Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, 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

interactive map links in external links section

Hi,

What is the policy on using interactive maps for pages that have geographical boundaries? For example, links of this type:

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=18f3be7735904351b573c796a8b48f75

I did some looking and the most I could find was this page below, which doesn't mention any kind of interactive maps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles

Thanks for any light you can shed on this subject!

Cpowiki (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Maysip/sandbox

I reviewed User:Maysip/sandbox and declined it as lacking sufficient context to identify who the draft is about, let alone whether he is notable. User:Maysip then posted to my talk page:

The guy is not a "McMoron or a Clown", he stumped the reviewers around.

Can someone besides me explain to this new editor that, if his article is about a person, it should identify the person, as well as providing independent reliable sources stating that he is notable? (If he is notable for disrupting of networks, but no one actually knows who the person is being the disruption, how is he being described by reliable sources?) Can someone besides me explain that just resubmitting a declined draft without changing it is tendentious? Also, on looking at his userpage, it appears that he is writing about himself. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable/Resources chicken and egg

I created this site last night (my first). Draft:B._LaRae_Orullian

I think my rejection note says that the subject is not notable because references don't prove that she is notable. I quote a book, and 3 non-wiki websites and 1 Wiki Invest (which may not be acceptable, I'm learning).

She was the president of Girl Scouts and is/was on many boards of high profile companies and spent most of her life defying conventions for women in the banking industry.

Besides books, I am unclear on what online resources are acceptable. For example, how could I reference her winning the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame besides a website? Also, are some books not acceptable references? Do I just need more books on the topic of her and/or other successful woman bankers or Girl Scout presidents? I feel like I see Wiki pages all the time with similar references... Rahnae22 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How to restore deleted article

One of your Wikipedia's editors wrote a page on this subject WIlliam J. Kelly in conformity with Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. The page has since been completed deleted. The person who deleted it should be banned. I believe it is an act of vandalism. [1] Lauraglaw (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lauraglaw, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question to ask, or were you just looking for a place to complain? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not refer to an administrative decision with which you disagree as "vandalism". That is a personal attack. Articles with that title have been deleted three times for different reasons. Discuss with the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Should two Wikipedia categories be allowed to both be subcategories of each other?

This seems counter-intuitive to me that it should be allowed, but I have found examples of it. In my mind, a subcategory is fully contained by its more general category... so if two categories are subcategories of each other, then the only way this would make sense is if the two categories were essentially the same thing (And therefore, no need to have two categories... merge them into one)

My follow up question would then be, how do I collaborate on this level of Wikipedia? (I am brand new) For example, if I wanted to suggest that a certain topical category should only be the subcategory of another, and not vice-versa.

Bortseb (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bortseb and welcome to the Teahouse. No, two categories should not normally be sub-cats of each other. Indeed I can't think of any caase where this would be proper, but I hesitate to say it never would be. See Wikipedia:Categorization for lots more on how to use and edit categories. You cna change this by removing the appropriate category link from one of the category pages, but it might be a good idea to post on the talk pages of the categories involved to explain what you are doing. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As DES says, Bortseb, categories should not be subcategories of each other. Can you point out the categories here? The talk pages of categories don't get a lot of attention as most editors do not add categories on to their Watchlists. It would help us to see exactly what you've run into. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The two categories are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Euthenics

Bortseb (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bortseb. In this case, I believe that Category:Public health is the parent category so it shouldn't be a subcategory of Euthenics. But after looking at the contents of the categories I can see why these two categorizations might have happened (probably separately over time). This conflict doesn't happen often but it isn't unheard of. If you'd like to help out with a really obvious miscategorization, go see Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories and correct categories that have been categorized to themselves! Wikipedia:HotCat is a useful tool to use if you want to add, remove or correct categories assigned to pages and articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are my articles being subjected to deletion?

Hello there i am a new user here. i have created two biographical articles with maintaining all the guidelines and providing all the reliable sources but i still cant figure out why it is being deleted. Please help me out here. Celebjazbuz18 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows one biographical article, which is Shruti rawat, which lists three references, two of which are Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not permitted as a reference. The other reference is to her own web site, which is not an independent reliable source. The nominator thinks that you have not provided evidence of notability, and I agree. My advice would be to create the article in draft space, gradually, and submit it to review via Articles for Creation. If you have created a second draft, it may have already been deleted. Do newspapers or other independent reliable sources discuss the actress? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The other reference is a dead link, and if it existed the url implies that it would have been the website of the subject, so not an independent reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As Robert and David have pointed out, Celebjazbuz18, your referencing on Shruti rawat and Surjit saha was inadequate, Wikipedia and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. But if you like, we could restore the articles to your user space where you could continue to work on them. Let me know. I think it's a mistake in advice given to new editors to add articles directly into Wikipedia when they should be working on them as a Draft or in their sandbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice About Creating New Article Directly

Where is that advice given? New autoconfirmed editors may add articles directly to article space, but I don't see the advice to go ahead and do that. If that advice is present in a policy, guideline, or help file, I agree that it should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of the tutorials but I think Wikipedia:Your first article tells new editors to be bold and create new articles. Buried in a lot of text, it says that it can be useful to experiment in the Sandbox but it's not highlighted as the first step a brand new editor should take. It does recommend getting sources together but I think most new editors think that they can create an article and improve it gradually over time. But I've done my share of checking New Page Patrolling and if a new article doesn't claim or demonstrate significance of the subject (or make it clear that reliable sources DO exist, they just haven't been added yet), it is likely that the article will get a CSD tag. But NPP behavior varies a lot among editors and admins (more than it should) and the boundary of what is considered significant is not set in stone. At least, that has been my experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that it doesn't advise against directly creating articles. I haven't read the history of Your First Article, but it likely predates AFC and Draft Space. I think that there are two aspects of article creation that should be avoided. The first is the creation of new articles directly in article space, even by experienced editors. I think that experienced editors would do well to create articles in user space and move them into article space when they have all of the content and references. Very few editors can create a whole article in a single edit in article space without periodically saving it, and if a new article that isn't finished is saved in article space, as you said, it is likely to be tagged for speedy deletion (or for proposed deletion, or for a deletion discussion). (I disagree with those who think that New Page Patrollers need to allow time before tagging an article for speedy deletion. If the article isn’t finished, don’t put it in article space.) If one doesn’t want to go through AFC, it is better to create the article in user space and then move it to article space. The second thing that should be avoided is the creation of articles in article space, whether directly or by moving them, by inexperienced editors, who do better to use AFC. I agree that WP:Your first article may need some tweaking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:FND Hope

I reviewed Draft: FND Hope and declined it as not satisfying corporate notability. I then received an email from User:FND Hope providing additional references establishing notability. I am not providing the email because I am assuming that the mailer assumed confidentiality. However, can someone besides me point out that the evidence of notability must be in the article, not provided separately to the reviewer? Also, the email notes that the organization is a registered 501(c)(3). Do we need a guideline that notes that being a 501(c)(3) does not establish notability? Also, there is a conflict of interest and a username violation because the subject and the author are the same.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If I were you, Robert McClenon, I would just reply to the e-mail telling the editor to add the references to the draft (or post a message to that effect on their talk page if you don't want to reveal your e-mail address to them). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend not emailing them back - if you email them, then they get to find out your email address, which you might not want (personally I don't like people knowing my email). Just respond to them on their user talkpage about it I guess. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, Robert McClenon, you could verify the reference included in the email and add them to the draft yourself if they check out, or add just one as an example to the user, and leave a message on the user's talk page saying that you have done so. That is not required for a reviewer, but it might be helpful. You might also warn the user about what looks like a promotional username. In fact i may do that myself. DES ^(talk) 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the user wanted me to accept the draft based on having seen the references, and didn't understand that the references have to be in the draft, not in a private email. That is a case of not understanding how Wikipedia works. Of course, many inexperienced users don't understand how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The username has already been blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Highfive Technologies, Inc.

I reviewed Draft:Highfive Technologies, Inc. and declined it as failing to establish corporate notability. I then received the following on my talk page from User:KatieTakacs:

Hi! I appreciate you reviewing our page. Could you give me a little more information about what other sources I need to show notability? I have submitted my article a few times with a variety of third party sources, but I don't understand why that don't count as "significant coverage." "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. We have listed sources that meet these requirements. Please identify those that do not meet these requirements. And please let me know which types of articles I can include that will boost Highfive's notability. Thanks!

I am now concerned by the mention of reviewing “our page”. Is she saying that she is submitting the draft on behalf of her employer? If so, there is a conflict of interest. While submitting a draft through AFC is permitted as a way around conflict of interest, her status as a paid editor should be disclosed. Does any other experienced editor have advice for her? I will note that the article has been declined five times by three reviewers, and, with the removal of promotional language, there isn’t a whole lot left. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes there's a COI, Google verifies the COI very quickly. She's a "marketing specialist" for the company. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Guestbooks

How do I create a guestbook? Thanks for answering Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. Why would you want to create a guestbook here? Perhaps you are asking about your own website, in which case the best place to ask about guestbooks is the Computing reference desk. Dbfirs 17:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I mean on my user page. Sorry for the inconvience.Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ilovebeaniebabies8804!, you have been editing for three months now and only 3 of your 169 edits are to article space. Please focus on improving article content and less on the social aspects of Wikipedia. If this persists you could be blocked for WP:NOTHERE reasons. Platforms like blogs, Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook are more suitable websites if you are interested in making new friends. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to delete submission at Articles for creation

User: Robert McClenon

Good evening (I am in Paris France) I apologize for having longed long to redeliver an answer to your request february 13 : I am french speaking and I am 95. I found something interesting which I fully developed in two books published by Amazon/CreateSpace/Kindle : Illusions Créatrices and Avatars de la vérité. I introduced a summary of it in the article of french Wilipedia : Effet Coanda, and I wished to do the same in Coanda Effect-Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . As I forgot how to do the job, how to manage two figures from Wikicommons, I first tried to open a sandbox, then I succeeded without using the sandbox. Therefore a number of early submissions should be deleted : I don’t know how to do that, and I thank very much in advance the admin willing to take care of this cleaning out.--16:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Marcel kadosch (talk)

The draft in question that I declined is User:Marcel kadosch/sandbox. It appears that they submitted it by mistake. It isn't necessary to delete a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Other than that, the editor has edited Coandă effect. Do they want their edits to it reverted? I don't see a problem with their edits, but I don't know much about the Coanda effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

draft pages to 'real' pages

I have submitted a draft here:

User:Jessafair/Peter Mitchell (photographer)

I wanted to know if it gets approved will it appear just as Peter Mitchell (photographer) without my username Jessafair/  ? It seems quite confusing and I didn't understand! Apologies - I did read the information but I just still didn't get it. I wanted to make a simple page about the person Peter Mitchell (photographer) and then be able to add to it once I got the basics right. Many thanks. Jessafair (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken the liberty of changing the url in your question into a wikilink. To answer your specfic question, if/ when your article gets accepted for publication the editow who does that will move it to an article address without your username. You haven't yet submitted your draft for review. To submit it you would need to click the blue button labelled "Submit your draft for review!". Before doing that, however, there are a few things to sort out. Most importantly, you ought to improve the referencing. You have a few things listed as "References", but it isn't clear which reference supports which part of the text of the article. To do that you should use footnotes, using the method outlines at WP:Referencing for beginners. You also ought to remove the misplaced external links from the article text. I've added a few useful links to your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Request to finalize Draft: Candelario J. Viola, Jr.

I believe I have generally revised my proposed article to acceptable norms. Anything more I need to do? I just want to contribute, hence, my desire to have my article finalized. Please give me some favor. Thanks in advance.Yobems (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Yobems. Did you read the answers to your question below? The points about the need for references and more neutral wording still apply. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How can I help edit articles?s

How can I help edit articles?06:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.11.15 (talk)

Hello, IP user. The answer is, by finding articles that can be improved, and improving them! There are many ways you might do this - correcting errors in spelling or grammar (but make sure they aren't just examples of a different variety of English; adding missing information (preferably with a reference to a reliable published source); the most generally required activity (but often the hardest) is to add references to articles which lack them. Please see Help:Starting editing for more ideas. Welcome aboard! --ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing on a Reference

At "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_examination" I've used a reference, but I haven't applied an "identifier" to that reference in the sense of a name.

I want to use that reference again, but with a different set of page numbers, and have no idea how.

Specifically, I referenced a set of pages "14...9 to 150-something I think" [it's there in the reference], and wish to reference a different set of pages from the same text.

Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, PiousCorn, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have encountered what, to my mind, is the worst feature of Wikipedia's most common referencing system, inline citations. There is a help page on this very topic at Help:References and page numbers, which sets out your options. To my mind, none of the options are particularly satisfying! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RudolfRed and Cullen328, thank you for your responses.

Thank you for the clarification on licenses. After this much struggle, I figured that it'd be easier using my own images on this page, although they are not as good as Dave Silver's one.

Thank you for your help.

Cheers.

Ponyrider22 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

image upload with copyright

Hi there,

I have been struggling lately with an image upload onto a Wikipedia page I had created. After a lot of back and forth with the original author of a photograph (Dave Silver in this case), he agreed to register the image onto Creative Commons, in order to allow its fair use onto public space. I also have his written agreement in an email to allow the public use of this specific image.

However, shortly after adding the image onto the wiki page, the image got removed, even after uploading it under the right copyright agreement.

Could you potentially help me?

Cheers,

Ponyrider22 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

From your edit history, I take it this is about an image on Last Frontier Heliskiing. From the page history, the edits comments say the licence is non-commercial use only. That does not work for Wikipedia. It needs to be licenced for any use, including commercial use. RudolfRed (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ponyrider22. This is a project to create completely free knowledge for all people everywhere, to the extent possible. So, every word we write can be reused, or modified, or even resold for profit, as long as credit is given. The same thing applies to images. With the exception of very limited "free use" exceptions, all of our images which appear on Wikimedia Commons are available for any use, including commercial uses such as book covers, posters, t-shirts, coffee mugs, tattoos, mouse pads, and billboards. Without any additional permission required and without a penny of payment. Anyone who does not agree should not upload images to Wikimedia Commons. This fundamental principle is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RudolfRed and Cullen328, Ponyrider22 said above that Dave Silver had agreed to register the image onto Creative Commons. This might be a misunderstanding (either a confusion of Creative Commons and Wikimedia commons, or between different kinds of Creative Commons licences), or it might indicate that Silver has understood the requirement, and agreed to it. Ponyrider, have you shown WP:Donating copyright materials to Silver, and has he (not you) sent the required message to OTRS? --ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

submitted new article--have not heard back

I submitted a new article over a week ago, and I have not heard back from wikipedia about why it has not been posted. I am not surprised if it was not accepted--I probably need to adjust some things or add references. But shouldn't I have gotten a response saying what I need to change?Erin Hollinden (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Draft:LyricFind, Erin Hollinden, it has just been reviewed by Mz7: not accepted, I'm afraid. And besides the lack of independent references that was the reason, I would say that the article is too promotional. Remember that Wikipedia has almost no interest in anything that the company says about itself: an article should be based almost completely on what people who have no connection with the company have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Erin Hollinden. When I declined the draft, I sent a notification of the decline to User:Tayyoung12, who was the one who clicked the submit button on that draft – see this edit. I apologize for not informing you too. In any case, I've noted my reason for declining in the draft itself—we need to see more third-party sources to show LyricFind's notability. If you have questions, feel free to let me know. This Teahouse is a good resource too. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is important to be patient when waiting for review of submitted articles. The reviewers are volunteers, and AFC is slightly backlogged with approximately 400 articles waiting for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about the wiki page submitted by bethany@rockpaperscissors about the company New Artist Model.Erin Hollinden (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be Draft:Dave Kusek's New Artist Model. I'm confused, though, Erin Hollinden. You said in your first question that you submitted it, but the only editor who has worked on the draft is Rock paper scissors, inc.. Could you clarify the situation? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I work for rock paper scissors. Bethany is our office manager.Erin Hollinden (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah. It would have been helpful if you had indicated it was Draft: Dave Kusek's New Artist Model you were talking about, Erin. That has never been submitted for review: in order to do so, edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. However, at present it suffers, again, from a lack of third party sources. It has not one single independent source (there are four which are not to NAM's own website, but every one of them is an interview with Kusek). As I said above, Wikipedia has almost no interest in what Kusek says about NAM: it would only be interested in what people with no connection to him or the business have published about it. If there are such published sources, then an article can be written about the business, based almost entirely on what those independent published sources say - uncontroversial factual information such as places and dates could come from their own website, but nothing more. If such sources don't exist, then - at present - the world has not taken suffficient note of it to write about it, and so nor will Wikipedia: it is, in Wikipedia's jargon, not notable, and will not be accepted however it is written.

Two other points: if the article were accepted, its title would be "New Artist Model", not "Dave Kusek's New Artist Model": giving it the latter title looks very much like an attempt at promotion, which is not permitted. Secondly, since you say you submitted that article, I take it that you are also Rock paper scissors, inc.. I'm guessing that you have realised that that is not an acceptable username (because it suggests that you are editing for an organisation), and have simply abandoned it and are now using Erin Hollinden. If that is the case, that's fine; but if you are intending to carry on using both, please be aware that that is not normally allowed: see Multiple accounts for the circumstances when it may be permitted. --ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Erin and Bethany are two people from the same organisation, ColinFine. See Erin's comment above. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Right. I hadn't seen those comments when I replied. In that case, Bethany, your username is not permitted, and you must change it (or abandon it and create a new account with a name which does not suggest you are editing for an organisation). I am also led to wonder: do either of you, or your company, have a connection with Dave Kusek, or New Artist Model? If so, you need to read Conflict of interest to understand why you are strongly discouraged from writing about them; and if your employer has such a relationship, then you are obliged to declare this under the rules about paid editing. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How do I request revisions to templates?

Hello. There are two templates that currently produce text that violates the MOS, and I'd like to see them changed, but I don't understand templates, so I don't want to try to edit them myself. How should I go about proposing their revision?

Specifically, the templates {Centurybox} and {Millenniumbox} produce text that uses numerals for numbers under nine, which violates the MOS. The templates cause these style violations to propagate across Wikipedia. I'd like for the templates to be changed so that they use words instead of numerals for numbers one through nine. How should I propose that? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jdcrutch. You are right to bring it up on the talk pages of the templates. The templates in question produce navigational boxes, not text within articles. The MOS section in question has a notes and exceptions sections which says that "In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures", I assume to keep them compact. So neither Centurybox nor Milleniumbox actually violate the MOS. But the behavior could still be changed. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks, StarryGrandma. I see what you mean. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Template problems

Im having trouble with the templates here, being used to wikia. Can somebody give me help with useful templates? Oh, and I'm on mobile. 🙂 QwertyDude360 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the problem you are encountering? It's hard to help you with trouble without knowing what that trouble is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Because this is very different to Wikia, I have been trying to use certain templates and have failed miserably. Is there any particular page that can help me? QwertyDude360 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Most templates have their own documentation, QwertyDude360. For instance, if you go to Template:W-graphical, which is used to post a welcome message to new editors, you'll see the template at the top of the page and then the documentation on how to use it below. More generic guidance is available at Help:A quick guide to templates and Help:Template. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

conflict of interest / self-promotion: need help

Hi there! I spotted that the Wikipedia page for a US rock band called The American Dollar (band) was being edited by the band themselves, and is full of self-promotional language. I removed the worst of this, but the band have now re-added it all (they've also, ironically, removed the Conflict Of Interest flag highlighting that the page has been edited by someone closely associated with the page's subject).

What can I do to flag this to other editors to keep an eye on, and warn the band that they shouldn't be editing their own page? I do a bit of editing every now and then but I'm not clear on the process for escalating disputes or preventing conflicts of interest, beyond leaving a comment on the talk page. Smells like content (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This has now developed into an edit war: a series of newly-created editor accounts (possibly / probably sockpuppets of the band) keep reverting changes made to the page by me and others, and re-inserting promotional language. I've asked them to use the talk page to discuss these issues, but they haven't done so. What do I do to stop this? Smells like content (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Smells like content. Can any administrator warn the probable sock puppets, take a look and semi-protect the page? I am very busy now with off-Wikipedia demands on my time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've now submitted a request for page protection. Is there anything else I can or should be doing to get this dealt with? Smells like content (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest remaining calm and trying to avoid getting dragged into an edit war, Smells like content. You might consider filing a report about the editors concerned at WP:AN/I. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beachbum0809. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The editors concerned have been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

An IP deletes my edit.

Hello, I am adding information to a page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Upottery. With references and links to South West Airfields Heritage Trust, an organisation that supports the heritage of the airfiield and maintains a Heritage Museum on the airfield. An IP 86.160.66.81 then deletes it. How is this resolved please? Chrisdunn112 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page. Then, if the unregistered editor just reverts rather than discussing, request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble formatting references

Hi there I seem to be having trouble citing my references properly on the page I am trying to create (Newfoundland Chocolate Company) and was advised to come here for guidance, please help I'm very new at this! Stu SGreenoff (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you come here for help with a draft article or an article, it helps us if you provide a wikilink to the page, in this draft, Draft: Newfoundland Chocolate Company. Thank you for taking the advice of the reviewer to come here. Your references are something of a mess, which is not really your fault because referencing is difficult. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello SGreenoff. In this edit I added metadata to your first reference. Things like the work (newspaper in this case) in which the source was published, the title of the article, the author of the source article, and the date of publication. Please add similar information for the other cited sources using this as an example, if you can, or ask here for further help. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you create a table with a cream coloured background?

How do you create a table with a cream coloured background? East Anglian Regional (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You might find this page useful Help:Using colours. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding WP:POLICY

I am engaged in a discussion on Template Talk:Infobox character where it is being said that it is duty of the person requesting for an edit to advertise the request and ask for comments from various editors. If no-one replies on the request, then it will be deemed as rejected. Is this view correct? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding further, in case of move request, no-reply means acceptance. Please clarify. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where the original poster has made an edit to the Template Talk page in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am talking about the Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. It appears that the template is protected against edits other than by template editors. There is no consensus as to your proposed edit. I suggest that you see if you can get a larger consensus via a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will try and build consensus. That's not an issue nor is it my query. My query is does non-reply amounts to deemed rejection or acceptance? For example if I use {{subst:move}}, and no-one replies, its considered as deemed acceptance and move is completed. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

my link for d grammar school was deleted.

Dear Sir many greetings kindly guide me with this Comment:

If you are referring to D Grammar School, then the article has been proposed for deletion because it does not cite any sources indicating that it exists. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

my school is registered under pakistan government private institutions from Nursery to Eights class and I am running it since last 5 years. please help me out with it. Darbar ali (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Darbar aliDarbar ali (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

First, it appears that you have a conflict of interest if you are running the school, and should not be writing about it. Second, Wikipedia articles require secondary reliable sources. The registration with the Pakistani government may be a primary sources. Third, schools below the high school level are normally not considered notable and are likely to be deleted via deletion discussions. However, in this case, no deletion discussion is required because it has been proposed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuing to submit a sandbox test edit to ask about the article is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Darbar ali. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which summarizes past practice regarding school articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Putting in Videos and Clips

How do I put in videos and sound clips? I have been trying things........ but it hasn't worked much. Please help Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ilovebeaniebabies8804. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to embed video or sound clips in Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong. I have seen a small number of embedded videos, Ilovebeaniebabies8804. See Wikipedia:Videos, although I don't think the movement to expand the use of videos on Wikipedia described there is really making much progress. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Post Not Saving

I am a part of a group project for a Wikibook and have been trying for a while now to save changes to a page. There have been no editing clashes popping up and it says it saves properly but then when I refresh the page it has not changed anything, is there something I can do or do I need to keep trying until it recognises the changes? Digitalkitty (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Digitalkitty There have been server delays today for a minute or so.SovalValtos (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

SovalValtos Thanks for letting me know, I was worried I had broken the page or something. Digitalkitty (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Digitalkitty, the Teahouse is specific to English Wikipedia, so there is limited help we can offer when it comes to Wikibooks, which is a different site. Hopefully the issue is resolved now anyway. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Upload a Self-Clicked Image

I have clicked a image of the Najafgarh Market in Delhi. Now I want to upload it to the corresponding Wikipedia article. I can not cite it to any source. Can I do that? What is the proper way to do that???Vvarunnchandola (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vvarunnchandola. When you say "self-clicked", do you mean that you took the picture yourself with your own camera, tablet or phone? If so, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons as "own work": you, as the copyright holder, are able to licence it appropriately as you upload it. But if you mean you clicked on it somewhere on the internet, almost certainly not. Most images found on the internet have not been suitably licensed and can't be used. --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine I took that Picture with my Phone and now, I will upload to the Wikipedia Commons. Thanks once again for your Help.Vvarunnchandola (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How to Get Wikipedia to delete old logo now linked to Google Search

How can I get Wikipedia to delete a logo from an old brand that is now appearing in the new brand's Google Search results page?

Summit University of Pennsylvania was formerly known as Baptist Bible College.

In the search results page for Summit University, the right sidebar is populated by Wikipedia information. A Baptist Bible College logo appears: https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=summit+university&oq=sum&gs_l=hp.3.0.35i39l2j0i131l3j0j0i20j0l3.1110.4027.0.5747.8.6.2.0.0.0.425.1012.0j5j4-1.6.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..0.7.596.0.PFOkH56jDiY

This logo is not visible on our current Wikipedia page; the current Summit University logo appears there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_University

We need Wikipedia to delete the old BBC logo that is somehow still linking, and make sure it is populated by the current logo on the Google search page.

Please help! Ebruckner (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any control over what Google displays, Ebruckner, but for information, that image appears to be coming from Google Plus, not Wikipedia. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

I spoke with the people at Google, and they said all of the information in the sidebar is being pulled from the Wikipedia page.

Even though the logo links out to Google Plus, it is Wikipedia that has provided that link to the logo to use.

That's how Google rep explained it and said that Wikipedia needs to delete the old logo. Ebruckner (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The file has been deleted. It was deleted almost a year ago. Ball is not in our court. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ebrucker, the deletion notice is here. I might add that Summit University is extremely promotional and please don't think of that article (it's not a page. You probably have one of those on Facebook. This is not Facebook.) as "yours". The school has very little to say about the content of that article. And as you obviously are connected to the school, you shouldn't be editing the article at all. See WP:COI for further guidance. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ebruckner: It sounds like you spoke to a Google rep who doesn't know how this feature works. Here is our stock reply to posts like this:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I can find no sign the logo in the Google results has been used by Wikipedia. File:Baptist Bible College Logo-en.jpg said BBC&S with blue text on white background. File:SU Logo-en.png was the same as File:Summit University Logo.png. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly coming from this Google Plus profile. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I'm inclined to believe that. I believe I'll try to call back and speak to someone more knowledgeable at Google. I also submitted through the feedback link about wrong information. Hopefully we'll get somewhere with that. Thanks again.Ebruckner (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Finalize my article draft.

How should i finalize my draft so that it could be published to the public?Yobems (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yobems. I presume that your question refers to Draft:CANDELARIO J. VIOLA, JR.? An essential task before the draft is ready to be published is to add sources. On the need to do this, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, and on the mechanics of how to add references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The draft also needs to be written in a more neutral, less promotional tone, based on what the reliable, published sources say about the subject. I suggest familiarising yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia - particularly the second one. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yobems, also please keep in mind that your draft needs to be written using standard grammar, capitalization and punctuation. I cannot think of any situation where writing in all-caps would be appropriate. As you read the links Cordless gave you, I also think you are going to realize that at this point in time, you are most likely not going to be able to write an article on this person that will be accepted in the encyclopedia. It is very doubtful that the mayor of a town of less than 40,000 people will have enough written on him to be notable. John from Idegon (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The draft contains peacock language such as "Mayor Viola used foresight, creativeness and love for environment in the effective implementation of RA 9003" in the voice of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Help writing my article

Hi all,

I have been working on creating an article for a little while now. I have been turned down several times. Mostly because of my sources. I don't see what is wrong with the sources. I am wondering if anyone would be able to help me write my article. I am related to the subject and ask for help from another unbiased party to help me with my article and help me put exactly what is needed for a article to keep with the spirit of wikipedia.

Thank You,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_%22Greeny%22_Green

Aagreeny4 (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aagreeny4. I took a look at your draft article and your references. Very few include links to online sources, but I noticed a New York Times article (reference 14) and read it. That article does not mention Mike "Greeny" Green at all. That is a very big red flag for any reviewer. This person does not seem notable to me. By the way, your user name hints at a possible conflict of interest. As a relative, you have a conflict of interest regarding the topic of this article, so please declare it on your user page, which is currently blank.

Are there any reliable, independent sources available online that devote significant coverage to this person? If so, where are they? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The New York times article talked about the work that Senator Bradley was doing with drugs and alcohol programming, but didn't mention his name. I thought it may help a little. Thank you I will take that out. Sorry about that I though that I declared my Conflict of Interest, I'll take another look at that and see where I put it and put it on my user page as well. I know it is on the talk page of the draft.

Most of the sources are not online but their are a few the Philadelphia Inquire http://articles.philly.com/1986-07-06/news/26096601_1_athletes-drug-threat-charles-g-lefty-driesell (reference 14). Some others are online but found on Lexus Nexus so they do not have a link. Such as The Leader-Telegram (ref 12 and 13), Philadelphia Daily News (ref 5), and The Ledger (ref 6). Found by searching Mike Green "Greeny" and Alcohol. I have copies of the other ones cited and some are at a university library but I can't find them online. Do they all have to be online?

Thank YouAagreeny4 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aagreenly. Unfortunately, we cannot make something or someone notable through editing per WP:ARTN, so another editor helping you write the article is not going to make Green "notable" for a Wikipedia article. However, I think if you can show that sources which do actually exist, then you've gone a long way in establishing that Green satisfies WP:GNG. Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to be published. Online sources just make it easier for readers to verify the source and determine if it is relevant to what is written in the article. Online sources also make it easier for AfC reviewers to determine a subject's notability, but I think if you can provide enough information about the source per WP:CITEHOW as well as "quotes" of the relevant discussion of Green, then it might make it easier for reviewers to determine if a source is reliable, independent and provides the significant coverage needed for Green to be considered notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of these points have already been covered in response to previous questions about this draft. See:

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 413#Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 420#Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (again)
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 423#Reliable Sources

Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. So it would be better to put in some quotes from the sources, or a summary of what the article is saying about Green? Also, I have read the links on general notability guidelines and am not seeing why Green is not considered notable, would you or someone be able to point out to me exactly why he is not considered notable, so I get a better understanding of what to write or fix? Or would showing quotes from the offline articles help showing his notability?

Thanks so much Aagreeny4 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Aagreeny4. As I said above, offline sources can be used; they are just a harder to verify. So, you should be prepared to provide as much information about the source as possible (isbn numbers, publication dates, author names, publication names, titles, page numbers, etc.) to help the AfC reviews determine whether the source can be used to show that Greene meets WP:GNG. The AfC reviewer may know how to find the source online or may be able to find someone who can access it in some other way. Of course, it's easier for the reviewer to just click on a url and see for themselves what a source says, which is why online sources tend to be preferred, but being online is not a requirement. You can help the reviewers out by using the "quote" parameter if you use citation templates for your references or by posting on the draft's talk page explaining how the source shows Greene is notable for a Wikipedia article. They will see this and determine if the source provides the significant coverage needed to help establish notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How do you make links so that an article is not an Orphan

I am not understanding what an orphan article is, and how to introduce links to remove this status? Thank you! Normanadari (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Normanadari. An orphan article is an article that lacks incoming links. In other words, no other Wikipedia article mentions and wikilinks to that article. For example, consider an article about a small town. An article about the county where that town is located will mention that town, with a wikilink. An article about a notable person born in that town will mention the town, with a wikilink. An article about a business headquartered in that town will mention that town, with a wikilink. And so on. So, think of other articles that might reasonably mention the topic of your article, and edit accordingly. But do not force it in. It is considered bad form to "shoehorn" in references where they do not belong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Normanadari, it looks as if you're is referring to Shuddhaanandaa Brahmachari based upon WP:HD#Orphan Articles. One possible way to de-orphan the article would be to be bold and add a wikilink for Brahmachari to Andhra University#Notable alumni, but you should be ready to provide a reliable source showing that he is actually an alumnus of the school. If the link is removed, then trying discussing it on Talk:Andhra University before re-adding it to understand why it was removed and get feedback from others.

Having said that, I think there are more serious problems with the article that you probably should focus on. You added the article directly to the article namespace without going through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which means that experienced editors did not get the chance to review it and offer suggestions for improvement. There's no rule saying you must use AfC, but it can be pretty hard for new editors to create policy/guideline compliant articles from scratch, especially when it's an attempt to re-create an article which had been previously deleted per WP:G11. RHaworth tried to explain this to you at User talk:RHaworth/2015 Feb 11#Shuddhaanandaa Brahmachari, and I'm afraid they were right in that the current version of the article requires something more than de-orphaning to fix what is wrong with it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems to have been a mix-up between AfC and AfD in that talk page discussion, but I agree that this article recreation should have been taken through AfC and that a lack of incoming links is the least of the article's present problems. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your frank feedback. Can you please tell me what the issues are that need to be worked on? Do I need to take the article through AfC? Normanadari (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The template messages at the top of the article and at the top of the "Core teachings" sections outline the issues, Normanadari. CiaPan and Ukexpat have fixed the referencing, so that is now dealt with. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a dictitioary,or what

Is Wikipedia a dictitionary or what?~ ~ ~ ~ How do I get one?174.53.62.146 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. We have a separate sister project called Wiktionary which plays that function. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Table of Contents and Category

Can you please help me make a Table of Contents; then, classify my article to any Category. Thanks.Yobems (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The table of contents will appear automatically in any article with more than 4 sections, Yobems, so you don't have to make it yourself. You can add a category by typing [[Category:Living persons]] or whatever category is appropriate, at the bottom of the article, generally in the references section. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would argue slightly with White Arabian Filly on one point. Rather than putting the categories in the "References" section, they should normally be right at the bottom of the article, after the "External links" section, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I seldom use external links in articles I write, so I was thinking of the references as being the bottom section. I guess I should have said cats go in the bottom section of an article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External link are linking to a page that has been moved

What do I do if I notice an external link that are linking to a page that has been moved? (not a broken link)

i.e. the first two external links at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Rangers_2:_Dominators. (Space Rangers at Excalibur Publishing) (Space Rangers 2 at 1C Company)

NielsNB (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NielsNB. Simply erase the obsolete URLs and substitute the new URLs. Please see WP:LINKROT for complete information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. What if I just notice the rotten link (is that the correct term?) and dont have the time (or otherwise interest in the subject) to correct the link, should I mention this on the talk page to give notice for another user to investigate it further?NielsNB (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is to insert the code {{Dead link|{{subst:DATE}}}} after the link, NielsNB. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That was easy, thank you. I have added the code to the page. What happens next? Does "someone" get notified that the link is dead? NielsNB (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot a capital in my page title.

I want to change one letter into a capital in the title of my page. I am completely new to this, so the wikipedia articles about this are too complex so far. Do you know a simple solution in the main editing box? Thanks! It is the Dutch article about Shirin Musa.SachaMZP (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SachaMZP. The Teahouse is specific to the English-language Wikipedia, but the way to change an article title is to click on the "Page" menu at the top right, and then "Move page", and that should be the same on the Dutch Wikipedia. Here, your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which happens automatically after it's four days old and you've made 10 edits, to be able to move a page, but the rules might be different on the Dutch site. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @SachaMZP: and welcome to the Teahouse. As mentioned above, you would need to ask your question at the Dutch language Wikipedia- I don't speak Dutch, but they appear to have a help desk here that might be able to help you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try the Dutch page.SachaMZP (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove "edit source" from top of a page

Wondering how some pages (Microsoft, Satya, etc) don't have the "edit" and some do? How do I request to remove "edit" feature to a page? - PP PeachPlease (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Only articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism should be "protected" see Wikipedia:Protection policy. -- Moxy (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi PP. Some pages are protected from editing. When they are, and a person subject to the level of protection visits, they will usually see "view source" instead of edit. There are two main flavors of protection, semi-protection and full protection. Microsoft is semi-protected – which means it cannot be edited by anyone but people editing by logged in accounts who are autoconfirmed. You have not yet reached the autoconfirmation threshold, as it is reached when a user has made at least ten edits (you've made two), and the account is over four days old (your will not be until 21:51 (UTC) on March 8, 2016). You can request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but you should only do so for a good reason. Note that you can make a request for an edit to be made indirectly, even when an article is protected, by going to its talk page and posting your request below the template {{Edit semi-protected}} or {{Edit fully-protected}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, is there a way for me to request semi-protection? PeachPlease (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can request it at WP:Requests for page protection (shortcut WP:RFPP), but read WP:Rough guide to semi-protection. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

AfC submissions issue

Hi! I was recently editing Draft:Genevieve Belleveau, someone else had started this draft many years ago but it was rejected as a AfC submission. I started cleaning it up, to be an artist stub. I wasn't sure if I needed to re-submit it as a pending AfC submission? As of right now, I did resubmit it - but it says it could take over a week for results!? What is the normal process, it was unclear to me. Thanks in advance! Jooojay (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jooojay. The submission process is entirely optional: you are free to move the draft into main space any time you like. But, if the draft is seriously not ready (eg lacking in reliable independent references, or containing significant amounts of promotional language) it runs the immediate risk of being nominated for deletion (or one of the other, quicker, deletion processes). Review is a way for relatively inexperienced users to get help with bringing drafts up to standard before they are moved to main space. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine, That is very helpful as I am not very familiar with the process of reviewing drafts. Jooojay (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Difficulty with Notability

Hello, This is my first time creating an wiki article and I've spent time researching information regarding the Aluphone, I am concerned whether the sources i have gathered is of notable worth. I only managed to find two articles in google scholar relating to the aluphone, but both focused more on the creator "Kai Stensgaard" and Mallet percussion. Seeing as it is a relatively new instrument (Created 2011) not many sources are available. Is it notable? with such close relation to the Mallet percussion wiki page and such few sources (especially one being a video).

Here are the list of sources i was able to dig up.

https://vimeo.com/55734942 http://www.kaistensgaard.com/aluphone-session/ http://www.aluphone.dk/other-aluphones/ The Cambridge Companion to Percussion - by Russell Hartenberger

Heemrad (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Heemrad. In order for something to be considered notable, Wikipedia policy requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. The problem with those three links is that they are not independent of the subject, being published by the instrument's makers. The Hartenberger source sounds more promising. How extensive is the coverage in that book? A mere mention won't be enough, but something more detailed will help contribute towards establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, currently the book focuses more on the creator and doesn't go into specifics regarding the Aluphone. I see now that the sources are not independent from the topic, so i need to do further digging or find a new article to write about. Thanks for the assistance.Heemrad (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As a new editor, writing a new article from scratch is setting yourself quite a high bar, Heemrad. you might find it easier to start out by making incremental improvements to existing articles. Why not have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory and try to find a WikiProject that is relevant to your interests. WikiProject pages often have a list of tasks that need doing, which might be a good place to start. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I leave my article in the right place?

I wrote an article in November. I respect that Wikipedia is a busy, volunteer organization but I'm wondering if I saved the article in the right place where it is indeed in line for review. Or should I move it somewhere else? It's in user: my account name/article title. Thanks for any guidance you can offer there. 67.189.157.52 (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume that it hasn't yet been submitted for review. If you give us a wikilink we can have a look. We can't find it at present, because your question was submitted from an IP address, not from your logged-on user name. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Combatting vandalism

Hello, I have spent time adding information to an article and have done my best to keep it factual, honest, and balanced. The edits are consistently undone so that it reverts to an older, weaker, emptier version, one that is exceedingly negative. How do I prevent this vandalism? Twistedpiper (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Twistedpiper. You and Hshook appear to be having a content dispute on Carl Katter. I see that you are discussing on the talk page: that is the correct first step in dispute resolution: if you cannot reach consensus, please follow the procedure in that link. But calling edits that you disagree with "vandalism" is a bad idea and may prejudice editors against you. (I am not taking any side in this dispute - I have not even looked at the text you are arguing about.) --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:ColinFine. Some editors, apparently including the original poster, like to refer to edits with which they disagree as "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Read what is not vandalism. Referring to edits with which you disagree as "vandalism" is not useful in dispute resolution, because neutral editors who are trying to help address the content dispute will see that you are yelling "Vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute, and are even likely to treat it as a conduct dispute, namely, the personal attack of yelling "Vandalism". Even edits that are very much against Wikipedia policy, such as BLP violations, are not necessarily vandalism. If the edits are capable of being discussed on a talk page, they probably are not vandalism. (If an editor inserts random profanity in an article, they probably don't discuss that on a talk page, because it really is vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the support. As a new contributor, I can see that I have a lot to learn about the sensitivities of people who write here. From this I get that I should be vigilant in preserving my work, not letting it be wiped out for a revert, and being super careful not to use any language that could even slightly be constituted as hurting someone's feelings. Twistedpiper (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Aside from that, is this just a battle of wits with one side using threatening arguments about superiority of sources? It seems like a more intellectual version of a Facebook free-for-all, and I really didn't come here to be bullied - not from you, of course, but in general (got to be careful how this could be read) - or bully. Twistedpiper (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Twistedpiper, if the talk page discussion starts to get unjustifiably threatening or there is bullying going on, you can report this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Beware that if you report another editor on that board, your own behaviour is likely to be scrutinised as well, to check that the report isn't malicious. If the discussion is well-mannered but isn't resulting in consensus, then you can always turn to another dispute resolution option. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Thank you. Yes, it seems that this is that sort of environment. I'll stick to editing my articles and remaining vigilant whilst trying not to offend anyone who seeks to delete my work. Or indeed anyone. Much appreciated! Twistedpiper (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories

Where do we find information on how, when, and whether to create new categories? ColonelCourageous (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, ColonelCourageous. The page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Categorization. Do let us know if you have any further questions about this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ColonelCourageous (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

How to start a new article

How to start a new articleJJ Fortress (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JJ Fortress. The page that JoshMuirWikipedia linked to is Wikipedia:Your first article. To link to an article, Josh, you can use the code [[Article title]], which is preferable to a URL. See Help:Link and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Incredible Breach of WP:NPOV

Hello all. I recently tried searching React (media franchise) and was so astonished with the state of the article that I had to post it somewhere. This was the only place I could think of. I am sorry that this is the wrong place, but I just wanted to call to your attention an article that starts with The Fine Brothers didn't invited the react format, as multiple shows on Tv and channels on youtube make this type of context before they, example Bill Cosby. Recently, they tried to sell the idea of "helping" other people to create their "react show format", but if you joined this, they will control what you can do with YOUR content and YOUR revenue. And they also have the magnificent idea to patent the word "React" and other words like that, so if YOUR video included the word "react" it would property of the Fine Bros, taking away your ideas (they are characterized of taking down videos from low subscribers users that are about reactions and stuff like that, and making their own video about the idea of these users) and YOUR income. This is a way to monopolize the react videos of the network and to eliminate competition. Because of this, they have lost over 500,000 subscribers since they made the announcement of "React World". If you want to know more (and complete) information about this controversy, please go to this link: http://tfbsubscribers.github.io/why For the future, can someone tell me where I can go to post major issues like these, and help clean up this atrocity of a page. Thanks JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In general, concerns regarding an article can be raised on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:React (media franchise), but in this case a quick glance at the article history showed that the text to which you refer was the result of this recent vandalism, so the correct reaction is to revert the vandalism and warn the user, which is what I have done. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@JoshMuirWikipedia: As the vandalism was from an account obviously created for the sole purpose of vandalism, the account in question has now been indefinitely blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Help me understand why an edit on "twerking" was removed

I made an edit at the WikimediaNYC edit-a-thon at MoMA yesterday but didn't have a chance to get help before I submitted. Too immersed in the breakout sessions. The "Twerking" edit I made as User:kyraocity was immediately removed. Can you help advise me on how to contribute to this monitored page? kyraocity 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyraocity (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question was answered at User talk:Loriendrew#Twerking. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You got an excellent answer on Loriendrew's talk page, Kyraocity. I encourage you to study it carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

am i on the right track ?

Greetings,

This is the first time that i register on wikipedia and try to create page. I read instructions before writing, but i made few mistakes obviously and receive a message to edit or page will be deleted. I made some changes and planing to add more text next days. Can someone check it out and please tell me is my page ok for now (i will work more on it next days) This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameColony

Thank you!

GamesOfSkill (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, GamesOfSkill, the problem I see with the article is that it has no sources and is written in a promotional tone. Wikipedia requires secondhand sources to show notability, and a neutral tone. If you add sources like news articles, that will help prove notability. The promotional tone should be removed and the article written in a bland, encyclopedic tone. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Who was Vidyutjivah?

Who was Vidyutjivah,the brother-in-law of Ravana,the Lanka king?103.37.83.46 (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I assume they're referring to Ravana. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 103.37.83.46. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It sounds like your question is one for Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Row headers in tables

Can anyone tell me if it's OK technically to use row headers in the right hand column of a table instead of the left, by using a "!" at the beginning of the cell which is to appear in the right hand column. Jodosma (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

upload company logo

Hello, my company page needs to be updated with a new logo. The page in question is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Disgusting

Where/how do I update the logo? My account is not yet confirmed, the current logo was updated by someone unknown to the company. Thanks!

Owentomm (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Owentomm and welcome to the Teahouse. The correct venue is WP:FFU. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

I had added some content to the Maltipoo page a while back. It was cited to two or 3 reliable sources and was the basic description of that particular kind of dog, in dry encyclopedic language. However, somehow the refs got removed and a whole huge section about "Famous and Other Notable Maltipoos" got added. Now if the dogs listed there had been in something like Old Yeller or Where the Red Fern Grows I'd think they deserved to be included, because they'd be notable. But they're just dogs that had Facebook and YouTube pages made for them by their owners, and the info is sourced off those social media pages. I removed this stuff once already and an IP added it back with the comment, "this editor’s [me] work reflects their bias". Should I remove it again? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed that material, White Arabian Filly. The videos were primary sources. Secondary coverage would have been required to establish notability. Thanks for flagging this up. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That said, the material you added does need to be better sourced, using inline citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It was at one point, and then the sources and cites got removed in the various IPs' edits. I'll try to find and re-add them later. :P. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this, but the citations aren't inline and the sources quite unspecific (e.g. a website homepage). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the specific refs back in the appropriate place, and they are the right pages this time. They are not the greatest sources, but should meet RS for something like a crossbreed. I prefer google books, but their stuff on Malitpoos is all no preview. For the recognized purebreeds, it's easy to find good sources.[2][3] White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the coverage is significant, that these sources are reliable or that this crossbreed hybrid is notable, White Arabian Filly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

They are popular/notable enough within the dog world and there are apparently two or three books that have been written entirely about them, but if somebody nominated it for deletion I wouldn't care. I don't particularly like little dogs at all and think the whole hybrid thing is a marketing ploy. However, I didn't create the article. I improved it, because when I first saw it, it said something like, "Maltipoos are small cute dogs that are playful but calm hope this helps." I'm on the verge of stopping editing dog articles at all, because there is nobody interested in actually stewarding or reverting vandalism on them and most of the dog articles that reached GA have since been delisted. I reverted vandalism on several last week, where an IP was upping the average weights of breeds by 50 or 60 pounds for some reason that wasn't backed up by the sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm no dog fan, but I'm pretty sure this subject meets WP:GNG. See this, this, this, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The totality of the coverage in your first source is "Rita Ora has a Maltipoo (a cross between a Maltese and a poodle)", Cordless Larry. Do you consider that significant coverage? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Err, no! Sorry - as I suggested, I have very little interest in dogs. I was just picking some sources from a long list of search results and that had the word in the title. Looking at it in more depth now, it does not provide significant coverage. The sheer number of results suggests that the subject is likely to be notable to me though. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Muhammad Shakeel bin Hanif

I reviewed Draft:Muhammad Shakeel bin Hanif and declined it as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It appears to consist mostly of Muslim prophecies of the end times. I did note that neutral accounts by reliable sources about Muslim prophecies of the end times would be appropriate encyclopedic material. (On further review, I see that we do have Islamic eschatology, which does appear to describe the Muslim prophecies from a neutral point of view.) User: Ibnwaqas then posted to my talk page:

Hey Robert, This article is not a crystal ball, you can see List of Mahdi claimants each claimant of Mahdi has a wikipage. We found that Muhammad Shakeel bin Hanif of India has claimed to be Mahdi. Whatever articles we found of him online, many of them were in Urdu, tried to get as many information about him from these articles. His teaching basically revolved around condition on his arrival this is what we found, hence that was detailed in the wiki, from his book (ISLAMIAT SCIENCE AUR... NAZARAYAT) published locally. Soon we will include his name in List of Mahdi claimants page when a wiki article on his name is launched. The article has been written with neutral approach, any word or sentence which affects the neutrality can be edited or removed. The purpose of article creation is to let people know about this new mahdi claimant along with other mahdi claimants(each one of them has wiki article already created).

On the one hand, I agree that if reliable sources, whether in English or in Urdu, state that the subject of the article has claimed to be the Mahdi, he should be added to the List of Mahdi claimants, whether with their own neutral article or without their own article. However, does any other experienced editor think that the article is written with a neutral approach? To me, it reads more like what I would expect to hear preached by an imam than what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on the tone of the article and that it isn't neutral. It sounds like a sermon rather than something in an encyclopedia. However, the man who is claiming to be the Mahdi may warrant inclusion somewhere, maybe on that list or maybe in that article, if it csn be rewritten to meet guidelines. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that User:White Arabian Filly and I are saying the same thing. If a reliable source can be found to support his claim to be the Mahdi, he should be listed in the list of Mahdi claimants, either with his own article or without it. If there is enough information reported on him to provide his own article, it should be neutral. I do not see that draft being capable of being rewritten to be neutral except via blowing it up and starting over. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User: Ibnwaqas - Two editors here agree that the person who claims to be the Mahdi should be listed with the Mahdi claimants, if reliable sources support their claim, but that your draft is not neutral or encyclopedic. Please ask any further questions here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Badly writtten 'Edit' markers

For someone's attention - someone who knows how to correct 'Edit' markers. The article "Fermat's right triangle theorem" has badly written 'Edit' markers. They do not look like similar markers in other articles, nor do they enable editing when clicked on. I do not want to edit said article, but nonetheless it should be corrected.84.111.241.87 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Purging usually fixes these kinds of problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Do you consider this a notable source?

Hello - I'm working on draft: Martin Babinec. Can you please tell me if you consider the following article a notable source - http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/print-edition/2015/08/07/10-minutes-with-martin-babinec-serial-entrepreneur.html Kathryn Cartini (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kathryn Cartini. I'm not absolutely sure if it's a realiable source. When I followed the link, one paragraph came up and then up popped a blurb telling me that I had to subscribe to see more. However, it did appear that the article is written by an independent reporter and published in print as well. I would say it's OK to go ahead and use it, and if anybody has a problem they can remove it. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Kathryn Cartini, did you mean to ask whether the source is considered reliable, or whether it contributes to establishing the subject's notability? Those are different - if related - things. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cordless Larry and User:White Arabian Filly. Yes, my question is if the article is a reliable source for establishing notability for Martin Babinec. So far, all signs point to yes, but before I start creating a new draft I'd like to be 100%

Here are a few more I would like to confirm for the piece: http://www.uticaod.com/article/20150302/NEWS/150229303 http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Upstate-cities-may-be-on-wrong-end-of-Great-5587145.php http://blog.timesunion.com/business/upstate-high-tech-economy-being-fueled-from-little-falls/60335/ Kathryn Cartini (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Albany Business Review, Times Union, and Observer-Dispatch are reliable sources, but being profiled in regional newspapers may not be enough. Smaller regional sources are often rejected at articles for deletion as being too limited in scope to properly demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Free wallpapers

There are many websites which allow users to download free wallpapers as desktop backgrounds. Can such pictures be uploaded in Wikipedia as Public domain picture? Captain Spark (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Captain Spark. In general, no. Just like any other image, you would have to have positive evidence that the image was released under a compatible free copyright license or into the public domain. The fact an image is presented as free to download does not mean it is in the public domain (or is not a copyright violation in their use). And even if it is theirs, all you can take from them allowing you to download it is a license for your personal use, which does not mean it's free content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a close look at three such websites at random, Captain Spark, and was happy to learn that one releases their images under a Creative Commons license freely allowing reuse even for commercial purposes. Those are acceptable for upload to Wikimedia Commons. A second website states that their images are freely circulated on the internet and found on a variety of websites. Accordingly, those images are of unknown copyright/licensing status and cannot be used on Wikimedia sites. The third was a Microsoft wallpaper web page which says:

"These desktop background (wallpaper) images contain the intellectual property of Microsoft and other third parties. They are offered for download solely for your own personal use. Any other use, including the redistribution of the desktop backgrounds, or any other conduct in contravention of the applicable Terms of Use or Microsoft Software License Terms, is prohibited."

Clearly, those Microsoft images cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under any circumstances. The bottom line is that it is your obligation to verify the copyright and licensing status of any given image, and upload only those that you can prove are in full compliance with our policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to protect my wikipedia page but I don't know how to do it can you help me?

I would like to protect my wikipedia page Template:United Kingdom Radiotelevision Broadcasting but I don't know how to do it can you help me?Luke de paul (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You can ask for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection. However, I'm not quite seeing enough activity to justify protecting it under the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Another admin may disagree, though, and I've added the template to my watchlist (for what it's worth). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been persistent vandalism on templates related to this. Whether they warrant page protection should be determined on a case by case basis. I managed to get Template:Channel Four Television Corporation protected. The same IPs are all over this one, so protection might be a good call. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip, Luke de paul: I would avoid referring to a page that you created as "my page". There's no ownership of articles on Wikipedia, and some editors get upset by the possible implications of referring to "my" article/template, which suggest that other users have less right to edit it. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Luke de paul, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think another problem is that Template:United Kingdom Radiotelevision Broadcasting is not currently used on any articles [4]. That makes it harder to argue for protection, and indeed difficult to argue for keeping the template in the first place. Are you planning to use it in any articles? Voceditenore (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Making a table

How can I make a table on a page? Wseef (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wseef, welcome to the Teahouse! To create a table, go or the editing page and click on "Advanced" at the top of the editing box. Then click on the icon. Another box will appear where you have to set up the number of rows and columns and style of the table. For further queries go to the help page. Cheers! Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

How to 'comment out' something (so that it won't appear)

How do I 'comment out' something in or on a userpage - or in any other Wikipedia article (so that it won't appear)? MaynardClark (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MaynardClark. This technique is infrequently used on Wikipedia. You should never hide another editor's talk page comments. If the comments are overt vandalism, just remove them. If they are threats or severe personal attacks, then an administrator can remove them entirely. If you object to content in an article, remove it, explaining why in your edit summary. Please see Help:Hidden text for the limited circumstances where "commenting out" is appropriate, and how to do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MaynardClark and welcome to the teahouse. You can mark a section as comment by using the following syntax: '<!--' to begin, and '-->' to end. For example, to comment out 'hello' would be: <!--hello-->. However, you should also consult Help:Hidden Text as per Cullen328. Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have done that already in the article with an item which WILL become useful in a few weeks, and I would forget to add it by the time it will become factual and useful for this article. Then I can tweak it for the current situation. MaynardClark (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft article question, bottle neck, Art + Feminism

Two articles for Lenka Clayton were started simultaneously today during the Art + Feminism campaign. My draft cannot now be moved to article status, yet the other article has been flagged for deletion. I think my draft is passable. Or is there a way to combine information gathered to make one improved page? Lu.heintz (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Just be patient. Maybe the Art and Feminism project hasn't explained that in Wikipedia, there is no deadline. If the article in article space is speedy-deleted for copyright violation, your draft can be moved into article space. If the reviewing admin decides that there isn't copyright violation, or that the current article can be cured of copyright violation without deleting it, then the draft in article space will instead be proposed for deletion as an unsourced BLP. If there is any non-copyright-infringing information in the current article that isn't in your draft, you can add it to your draft. Just be patient. An admin will decide whether to delete the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lu.heintz. I agree with Robert McClenon. I think your draft is much better than the current unreferenced article, which is likely to be deleted. In the mean time, I suggest that you improve your references, emphasizing independent, reliable sources. Add URLs for sources available online to make it easy for reviewers to check your sources. Be sure that you have not included any content that is copied from elsewhere, except identified and referenced quotations. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

thank you Lu.heintz (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Lenka Clayton has now been deleted, Lu.heintz. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know. I just moved the my draft to article, still unreviewed. Lu.heintz (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Lu.heintz, the review process is for drafts. Now that you've moved the draft to article space, it won't be reviewed in the same way that a draft would be. You can, however, request a peer review should you wish. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

can someone please take a look at my comment in an article's talk section

...or is there any sort of automatic notification to some people subscribed when i make such a comment there? here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Municipalities_in_Tenerife thanks. 195.38.103.165 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If other editors have the page watchlisted, they will know that you commented. I don't know how many editors watchlist categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You might be better off commenting on the talk pages of some of the individual municipality articles, 195.38.103.165, or perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, a category page cannot be watchlisted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct, Roger. I have a category on my watch list. Not sure how I got it there tho. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Category pages can be added to one's watchlist, Dodger67. Just press the star icon to do so, as you do with articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

REDIRECT linking to a particular section

I've created many redirects previously, so should know a bit. But I cannot get this one to work and link to the specific section of the subject article. Initially, I just copy/pasted the exact syntax from the URL of the article when at the correct section; that did not work. My tweak has also not worked. Would very much appreciate someone with more know-how taking a look. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi N2e. I think it is a heading level too far to work. If you change it to the main heading for the section it should work. Yes I have changed it and it works.Charles (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It was because the section is called: Radial, prograde and transverse perturbations. You forgot the s. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done—Thanks very much for graciously looking at my problem, and finding the problem. It is all fixed now, and by one of the helpful Teahouse folks who looked on. N2e (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding a submission by Landsend35

Hello,

I am very, very new to this. I recently uploaded and article about KVH Industries and it was declined because of improper formatting of inline citations as well as sourcing and notability issues. I have read and reread those requirements. Can you explain how the article posted on Wikipedia about Honeywell is any more suitable than the one I submitted about KVH --- from a content standpoint?

I am also eager to learn how to fix the inline citations formatting for the KVH story but it seems that the notability issues must be cleared up first. All advice is appreciated. Landsend35 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Landsend. Welcome. I have added a standard reflist template to your draft and done one cite just above. this will show how it is done if you look at the diff here and click forward to the next couple.

There are many substandard articles currently on Wikipedia as it is a work in progress. We do not use that as an excuse to create more substandard articles.Charles (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I presume that the [[Link title]] included in your edit was a mistake, Charlesdrakew? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was a misclick somewhere.Charles (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My confusion persists; apologies. Am I supposed to type these markup codes in manually or can I use the visual editing function?Landsend35 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never used VisualEditor, so I don't know, Landsend35. Can anyone else advise? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Landsend35: A lot of editors, myself included, prefer to type the markup codes manually – they look pretty complex at first, but you get used to them after a while. There is a visual editor, though; there's instructions for how to enable and use it at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide. Hope that helps! —me_and 20:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source

When regarding to reliable sources in an article about a law of a country, would it be safe to say that there is no reliable article than the constitution of that country? - LionsRule125 (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, LionsRule125, and welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly, not all law is constitutional law, so a constitution will not be a good source for many laws. Second, there will be reliable secondary or tertiary sources that describe what a law or constitution says. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources on this. If there is any interpretation involved, then a secondary source is actually preferable. See WP:PRIMARY, which states that any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. If you have a specific law in mind, please do mention it here and someone might be able to give more specific advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the laws i'm referring to is the laws that state the type of government of each country - LionsRule125 (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo Troubles

On the Wiki Adventures, it shows you how to put in photos. I tried it on putting my photo in the Introducing Yourself, and it didn't show the photo, just the file name. Why has this happened?Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ilovebeaniebabies8804!. The file is called File:Puppies, Part 2.jpg, not File:Puppies,Part 2.jpg. You have to get the name exactly right. --ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I guess i should have copy & pasted it. Well thanks Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hllo Sir.

I wanna to be Wikipedia editer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Thind (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor

Hello Sir, I wanna to be a Wikipedia editer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Thind (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia! You already are a Wikipedia editor – you've already made some edits. For advice on getting started as a new editor, you might want to take a look at Help:Getting started. Let us know if we can help you out or if there's anything you're not sure about! —me_and 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)