work.

As this indicates--I had not finished--there is a lot more that needs revision.

I am doing this not to make is work appear less important, but to highlight what is the actual importance by a more effective article. Including minor material inevitably implies that perhaps there was no major material to include. Including excessive references detracts from the important ones. For example, Ref 14 is in fact a very reliable scientific third party source specifically highlighting the importance of one part of his work. The effect is not helped by adding a link the the scientifically unreliable huffington post, ref 16.

You are apparently writing for the intent of promoting his work. Experience has shown, that is almost impossible to write a decent encyclopedia article with that intent. WPedians, on the other hand, am merely trying to describe his work within the context of a medium whose conventions they understand; we may or may not be successful at it, but we will at least avoid the characteristic errors of promotional writing. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Corporate account

Hi, if this is not the right place to ask my question, please let me know.

Library and Archives Canada’s mandate is to preserve the documentary heritage of Canada for the benefit of present and future generations, and to be a source of enduring knowledge accessible to all, contributing to the cultural, social and economic advancement of Canada as a free and democratic society.

Library and Archives Canada (LAC) wishes to implement a pilot project to participate in Wikipedia in order to diffuse his digital images and descriptions to a wider audience. Wikipedia is a widely known resource and is often a “first-stop” for researchers of all levels of expertise, including many LAC clients. This pilot project would give LAC a better idea of the resources needed to fully participate in the Wikipedia community.

To do so, LAC was asked by the Treasury Board of Canada to use a corporate account. As a federal organization, LAC is subject to strict rules. We are aware of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy, but we were wondering if there is a way this would be feasible because of our particular status. LAC would not use his account to edit his own page or to promote his activities. LAC simply wishes to share his copyright free images on Wikipedia Commons and to suggest some additions through the talk pages, in order to share Canadian documentary heritage to a wider audience.

Thanks in advance for your advice on this. 142.78.8.4 (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello to the user at 142.78.8.4! What the LAC is trying to do seems like it fits with Wikipedia's mission, and copyright-free images are always welcome at Commons. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies specifically prohibit shared accounts; see here for details. If someone at the LAC wanted to upload images to Wikimedia Commons, they would need to create a personal account. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As Howicus said, LAC participation could be a great asset to the project. However, you cannot have a shared account. Each account must represent an individual. I am guessing the reason for a corporate account is traceability, accountability and evaluation of the pilot project? Perhaps that could be satrisfied by creating accounts of the form user:Joe Johnson (LAC)? That way it can be made clear who is affiliated with LAC, while at the same time abiding by our policies. The relevant policy for role accounts is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts. Hope that helps. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not an experienced Teahouse host, but I thought this link might be useful Talk:Wales in the section Category:Welsh Landscape Collection. SovalValtos (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a very good example. Note the .nlw on the end of Jason's username. This is an account he uses in his duties at NLW, but it is still only operated by him. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project

I have a message on my talk page from User:Phumele123 concerning [User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project ]]. I declined this draft yesterday because it is a duplicate of Draft: The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project. Previous declines of the article have cited copyright violation. It isn’t clear to me on review whether the copyright violation has been removed. With uncertainties as to copyright violation (about which Wikipedia is very strict), and with multiple copies of a draft, I would prefer to see a review that confirms that the copyright violation has been cleared, and I would prefer to see one of the two drafts deleted. Does any other experienced editor have any advice or comments? I have seen that multiple copies of a draft are a common problem. While occasionally the multiple copies appear to be due to tendentious submission, I think that they are usually a good-faith error, possibly due to inexperienced editors not understanding how the different Wikipedia spaces work, and being confused by the redirects that result from a reviewer moving a draft from a sandbox into draft space. (I wonder whether better instructions or procedures are needed to minimize the frequency of duplicate drafts.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The copyvio is still there in the draft: "a flagship project that demonstrates numerous adaptation and mitigation co-benefits" is copied from here. As a consequence of the copyvio, the language is unduly promotional. The referencing is a mess. There are no secondary sources. The draft was created by a single-purpose account with a name that suggests they represent an organisation. The sandbox belongs to another SPA (probably the same person).

I believe that the creator(s) are acting in good faith. I would not relish the task of explaining that what they have created is quite unsuitable as an article. Maproom (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Maproom says that the creators are acting in good faith. I am inclined to agree, but, as Maproom says, some users are just clueless and don't catch on. Creation of multiple copies of drafts happens too often, and maybe better procedures are needed to minimize them. Completely clueless professors with class projects are a different problem, because as professors they should know to know what they are doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello, aministrators. That became the first victim of insults. I wrote the anonymous letter that he allegedly did not like my signature! And I still have not written that kind of want to, I will use this. Be good, my discussion of wonder, because I do not have the right to block it.

Anonymous IP: 2003:62:4D25:DCD7:651D:EB88:E125:CBCE

Thank you! --Lukaslt13 talk 13:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 13:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking on your talk page, I see that an anonymous IP left a message stating that your signature did not look good. I would hardly call this "harassment", nor a personal attack, and I would leave a message to the IP and ignore it, as a block would not seem neccesary at this moment. Please see What is considered a personal attack. If the situation elevates, you can report it to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Very thank you. As soon as I have not exploded :), really. --Lukaslt13 talk 13:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 13:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lukas, your signature does look a bit bright to us oldies, but it doesn't contravene any rules as far as I know, and I see that you enjoy experimenting with it (I like an earlier version better). You could suggest to those who don't like it that they can use User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter to display it in "normal blue". Dbfirs 13:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake on my profile (robot told me) And I can't seem to delete the error

I am new to coding and Wiki and I want to work within all the rules. I tried to delete my error that the robot said...but I can't seem to delete all the text i injected and made the page look terrible. Can someone delete it for me? projectmanagerboy.Projectmanagerboy (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The real problem that I see is that, because you don't yet know all of the rules, you are trying to work on your "profile". Wikipedia doesn't have profiles. It has encyclopedic articles based on secondary sources. In fact, your user page is a fake article. If you want it deleted, you can do a user request for speedy deletion. Otherwise someone else may tag it for Miscellany for Deletion. I am posting a welcome banner to your talk page with links to numerous policies so that you can learn better what Wikipedia is and is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I found a paid editor.

I found a guy who used to edit a few years ago, and on his user page he states that he is a freelance writer. From the list of articles he created, he seems to be creating articles for local (to him) people and organizations, without sources and with BLP issues due to the lack of sources.

Should I just go through his articles one by one and suggest deletion what applicable? OR should I report that user User:Miketedting to someone more experienced than myself? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

His user page is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Spacecowboy420. A glance at their editing history shows Miketedting has been inactive for nearly eight years, so there is no need to report them. I, too, say that I am a freelance writer on my user page, which is true. However, I have never been paid to write for Wikipedia. It is always best to assume good faith. As for the articles, deal with them on their merits. Deletion should be the last resort if the topics are notable. An unreferenced biography of a living people should either have references added if the person is notable, or be deleted promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'm finding that asking questions is helping me stay out of trouble. I will visit his articles, and deal with them on an individual basis. Maybe some have become good articles, and some are worthy of deletion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent response, Spacecowboy420. Let's keep and improve the halfway decent stuff, and get rid of the garbage. The result will be a better encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Geographic Coordinates maps

Hi, I have been looking for a Wikipedia article which will direct me to a map with coordinates by just pointing to a location on the map it will show the coordinate numbers of that location. Thanks for any help. Valjean1969 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Valjean1969, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not familiar with anything like that in Wikipedia, but other tools such as Google Maps can provide it for you - instructions in their Help as "Search for & get coordinates".--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Valjean1969: A handy tool of that sort for Wikipedia purposes is GeoLocator. Deor (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

making a Note within an article

Hi, How do I make a Note in an article? Sorry if it is obvious. Haven't found the right toggle yet. Thanks. Lewismr (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To make a comment within an article, use the HTML comment format (It would be used like this: <!--type your message here-->) -Liance^{talk/contribs} 21:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lewismr. If you wish with your note to start a discussion about content in the article, your best bet is probably the article's talk page. Click the "Talk" tab at the top of the page, directly above the article's title to access the talk page. HTML comments, as suggested by Liance, only appear to users when they edit the article, and they are helpful for supplying information about how the article should be maintained, but the talk page is also helpful, especially if you want to discuss something. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse again. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you mean a "Note" that shows at the bottom of an article, see Help:Footnotes. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean a Footnote that contains interesting nerdy info but is a digression from the flow of the text. Not a citation. I've seen them used but can't figure out how to generate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismr (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Lewismr. There are various ways to generate them. Take a gander at Wikipedia:Nesting footnotes. I often use an older system using {{Cref2}}, like this:

Text in body of article{{Cref2|footnote 1}} ←that generates a footnote

==Notes==
{Cnote2 Begin|liststyle=upper-alpha|colwidth=40em}}
{{Cnote2|footnote 1|Text of footnote! I can nest a citation here too, e.g.,<ref>{{cite book|etc. etc.}}</ref>}} }}
{{Cnote2 End}}

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for asking another question so quickly.

Hello,

Where exactly would I report a possible copyright violation? I have noticed that an article I am looking at contains almost directly paraphrased information. I take it I am in no position whatsoever to nominate it for speedy deletion, so what do I do?

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I moved your question up to the top because, for some reason, that is how we work at the Teahouse :). About the copyvio, if it is an obvious close paraphrase, you can nominate it for speedy deletion with {{Db-copyvio|url=source URL}}, replacing the source URL with the URL it was copied from. If the paraphrase is less direct, you can report it at wp:CP#Listings of possible copyright problems in the bottom section for the most recent ones. If you are unsure, just post the article name and url here and we can help you report it. Thank you for keeping an eye out. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, both for answering my question and for moving it. :)

EDIT: Bobby Lockwood. The website in question is his IMDB page: http://m.imdb.com/name/nm1225475/

Also, is this placed at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesnaught555 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the correct placement. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again.

Chesnaught555 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Chesnaught555, and indeed all other Teahouse editors: Bobby Lockwood is an article that needs serious attention, and the sooner the better. As far as I can see, apart from the possible copyright problem, there are BLP violations, COI problems (one of the editors is called BobbyLockwoodFa – who could he be, I wonder?) and possibly notability issues too. I'm well past the end of my day or I'd do something about it myself. In general, Chesnaught555, if you come across a copyright violation, you should blank the page with {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} and then follow the instructions that appear on the resulting template. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Photos from other sites, not from Commons.

Good evening, I wanted to briefly ask. Is it possible to put on Wikipedia Commons image from another website? For example, I created the article Galalaukiai and say I want to put a photo where you can see the rural landscape? Can I? If so, what is the license for use? --Lukaslt13 talk 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You can put the image on Commons if you can prove that it has been released under a licence which allows that – or that it was published so long ago that its copyright has expired. The licence to use is the one that it has been released under. But most images on the internet are protected by copyright, and so can't be put on Commons. Maproom (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! The answer is almost always no. All pictures on Commons are Creative Commons licenced (or freeer). You can find the details at [1]. Essentially these licenses allow anyone, anywhere to reproduce and modify and redistribute the picture any way they like without payment or compensation. The only requirement is that they attribute the original work to the right person. Almost no website will release its pictures that way. There is a way for copyright owners to release pictures already on websites under these licenses, but it can get complicated. For pictures of landscapes, it may be easier just to take a new picture (or ask a local wikipedian to). Hope that helps. Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And how to check the license? --Lukaslt13 talk 19:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 19:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But I can himself photographed and upload to Commons, yes? P.s Happy Squirrel I in Teahouse have been almost a week :D, but anyway thanks :) --Lukaslt13 talk 19:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 19:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And sorry, that this is not the topic, but still. What are incomplete rural Stob. Namely, that of the village finished editing, and etc.? --Lukaslt13 talk 19:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 19:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Lukaslt13, if you took a picture, you have the rights, so you can upload the image on Wikimedia Commons. To do this, go to Commons:Special:UploadWizard and follow the directions. However, do not upload any picture you did not take, without explicit written permission. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lukaslt13. There is no simple answer to "how to check the licence". Many websites contain a copyright notice, but not all. A few sites - or individual pictures on sites - explicitly release the pictures under a a suitable Creative Commons licence, and these can be uploaded to Commons. But if there is not obviously such a release, or if you cannot find a copyright notice at all, you must assume that the images are copyright and may not be uploaded to Commons.

To answer your other question: A stub is an article which is "deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". See the link for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ! --Lukaslt13 talk 07:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 07:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Commander One page - notice for deletion for second time

Hi! Could you please check my page for Commander One. I posted it some time ago and made all the changes that were asked from me. The article was already discussed once and approved to be published. Now I get the same notice for the second time. Please let me know what changes I need to make. Add more sources? The sources that are indicated now are not enough? I saw one more article about it here http://www.macworld.com/article/3005471/software-utilities/commander-one-pro-review-a-free-finder-alternative-for-power-users.html. Is it a reliable source? DashaG11 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My own opinion only: references 1,5,7,9 do nothing to establish notability: 1 and 9 are not independent, 5 looks like an advertisement, 7 is just a directory entry. But 4 and 6 look acceptable to me. The others (including the one above) I have no views on. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My advice to the author would be to move it from mainspace into draft space and go through the AFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure the article was proposed for deletion before, DashaG11? I can't see that in the article's history. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I also found that MacWorld review, which I have added to the article. It does help, but I think the article needs more to be confident of notability. As Maproom points out, many of the existing references are about as convincing as a note from my mother which says how wonderful I am. Keep looking for good, reliable sources.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone! I will try to find some more reliable sources. DashaG11 (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding a company page

Hi there,

I am an engineering student of Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia. I also work for the placement committee of the college.

One of the items I am working on is improving the the college - alumni network and act as a liaison of the same. I am planning to write articles about several companies which have been co-founded by alumni of my college. Will most likely start with RNF Technologies (already working on a draft here on Wikipedia), considering I interned with them last summer and have a better understanding of how they work.

Is that seen as a conflict of interest as well? Please advise. Nadeem.khan.rp (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are getting paid for writing here, including being on the clock. You said you work "for the placement committee of the college". The Transhumanist 14:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I used the wrong phrase in my initial question I guess. I am basically a volunteer for the placement committee and the only benefit I have personally is that this work will be added to my resume. More importantly though, this will have a big impact on the kind of companies we will be able to invite to the college for placements.

Nadeem.khan.rp (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nadeem.khan.rp. You clearly have an off-Wikipedia interest in creating the articles, but if you decide to go ahead then you should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Declaring an interest. Beyond that, my concern would be that the companies meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, which essentially boil down to a need to ensure that other people have written about the companies in independent, reliable sources, before an article can be created. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Abulia being on the List of mental disorders

Hello,

It has come to my attention that there is a disagreement on this article regarding the spelling of "abulia". I have seen several edits which attempt to change the spelling to "aboulia". I am going to presume the American English spelling should be used in this instance. However, the spelling of this term is the least of my concerns. I am almost certain that it is not in the DSM or ICD, but if I am wrong then do not hesitate to correct me.

Should it be removed, and, if not, which spelling should be used?

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chesnaught555 - I could not find any evidence of an active disagreement about the spelling - either at the list or at the Aboulia article itself. When there are multiple acceptable spellings for a word the WP:ENGVAR rule usually determines that the version used by the first substantive contributor to the article should be kept, unless the topic is specifically linked to a particular variety of English, e.g. the Washington DC article always uses American spelling, while Kangaroo is written in Australian English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose by "disagreement" I really meant editors are just generally confused about the spelling and edit it often. I do apologise if I have caused any confusion with the term I used.

Is it in the DSM or ICD? If not then it should be removed from the list.

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead of that list is pretty clear that it contains "a list of mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD". So if you're sure that it is not in either of those sources then it does not belong in that article. There could be discussions about whether those two sources should be the arbiters for this list, but that is a (very long) discussion for the article's talk page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I would most definitely agree with you; if it is not in the DSM or ICD then it does not belong on the list. I needed to make sure that it is OK to delete it as I could end up risking an unfair vandalism warning or something to that effect.

Thanks for your help.

Kindest regards,

Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you explain why you are removing it you should not get a vandalism warning. If someone reverts you be prepared to discuss the reasons for the removal on the article's talk page. -- GB fan 15:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. First check carefully to ensure it is not in either source, including under an alternative name (several are listed in the Aboulia article). Then you can remove it, with a clear explanation.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Again thank you all. I have removed it from the list and I have not received any questions as to why I have done so, therefore I can imagine that what I did was correct and in good faith.

Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Benz/Daimler or Marcus?

Who invented the first modern automobile? I am asking this as I believe it was Siegfried Marcus as he was first to use a gasoline-powered engine to propel a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Marcus

Surely this makes him the first creator of the modern day automobile then Benz and Daimler who are widely acknowledged as the first creators of the modern car?

If so, several pages would have to be edited to reflect this change.

Sorry if I'm wasting your time but I feel this has to be looked in to.

Kolmias (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It was Karl Benz, check History of the automobile. Why is this important to you? are you working on a related article?JugniSQ (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kolmias, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than to post general knowledge queries. Your question is probably better posed at Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is set up to field this sort of question. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, the question is about several claims in the Siegfried Marcus article - which quite obviously need to be followed up and verified. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point, Roger (Dodger67). A good place to ask for that kind of help might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Kolmias. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

New page, unsure what happens now.

Hi folks I am new to Wiki and have just created the following page: John Herman Louis Burgess, actor

I am unsure as to what happens now. Do I wait for feedback? The page is clearly not yet "live" as the External Links section (I placed one item in it) is not visible and the references are not responsive when clicked on. Are You Tube links acceptable as references?

Thanks a lot

Harvey 109.157.182.193 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harvey, YouTube is typically not acceptable as a source, although it's sometimes OK as an external link. I don't know about it going live, as it sometimes takes as long as an hour (with my internet access) for the server to catch up and display the article. You will probably just have to wait. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP. I presume that you are Harveyburg but forgot to log in. The article is live, and is at John Burgess (actor). You appear to have attempted to manually add footnote references to the article. This isn't the way to do it. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to do this correctly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous version of the article, because Harveyburg's additions were insufficiently sourced, and I have since realised that they were a copyright violation of this page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Iris

I wanted to create a Template:Iris page that would function like the Template:Rose or Template:Citrus pages do and put aggregated information about this widely grown garden plant at the bottom of relevant pages. I discovered that Template:Iris exists but is hardly used because it is currently 'occupied' by a band. I'm assuming that changing the page's content from its current narrow focus to one that would be useful to a much broader range of pages and readers wouldn't be a problem. So if I were to edit the template to instead include information parallel to the rose template, would this all have to be entered manually (gasp!) or is there a way to bring it in automatically from categories or by some other mechanism? Thanks for any pointers on this.Alafarge (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. First of all, I would tend to agree that the flower would be the most logical subject for a template with this name. However, that doesn't mean you should change the existing template. This template is used in a handful of articles and what you are suggesting would break these articles. Instead, I suggest you first create the template you suggest as Iris (plant) or something. Once it is ready, then perhaps suggest a move on the Iris template's talk page. About the mechanics of template creation, I can't really help you, but perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants would be a good place to find other interested editors. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your point about not breaking the existing links and your suggestion to post about this in WikiProject Plants.Alafarge (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alafarge. I see you moved the old template to Template:Iris (American band) and created a new template at Template:Iris. This was a good job, but I should point out that you left one loose end. All the pages which were previously showing the template about the American band were set to show {{Iris}} and were therefore showing info about the flower after your change. What was needed was to change all these references to {{Iris (American band)}}.

I've done this for you already (couple of minutes' work) so you don't need to do anything now. However this is something to bear in mind if you do a similar change in the future. You can check which pages "transclude" a template by clicking the "what links here" button on the left sidebar.

Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I'd spotted that and made a note to deal with it and then got sidetracked. Really appreciate that you took care of it.Alafarge (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Query regarding Wikipedia governance and admin structure

Hello all,

I have been a registered user for a few months. Before that I enjoyed reading Wikipedia articles for some years and would occasionally poke around and make a change as an unregistered user. After giving it some thought, I decided to join and edit more regularly because I have been an editor and author off and on in real life for a bunch of different publications, and (as long as the arguments and drama are kept to a minimum) I find it enjoyable and relaxing to write and edit without time pressure.

I've now reached the point where I regularly get notifications to come and participate in discussion and/or vote on various aspects of Wikipedia administration, and other issues that do not directly have to do with editing an article. In an effort to be a good and productive community member, I've tried to vote and contribute where I can, but often when I click on some invite link and go to a page I see a discussion that looks to me like something straight out of a US Federal Government committee meeting, acronyms and all, and about as easy to follow as someone without a legal background tracking legislation. In fact, I would probably find the legal and legislative stuff easier to follow as I have worked in those areas in the past. Since I am relatively new to the "hierarchy" of Wikipedia and have not been deeply involved in watching its administrative evolution over the years, I am a bit baffled as to what in heck I am reading a lot of the time.

Is there a link or a subsite I can visit to learn about Wiki's organization and the general background to various issues? I do not want to ask stupid questions in the middle of people having a heated discussion about whether arbitrators should have 1000 edits or 5000 or be required to have clerked on some committee for umpty poo years, you get the drift.

Thank you for any help you can provide.TheBlinkster (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheBlinkster. The project is vast, and there are a large number of pages that address various aspects of governance. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:User access levels, which describes the hierarchy of user rights, and follow the links. The Five Pillars is an essay on the foundational principles of the encyclopedia. Requests for Administratorship will give you the basics on what administrators do, and how they are selected. One candidate is being evaluated now. The Signpost is Wikipedia's newspaper which regularly covers governance issues - I suggest you subscribe. Feel free to ask followup questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The first three things you mention, I've already looked at — the hierarchy of user rights and the Five Pillars are very general (although I agree with them as a starting point) and WP:RFA seems to be in some state of flux with changes to requirements being considered. I'll try WP:SIGNPOST and see if that fills in some gaps. It may be that this is just one of these areas where it takes spending many years on Wikipedia to develop a comfort level. Thanks again. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me give you a few more suggestions, then, TheBlinkster. WP:AFDT is the shortcut to today's Articles for Deletion debates. Deciding whether articles "live or die" is an important aspect of governance. User talk: Jimbo Wales functions as a water cooler, and a place for people to blow off steam. If you have a high tolerance for conflict and drama, WP:ANI is the shortcut to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. I think of it as Wikipedia's night court. WP:AN is for more routine adminstrator's business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I also find a lot that happens on Wikipedia is incomprehensible to me – Arbcom debates most of all. But I am perfectly comfortable with it. I just get on with the stuff that I know how to do. It's like using a software package: I know that Excel, and Perl, and my graphics editor, and even my domestic cooker, all have a huge number of features that I'll never understand; but it's not a problem. Maproom (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (Tnx Maproom). TheBlinkster: There is no shame in working with us grunts who just write articles or try to help newbies to not trip over themselves. I've tried to understand some of the legalese of the WP, and maybe in a couple of years I will. I've even poked my nose into a few organization issues, only to have it singed. So for now I'll do the menial work of creating articles, fixing some formatting and adding some refs. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all. For now I am also probably more likely to go find an article to improve with some written or reorganized content or added citations, than to wade into the middle of any governance debates. (I hear enough arguing all day at the office.) However I have a small interest in governance systems on the web and many years ago did academic research into community governance on another website (said website is now a household word, but was never truly community-governed in the sense that Wiki, or even Reddit, is). I also feel that from a civics-minded perspective I should have some understanding of local government just as I do in my local community. Not saying anyone else has to feel the same way at all - one of the nice things about Wiki is we all get to freely choose roles and levels of involvement, which is an interesting governance concept right there. TheBlinkster (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Wikipedia is vast and beyond basic understanding of policy, there is really no need for you to become involved in the drama and politics. I have started participating at RfA simply because I feel the system needs more ordinary users and I will vote on the odd RfC, but otherwise I try to stay away. My only trip to wp:ANI was to accompany a poor newcomer who was being harassed. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest, you can hear Jimbo talk about how the admin works here. The admin stuff starts just before the 4-minute mark if you want to jump straight to it. It's a bit old now, but interesting if you have a few minutes.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Tips on how to improve editing

Hi guys

I am new here and I am fascinated by the amount of content, Wikipedia is so comprehensive.

I guess my question is, do you guys have tips for making the editing process better for us newbies?

Thanks a lot.

Louis

45.74.43.15 (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Louis, we have a lot of stuff to help new users or IPs. If you choose to create an account, you'll be able to create articles and do other things IPs can't do (although IPs csn create articles using WP:Articles for creation). I'm going to send you a welcome message to your talk with most of the links you will need. Plus, I have a user subpage here with tips for newbies. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Legobot

I have removed my name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service long time ago, still Legobot gives me updates of various RfCs. I am not much active on Wikipedia these days. What I should do so that Legobot will not send me messages anymore. Thanks.--Human3015^TALK  18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You may have to contact LegoBot's human overlord on their talk page to opt out. There may be some kind of technology error that's making you keep getting messages. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have posted to User talk:Legoktm#Hi. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

HotCat

How can I add categories using HotCat? Eden's Apple (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eden's Apple. have you enabled HotCat by ticking the box for it under Editing at the gadgets section of your preferences and then bypassed your cache? If you have, then the next step is to read Wikipedia:HotCat#How to use. If you have but are still having difficulties, please come back and tell us the specifics of the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Author deleting speedy deletion tag

Hi, I have recently placed a speedy deletion tag on an author's article. the author subsequently deleted the tag after leaving a message on the article talk page giving a reason why the Speedy deletion tag should not be present on the article. I was under the impression that regardless of the authors opinion it is only admin and such like users who can remove this speedy deletion tag. I have placed this on the teahouse questions board to ask for advise as to how to proceed with this matter. ThanksMr.Luther34--If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{SUBST:U|Mr.Luther34}} to your message. 14:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Luther34. We have a standard series of escalating warning notices for speedy deletion tag removals by page creators. See {{subst:uw-speedy1}} and higher levels, as shown at WP:WARN. If the conduct continues after a final warning has been given, you can report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (On the other hand, if the user has added content/made changes that, if present when you first looked at it, would have rendered the speedy deletion tag invalid, don't reflexively add back the speedy tag even though once invoked it should not be removed by the page's creator.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, can you possibly tone down your signature? I find it really distracting (possibly partly because it invokes for me the orange bar of doom, that I'm primed to see). It also is required to but does not contain a link to any one of your user page, user talk page, or your contributions. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The signature is like a user named something like "Dream of Horses". Eden's Apple (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. I hope the change on the signature is now to you satisfaction. it's my old signature I used to have. Thanks Again. --Mr.Luther34 15:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Luther34! That signature is great - it contains a necessary link and is still quite noticeable without making our eyes bleed:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mr.Luther34: Err, sorry, let me dial that back slightly. The prior signature was really distracting for me. The old one you've switched back to is not for me. But now that we're focused on it, is the smiley emoji part of the signature itself? If so, it also has a problem under the signature guideline. Per WP:SIGIMAGE, "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures for the following reasons:..." If it's not part of it, then happy sailing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Better???:) --Mr.Luther34-- 16:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, sorry for the back and forth.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, Mr.Luther34, an article about a secondary school should never be tagged G11. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about secondary schools are almost always kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:No problem,sorry for delayed response. don't think I'm receiving replies as quick as I should. --Mr.Luther34-- 23:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen: Hi, please could you tell me what school article you as referring to please. if I did it was obviously a error on my part.thanks. --Mr.Luther34-- 23:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

can i save page but not publish ?

Hello, I am new to this and have a couple of questions. 1. Can I create the page but not publish it so I can continue working on it during a period of few days? 2. If I am creating the page for the Musician, can I not use the text from his website as approved by him? Do I need to provide a sort of written signed confirmation or call you? Many thanks for letting me know. Kind regards, Natalia Nataliakrylova07 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Nataliakrylova07, yes you can work on an article for as long as you want in your user pages such as your sandbox or create a new page such as User:Nataliakrylova07/Marc Liebeskind. However you can still not have copyright violations even in there. Note you can also work on new articles in the draft space - the easiest way is to use Articles for creation starting with the Article wizard. As for your other question Wikipedia is not for promotion so material does not need text to be approved by the subject. You can not just copy the website as it is copyrighted. They could release the material (see this) but its always better to rewrite in your own words. Also in this case Marc Liebeskind is on French and this is English Wikipedia - if you want to post in French then you should go to fr.wikipedia.org. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• In addition taking the content from just one source would not show see Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music) - so you need to find more reliable sources. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi @Nataliakrylova07: Welcome to the Teahouse!

• You can create a personal sandbox at User:Nataliakrylova07/Sandbox or a draft at Draft:MUSICIAN NAME (replace 'MUSICIAN NAME' with the name of the musician). You'll be able to edit freely until you're ready to move the page to the mainspace as a published article.
• Wikipedia's text is released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. This license means that anyone can use our text, for any reason, as long as they attribute us. The copyright holder of the musician's website's text (which may or may not be the musician themselves) has to agree to release their text under that license, or a license that allows for similar or freer use. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details, and WP:DONATEIMAGE for instructions on how to have someone agree to release their text under a compatible license. Now, I do tend to discourage copying material from official websites, even if we have permission. It's important that all our information be verified through a variety of reliable sources, so that we provide a neutral point of view and so that the subject is shown to be notable. Content from one's own website does tend to be a bit promotional. Wikipedia articles should be based off of what multiple reliable sources say about a subject (and preferably sources that are independent of the subject). What I recommend doing is writing the article from scratch and incorporating facts from variety of reliable sources (which should be done anyway). You could perhaps cite the musician's website as a source for some content, as long as WP:SELFSOURCE is followed. If you do this, make sure that text is not directly copied from the musician's website (or any other source for that matter).

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I see this as a two-part question. While both parts have been answered, I will try to elaborate a little on both parts, in order to address what appear to be two misconceptions. First, you ask whether you can save but not publish. The answer is not only that you may save but not publish, but that you are encouraged to save without publishing until you are finished with the draft. By "publish", I do not know whether you mean manually moving the draft into article space or submitting the draft for AFC review, but it doesn't matter. Perhaps there is a misconception that one should submit a draft for AFC review as soon as one has finished one round of edits to it, whether or not more edits are needed. That would explain the large number of AFC drafts that are obviously incomplete. Maybe their authors think that they are supposed to submit after each round of edits. Submission should only be done after the author thinks that the draft is finished. Submitting a draft for AFC review when it isn't finished wastes the time of the reviewers. It is common, and your question may explain that there may be a misconception that submission for AFC review is expected after each round of edits. It is only expected after the author thinks that the editing is finished. Second, you ask about using material from a musician's own web site. There clearly are misconceptions about using material from web sites. Many editors think that it is all right to use material from private web sites with permission from the web site owner. It usually is not, for at least two reasons. First, "permission" is not sufficient. The copyright must be released for general use under the CC-BY-SA license, not merely for use in Wikipedia. Owners of web sites very seldom are willing to release their web sites for general use. Second, even if the copyrighted material is released under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, it is likely too promotional for use in Wikipedia. It likely contains peacock language. So editors are strongly discouraged from using copyrighted web site material, even with permission that is seldom granted. Does that answer your questions? You are encouraged to save without publishing. You are strongly discouraged from using material on private web sites without rewriting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting started with article

Hi, I just signed up with Wikipedia and I'd like to get started writing an article.. was hoping u could help me with some directionSteveK15 (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi and Welcome to Wikipedia SteveK15 - I have added a welcome message to your talk page to give you lots of helpful links to start with. Also to learn the basics of edditing you could try The Wikipedia Adventure. The easiest way to start a new article is to use Articles for creation starting with the Article wizard but note the Wikipedia:Five pillars first. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What's bad

Hello, who looked at my pages, or you can write what I'm doing wrong? And write clearly, how to do it right. Thank you! ----Lukaslt13 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 11:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13--Lukaslt13 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 11:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lukaslt13, and welcome to the Teahouse - you're in the right place to ask questions. It would help if we knew which article you are asking about... --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For example, Navikai ? Because, I'm not sure that there okay :) And for example Vosiūnai? ----Lukaslt13 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 13:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13--Lukaslt13 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 13:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide some independent accounts or publications that verify the information in your articles (not just stories about fires). Perhaps a travel guide and a census would be useful? Dbfirs 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, but surely. But my article is already in the census? --Lukaslt13 talk 14:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 14:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VER. --The Transhumanist 15:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I now know, how to add to by Wikipedia style references. Very thank you, so much ! --Lukaslt13 talk 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Lukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking within an article (using bullets)

Hi, there. I was just wondering whether or not it is possible to link to specific points on an article, e.g. a bulleted list (similarly to the way sections are linked using [[#Section|]]). Thanks. Neve-selbert 07:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The information you need is at WP:ANCHOR. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Neve-selbert 03:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

User Signature

Hi all, I want to know how I can create a customised signature as my current one is too generic. Thanks. Zyc1174 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zyc1174. Please read WP:Signatures and WP:Signature tutorial for full details of how to create a custom signature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Zyc1174 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do people seem not so nice here?

I started to look on the talk pages on some articles, and people seem like they are angry and mean to each other, and they don't even seem to listen to each other with respect. They seem like they are fighting to get what they want into the article, and they even call each other names and insulting each other in quiet ways that are subtle. Why can this be ok here? What would I do if somebody was not acting good to me or if somebody doesn't listen or talk like a reasonable person? ElectraGrrl (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi ElectraGrrl. Well, yes, I agree discussions can sometimes get heated when people passionately disagree, particularly if the topic is controversial. It is also easier to misinterpret what people write - not everyone is perfect with their written communication. But generally I would say the nastiness is very much in the minority and there are plenty of well-meaning, positive initiatives to be involved with on Wikipedia. After all, it is 15 years of colaboration and discussion that has created Wikipedia in the first place. Enjoy! Sionk (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Minority? That's one huge understatement. I personally have never experienced this amount of aggressive harassment ever online before. What amazes me most, is the level of acceptance of such behavior within the community. Being (or becoming) a bully is definitely a huge, underlying, pervasive, meta element here. The community even condones victimizing the victim who's being harassed by using tactics like boomerrang. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a huge minority. Perhaps the reason you think so is that you are involved in controversial new articles. I suppose newcomers who try to create new article without showing Wikipedia:Notability, do sometimes get impatient comments, especially if they ignore guidance that is offered. Dbfirs 11:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• The subject was Art. Harassment isn't contained to certain articles. It spills out all over the place especially went it's accepted by the community. As for creating a new article, I wouldn't recommend anyone doing that... at least not before spending a minimum of a month in AfD. I came to Wikipedia specifically to write a few articles, however, the odds of them ending up in Deletionpedia is too great! Plus, it's no longer even a collaborative effort when it comes to writing an article. Articles now require hours and hours of diligent work by one editor, who when the article does, (maybe?) go live is easily tagged with multiple criticism and sent to AfD. Then those new editors are completely overwhelmed in that foreign environment. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 02:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's because we don't have enough people like you, ElectraGrrl. Despite Wikipedia's policies and common courtesy, people do sometimes get frustrated and they take things personally and all the usual reasons why people fight with one another.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers and your kind word to me. I hope i will be able to be a good influence here in the Wikiland. Well still isnt there some way to take action when some person is consistently being a bad participator in discussions and making it hard for everyone else to make it work well? Couldn't that make troubles in how the articles end up being too? ElectraGrrl (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Most editors here try to follow Wikipedia:Civility which is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Occasionally, editors get carried away when they disagree, and some personal comments are intended in jest, though these should be placed in small print to indicate this. Occasionally we get trolls who deliberately try to incite other editors to reply less than civilly. This is not OK, and these "editors" often get banned. The best advice we can give is to always be civil, and to avoid those articles where there are heated arguments — they are very much a minority in Wikipedia. Dbfirs 13:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is necessary, there are options to deal with persistent troublemakers. See the section "Dealing with incivility" in the Civility article that Dbfirs mentioned above.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

ElectraGrrl, I'm like you: I'm surprised and dismayed when I see editors attacking each other instead of getting on with improving the encyclopaedia. However, it happens, luckily not too often. As for what to do about it, I think the best response is just to be unfailingly polite, and not worry too much if others are not. To me, the Teahouse is a benchmark of behaviour: the regular editors here are helpful and courteous, though not afraid to speak clearly when that is necessary. I admire and respect them for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am afraid that some people are here just to make a nuisance of themselves. They see that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, which gives them the chance to make difficulties, sometimes without even trying to create decent articles. Most such people eventually get blocked or banned because they go to far, but new ones are always appearing. However, I've found that this is the case with many websites and you will see a lot of it on social media such as Facebook. So we are not really so horrible by comparison. But it can be upsetting. Like the other users who've commented above, I find that the best solution is to ignore such people and their comments as far as you can. Deb (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

How to create a page about a publication

Dear Sirs

I am very keen to share my knowledge of the financial markets and edit the occasional page. So thank you for the invite.

One question I have about creating a page is my publishing company wishes to know how to create a factual page about our publications. Many of our competitor titles have pages such as these listed below;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Custodian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Review

Any help and guidance would be great

best

Justin82.21.154.76 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Justin and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't create a page about your company or employer, because you have a conflict of interest. If the company is notable enough, someone, sometime will probably create an article about it. From the point of view of the encyclopedia and its commitment to neutrality, it's best that if that someone is unaffiliated with the company.

Regarding those competitors' pages, they were most likely created by ordinary people who are in no way affiliated with those companies. This is, ideally, how Wikipedia works. It's perhaps more properly said that "we have articles about them", rather than "they have articles on Wikipedia". In fact, an article about your company isn't necessarily a good thing for the company, because they have no control over its content, and editors are obliged to cover the topic neutrally. This means the article won't have much promotional value, and will include all the relevant negative things about the company as well. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Finnusertop Having worked for two of the publications listed on Wikepedia myself I know that they did create them themselves. I guess it was a case of setting up a user and then someone adding the content from home? Trust me, no one is going to suddenly decide to write a page on a boring B2B publication, they will have all been created by those organisations. But basically what you are saying is we cannot appear to have done it ourselves? Many thanks Justin82.21.154.76 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Justin, I doubt that what you are saying is true. It is possible that someone from the company created an article about their company, but plenty of us do create articles on what may seem like boring topics because we recognize the need for them. It is true that you cannot appear to have done it yourself. It is hard for someone close to a topic to write about that topic neutrally, and using indepoendent sources, but it is not impossible.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The page "xxxx" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created.

I search Wikipedia from two computers. One works fine. The other sometimes gives the message, "The page "xxxx" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created" even though the page really does exist. This error seems to occur for less common subjects like Rowan University or Henry Rowan, rather than common subjects like Washington or Lincoln. What's going on?71.185.64.140 (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome anonymous user. You could get that if you misspelled (or mis-capitalized) the search term (for example "Rowen University" or "henry rowan") on one of the computers. It would be less likely for common subject because more redirects would have been created for likely misspellings. —teb728 t c 07:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but I did not misspell or incorrectly capitalize. Why am I getting this error?71.185.64.140 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP user, it sounds like it may be your computer, since you said you use two and it only happens on one of them. The computer that gives the error message may not be as up-to-date as the other one, and may be reading the site incorrectly somehow. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right that the computer on which the error occurs is not as up-to-date. But why should that prevent Wikipedia from locating a page? Wikipedia's search engine must have a bug. How can it be fixed?71.185.64.140 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us some extra details to help narrow it down, please - what browsers are you using on each machine, and what operating system? Are they both accessing the same version of the Wikipedia, or is one perhaps accessing the mobile site? Any other significant differences you are aware of? And is there an example which always fail on the second computer, or is it intermittent?--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gronk, I am currently using the "bad" computer which gives the error. Actually, the error is "Create the page "xxxx" on this wiki!" One search term which consistently gives the error is "Tetrodotoxin". There is a page for Tetrodotoxin on Wikipedia, but I get the error "Create the page "Tetrodotoxin" on this wiki!" The bug (only on the bad computer) seems to be in the autocomplete dropdown box which finds no match for "Tetro" on this computer. BTW, once I access Wikipedia's Tetrodotoxin page (i.e. through a Google search) the autocomplete box DOES find the page, but if I leave Wikipedia and access it again, the term is not found. The site on the bad computer is www.wikipedia.org. My browser is Firefox 42.0. Operating System is Win XP 5.1. 71.224.163.152 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you start the search at https://www.wikipedia.org and not at https://en.wikipedia.org? There is a language selection box to the left of the search box at www.wikipedia.org. Which site are you at when you get the "Create the page" message? I wonder whether the "bad" computer is making searches at https://simple.wikipedia.org (the Simple English Wikipedia) instead of here at en.wikipedia.org. And please use your browsers copy-paste function to copy the full message including the xxxx part. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, PrimeHunter! I have recreated the "problem" configuration almost exactly (Windows XP 5.1 and Firefox 43.0.1), and it works fine when I go to that website and select language=English. However, when I switch to Simple English, it can no longer find the article for Tetrodotoxin. Even when I open the article on Puffer fish, the link to Tetrodotoxin inside it is a red link and the article is not found. Could that be it?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That must be it. The wording 'Create the page "xxxx" on this wiki!' is used at simple.wikipedia.org, and unregistered users are invited to create pages there. The normal English Wikipedia here at en.wikipedia.org says 'You may create the page "xxxx"', but only for registered users. Unregistered users get 'The page "xxxx" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created.' That's the message the poster originally claimed to get on the "bad" computer but that was apparently incorrect. https://www.wikipedia.org remembers the last language choice in the used browser so it makes sense that one computer consistently tries to search the Simple English Wikipedia which only has 116,000 articles versus 5 million here. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. You found the problem. Somehow, the default language on my "bad" computer was set to Simple English instead of English even though the address from which I searched was www.wikipedia.org. When I selected English as the language, I was able to find the desired pages which I couldn't find with Simple English as the language. 71.224.163.152 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Major rewrite as draft?

Hi, when submitting a major change to a wikipedia article am I supposed to edit the article directly. I thought that was the point of a draft, but it gets automatically rejected because the article already exists. I see the point that this avoids getting multiple non-sequential edits, but it seems that there should be a different process for a major rewrite. Thanks Mattheworlando (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Draft:Multi-task learning. No, the purpose of a draft is not for a major rework to an article. It is for a new article. A major rework of an article cannot be accepted as replacing it because that would erase the old history of the article. In a few case a history merge can be done, but it is much preferred that you discuss your proposed improvements on the article talk page, and then, if other editors agree, or don't disagree, edit the article. If other editors disagree, then read the dispute resolution policy and follow one of the methods of resolving content disputes (the first of which is discussion on the talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am asking on behalf of a number of others who are editing Wikipedia as a class assignment. What I am surmising is the best policy is to write a draft and post a link to the draft in the article talk page. Then if other editors like the draft, replace the article as a single edit. Not sure if that's exactly protocol, but it seems to be the solution in this case. Mattheworlando (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, Mattheworlando: A major rewrite of an existing article should be completed in a long series of discrete chunks of work, rather than wiping out old work and replacing it with new work. If you (one person) are drafting an all new paragraph or section, that can be drafted in a sandbox and copied and pasted into the article when ready. The method you propose may be perceived by others as an unintended insult, in the form of "your old work is worthless and my new work is far superior". I am sure that is not the impression you want to convey. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is that there are a number of articles that have received major rewrites as part of the course I mentioned and need to be submitted somehow. I think that the protocol I suggested above will solve that problem. (With regard to the specifics of the article I edited, the original was almost entirely copied and pasted wholesale from other sources. So I am not sure that those editors have a huge stake in it. By the way, in my case I did preserve structure and content from the previous article. )

Second I think the lack of a rewrite mechanism is a bottleneck to improvement in Wikipedia. Sometimes the best way to achieve progress is not through incremental changes. In CS terms, greedy algorithms often get stuck at local minima. Just my thoughts... Mattheworlando (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a well-established rewrite mechanism that has enabled us to grow to 5 million encyclopedia articles, and improve constantly, Mattheworlando. It is called the edit button. Click it on any article, and revise, rewite, expand or add references, as you see fit, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. This is a collaborative project, and you should build off the base that previous editors, volunteering in good faith, have established. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no discussion at Talk:Multi-task learning, which is the proper venue for detailed discussion of any shortcomings of that article, and plans to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen (or others who may be in a more helpful mood) I'm obviously here asking for guidance, given the unique situation. I haven't touched the original article since I wanted feedback from this forum first. 1000's of hours have already been donated to improve articles through this class assignment. We're trying to figure out how to submit them. I proposed a mechanism above, but I perceive that it has been received with negative feedback.

I already explained that this was undertaken as part of a course, and so to receive credit the editing had to be done single-handedly _until_ the draft is submitted for collaborative review. Again, the reason why I ask the question here is that I would like to do this respectfully, obviously, and this is a unique situation.

Unless you are a Wikipedia insider, it is not clear exactly what happens when a draft is submitted, and I am glad to have that cleared up. But another issue is that it is arduous to submit a major rewrite through the edit button especially for Tex heavy articles, and it seems there should be an intermediary place to draft new text. Cullen seems already to have agreed that drafting in a sandbox is the correct protocol for that, and I am taking this one tiny step further for the rewrites that, I again emphasize, have _already_ been completed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattheworlando (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to be as helpful as possible, Mattheworlando, and explain to you how things work here. The Articles for Creation process is for evaluating drafts of new articles about discrete topics currently lacking articles. Any experienced AFC reviewer who sees a draft about a topic for which an article already exists will decline the draft without even looking closely, and advise you (and the other students in your class) to go edit the existing article. That is a strongly ingrained cultural norm among experienced editors. We do not remove and replace existing articles. Instead, we revise, expand and improve existing articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattheworlando: from what you have said, you are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but have had the sense to ask about it, and in the right place. You should be commended for this. I wish I could be as positive about your course supervisor. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mattheworlando. I've asked about your problem at the Wikipedia Education Noticeboard. Maybe they have had experience with this. We welcome class projects here, but prefer that they go through the Wikipedia:Education program which provides training for both instructors and students before they start editing Wikipedia. In your particular case I have a suggestion. You copied the article over, then made changes. From that history, [this "diff" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Multi-task_learning&diff=cur&oldid=694100449] shows exactly what you changed (though it doesn't recognize offsets very well). Use that to copy your changes into the article a few at a time rather than just replacing the whole article. That step by step process makes it easier for other editors watching the article to see how the changes developed. You have made a great improvement to the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Two Observations

I have a few comments on two matters.

Class Assignments

First, the original poster states that they are asking on behalf of a number of editors who have been editing Wikipedia as a class project. It is my observation that, at least this semester, there have been numerous class assignments to edit Wikipedia by instructors who may themselves not understand how Wikipedia works. In some cases, the instructor wants to grade the project after the article is accepted into mainspace, which puts the student in a very awkward position between their own need to have the article accepted into mainspace, and the AFC reviewers, who perform an important unpaid service in applying the standards of Wikipedia. I sympathize with those students, but the problem often seems to be instructors giving Wikipedia assignments without understanding much about Wikipedia. I think that is what User:Maproom means by: "I wish I could be as positive about your course supervisor." The answer isn’t to change Wikipedia, but for the instructors to educate themselves about the details of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. This may not address the original poster’s comments and suggestions, but it is a comment on a problem with class assignments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft Space for Rewrite of Articles

The original poster suggests that draft space be available for wholesale rewrite of articles. That isn’t how draft space is currently used. However, I am willing to propose an idea that may address the original poster’s concerns and be more consistent with how Wikipedia works. At present draft space is used for drafts of new articles, via the AFC process, and the role of the AFC reviewer is to consider whether a draft is appropriate for the encyclopedia, not which of two versions of an article is better. (The AFC reviewer considers, among other things, whether the draft, if accepted, is likely to be nominated for AFD. A draft that is likely to be nominated for AFD will not be accepted.) However, I would add that there is, in my view, a way that draft space could be used for a wholesale rewrite. That is to develop the rewrite, but, rather than submitting the draft to AFC, submit a Request for Comments on the article talk page asking whether to replace the existing article with the draft. Rather than basing the replace decision on the judgment of one reviewer, that would obtain consensus from the community. However, the use of draft space to develop an alternate version of an article should be preceded by discussion on the original article’s talk page. As noted, there was no discussion of why Multi-task learning needed improvement. Indeed, there is no discussion of anything on Talk: Multi-task learning. What does the original poster think of this restated concept? What do other experienced editors think of this concept? If there is agreement that this may sometimes be appropriate, the Idea lab might be a place to work it out further. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, I think we are on the same page. You suggestion seems consistent with my second post above. I think given the circumstances this gives a path forward to take advantage of the effort put into the article rewrites, while not being at odds with the collaborative culture of Wikipedia. Mattheworlando (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale replacement of existing articles (with the possible exception of very short stubs) by drafts is simply unacceptable - the rewrite/expansion of an existing article must happen directly on the article page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that wholesale replacement of existing articles by draft is simply unacceptable under existing policy, or that there is an essential reason why that policy must stand and cannot be changed? It is true that policy does not currently permit replacement of articles by drafts. However, is there a reason why this rule must be absolute and why any change to it must be discounted? Some editors have proposed changes to the policy. Is there a reason why proposing the change to the policy is absurd, or is it simply that we have always done it this way? If discussion is worth continuing, we should go to the Idea lab, because otherwise this Teahouse discussion is likely to be archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I dunno - I think that with students it'd be best for them to work on a draft or userspace article rather than make direct edits. I think that a good way to go about this would be to have them work on the draft article and at some point (preferably during the construction of the draft article so they can get feedback) they post on the article's talk page to let people know that they would like to merge some of the information over. It's then decided what, if anything, should be brought over and if so, should anything be re-written. In other words, there's no deletion of the old page and it'd be expected that any information deemed acceptable for the main article would be cut/pasted from the draft version, ideally by the specific student editor that created the page. Basically, just use the draft/userspace as a sandbox for the real deal. Student editors are extremely prone to writing an article like a research paper, meaning that the article will have tones and OR that would make it seem like an essay. It's never done on purpose, just that this is how they're used to writing. Ideally yes, this would all take place in the live article, but I think that allowing some slack by letting a group of students work on a sandbox version of the article would be fine. I'd prefer that they make it via someone's sandbox, preferably the teacher's, if the assignment is only for one page, since draftspace is meant to be a place where we make new articles, not new additions to articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussion at the Education noticeboard

Please see this recent extensive discussion where issues such as this were discussed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I developed a tool to automatically assess the quality of Wikipedia articles. How can I present it on Wikipedia?

Hi,

I hope somebody can help me. I developed a tool, actually two tools, to help editors and reviewers to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and to get an overview of the quality of an article quickly. It is an open science project. When I tried to create articles about the tools, they were deleted because of promotion. Is there another corner for developers or researchers where we can present our projects?

Thx!

Dst2015 (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand everything that the tools do, but I suspect that extreme care would need to be taken, and very thorough testing done before they were released to use on articles. Perhaps they could be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) where there might be some experts. Creating an article about the tools was definitely not the right thing to do unless they have been extensively reviewed in independent publications. Dbfirs 22:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dst2015, it seems to me that you are trying to create an article about the tool, whereas what you should be doing is telling editors about it and getting it tested. I can't think of any Wikipedia tools that there are articles (as opposed to help pages) about. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dst2015. I second everything said above. The idea lab is a good spot, but might also consider proposing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) that they be added to Wikipedia:Tools. I must tell you though that the fact you attempted to create a mainspace article on the tools give me some misgivings about the tools. In order to develop tools that are truly tailored for use here would, I think, require an intimate understanding of how things work here – which is out of keeping with the attempt to create an article on them at Wikilyzer and Quality Assisted Editor (i.e., that indicates a essential misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works). Nevertheless, I took a look at the Wikilyzer/Quality Analyzer (by the way, you might want to fix the typo on the first page: IMPORVE → IMPROVE) and it does have some interesting attributes at first blush. But I was left puzzled by a few of the specifics I examined. For example, the authority tab says it measures five datapoints to reach its score on the article's "reputation". I don't really understand how the five pieces of data would show that (though I could not tell how they were weighted). Among the list of articles I generated for comparison, one of the highest ranked looked like it partially reached that high reputation score because it has many external links, and the article is a terrible one, with it having almost no sources, reliable or otherwise, but many external links – being to my mind an indication of its lack of quality in containing a promotional "linkfarm".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thx for your answers and sry that I went the wrong way at the first place! @Fuhghettaboutit: The thing is the Quality Assisted Editor is just as good as the quality measure methods it is using. If you check other open science project like GreenWiki etc. the number of external links is always an indicator for the article quality. However there has not been done that much research about it. Therefore we created the Quality Analyzer that Wikipedians (experts, not me ;-) ) can create their own quality measrue methods and use it with the Quality Assisted Editor. Right now I'm just using what's already there, but as I said on the homepage of the [Quality Analyzer]: let's create a platform in order to build better and more meaningful quality measure methods. Thx again :-) Dst2015 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We tend not to encourage external links here because they often go to spam websites. In-line citations would be a better measure of article quality. Dbfirs 12:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)