Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Wiki project: new section
Line 435: Line 435:
How do I create an information box on the right side of every thing <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Max Medina|Max Medina]] ([[User talk:Max Medina#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Max Medina|contribs]]) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
How do I create an information box on the right side of every thing <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Max Medina|Max Medina]] ([[User talk:Max Medina#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Max Medina|contribs]]) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi [[User:Max Medina|Max Medina]] - Infoboxes are inserted as templates - we have lots of options - see [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes]] - but it is often easier to see which box has been used on a similar article.<br />I suspect you want an infobox about a UK Act of Parliament, so look at the source code for another Act - say [[Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989]] which starts <nowiki>"{{Infobox UK legislation"</nowiki>. Go to [[Template:Infobox UK legislation]] and copy the source code from that page, including the opening and closing brackets. Paste this at the top of your article and fill in the relevant information - do NOT delete parameters that you do not have the information for, these will not show in the article, and can be filled in by another editor at another time. - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Max Medina|Max Medina]] - Infoboxes are inserted as templates - we have lots of options - see [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes]] - but it is often easier to see which box has been used on a similar article.<br />I suspect you want an infobox about a UK Act of Parliament, so look at the source code for another Act - say [[Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989]] which starts <nowiki>"{{Infobox UK legislation"</nowiki>. Go to [[Template:Infobox UK legislation]] and copy the source code from that page, including the opening and closing brackets. Paste this at the top of your article and fill in the relevant information - do NOT delete parameters that you do not have the information for, these will not show in the article, and can be filled in by another editor at another time. - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

== Wiki project ==

Bow to create a Wiki project. What template to use on Wiki project. How to get Wiki project functions, just like Wikilove, Wikipedia as in month etc.

Revision as of 16:53, 5 November 2016

how to make an edit

I don't know how to make an edit. At the bottom of articles such as Appropriation (art), Found object, and other articles, is found what I think is called a WP:NAVBOX. Correct me if I am wrong about that. Under "General concepts", "Other concepts", I want to change "Found art" to "Found object". Can someone tell me how to make this edit? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think I figured it out. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Draft:Gordon Griffin and declined it, as had the previous reviewer, as not providing adequate footnotes. In particular, the list of film credits is unsourced (and that seems to me to be the key to establishing notability). The author added a few references including IMDB and the subject’s own web site. I said that IMDB and the subject’s own web site were not reliable sources. The author, User:Rogersansom, then posted to my talk page:

Hello, Robert. Thank you for your review. I want to improve this submission. I did not know that IMDb is not considered a reliable source - I expect I can find a reliable source for these film credits. No intention of re-submitting without addressing previous concerns. I am inexperienced at this, not having originated an article for years. I at first forgot to insert the inline source references, and when the first review mentioned this, I did so. If I missed other concerns, it is because I am very unused to following the procedure, which is complex. I will address these concerns in due course, having researched the screen details. Would a published film reference book (I can think of a possible one) be considered reliable? I am feeling my way, and most grateful for guidance! Best wishes. 

On looking at the author’s page history, I see that the author actually is not a single-purpose account and has made various contributions to Wikipedia. (I wish I didn’t have to express that as surprise about most submitters of drafts.) Do other experienced editors have advice about how the author should proceed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the draft should have been declined because there was insufficient proof of notability. It will mislead them if they think they only need to replace the IMDb sources. The subject seems to be someone who has done a variety of jobs in the theatre, but none of them of great significance. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Sionk - Do you or another experienced editor have any specific advice for User:Rogersansom? As I noted, the author is trying to improve Wikipedia. Are you saying that you don't think that this person can be made to pass notability? (If so, it is a case of thank you but no thank you, and your continued miscellaneous contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated.) I would like to help editors who actually are trying to improve Wikipedia. I don't see very many of them at AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help would be a better place for this conversation. I've only just come back to AfC after a long time away, but the Reviewers' Talk page used to be where advice could be sought. As for Gordon Griffin, well, he's clearly been round the block, being now in his 70s. I'd hesitate to dismiss him as a nobody, because the author may know of something that gets him past WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. As far as I can see, his only two 'lead' roles in anything are in unidentified TV programmes/films. Overall it suggests whoever wrote this has copied most things from Gordon Griffin's website (e.g. the PUFF audiomagazine quote). The date of birth is not on the website, which suggests the author may be relying on personal knowledge. Either way, the author would need to provide some sort of convincing argument that Griffin passes WP:NACTOR. Sionk (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have found that I get very little help at Reviewer Help, which seems to be either poorly watched or poorly participated in, but which is primarily for reviewers to confer with other reviewers, and not for reviewers and new authors. The Articles for Creation Help Desk, which is intended for new authors to ask reviewers, is somewhat better participated, but, in my thought, doesn't get as many comments as this Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Justice Mission edit request

Hi, I'm Sterling, International Justice Mission's digital marketing manager. I am still new to Wikipedia, having joined in July in hopes of helping update IJM's article. I know I have a conflict of interest and I'm here to play by the book. Specifically, I have an outstanding edit request to update the article with details on IJM's organization and budget. I posted the edit request on the International Justice Mission Talk page and reached out to editors on WikiProjects Human rights, Organizations and Christianity. I would appreciate any guidance from Teahouse hosts: Is there another way I can get attention to this edit request? The suggested edits are not controversial and would be an improvement to the article, in my opinion. Best. SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing a draft article, but it seems to have disappeared. Help!

About a month ago I put a lot of effort into writing most of a draft article: "List of night buses in the UK" (I'm not sure if that was the exact capitalisation etc.) I have come back now, and it seems to have disappeared. I have checked the deletion log as thoroughly as I could and can't find it. It seems to have completely disappeared. Please can someone help me find it and what happened to it. Also if it has been deleted, why? 192.76.8.1 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of contributions shows nothing relating to buses, at least this year. Maybe you wrote the draft while using a different IP address? While we know neither the title of the draft nor the identity of the account used to create it, it will be hard for anyone here to help. We recommend creating and using a WIkipedia account, both to protect your privacy, and to allow our database and other editors to identify your contributions. Maproom (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are looking for Draft:List of Night Buses in the UK? Its most recent contributor has an IP address close to yours, both belong to Oxford University. Maproom (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion about which article you create, I suggest that you create an account. WikiPancake 🥞 12:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in creating a new article

Hello, can anyone out there walk me through on how I can create a new article? Livewirelewis (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try reading WP:Your first article, and there are further useful links in the welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Livewirelewis: I agree completely with David Biddulph. Read and study Your first article, which is an excellent essay. In addition, here are my three suggestions for writing an acceptable Wikipedia article:
1. Summarize what the highest quality reliable independent sources say about the topic.
2. Summarize what the highest quality reliable independent sources say about the topic.
3. Summarize what the highest quality reliable independent sources say about the topic.
In conclusion, the importance of citing high quality reliable sources cannot be overstated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to make box in top right corner?

I am making a biography page, and want to include that box in the top right that explains important parts...Ugafan0618 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Ugafan0618. You must be looking for one of our many infobox templates. I suggest you try this one. Gestrid (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For types of inboxes not related to people, or if you need more information, see MOS:INFOBOX. WikiPancake 🥞 12:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

How in the world does Lea Luboshutz appear on 16,253 watchlists when ANI has less than half of that? Pyrusca (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More people are interested in violinists than in the admin overhead of Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost certainly a bug of some sort. TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the last 90 days, Lea Luboshutz hasn't had more than 12 views/day, so seems like a bug that it has 16k watchers. Joseph2302 08:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrusca: If a page is moved then all watchers of the old name at the time will automatically get the new name added to their watchlist in addition to the old name. Wikipedia:Sandbox was accidentally moved to Draft:Lea Luboshutz 10 February 2015.[1] It was quickly moved back but it stayed on the watchlists and Draft:Lea Luboshutz was later moved to Lea Luboshutz.[2] Wikipedia:Sandbox currently has 17,061 watchers. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nice one @MatthewVanitas:. Pyrusca (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

What is wikipedia's policy in ongoing hoaxes that haven't been yet exposed as such but are actively perpetuated as truth? Talk page? I can't really go on and edit them to page.. This is like the hoax with Chernobyl(Elena Filatova), but with massive amount(social media) of people thinking it is true. It isn't helped at all by the fact its circulated as genuine story in mainstream news.

Just to be on safe side, see Talk:Fukushima disaster cleanup#Edit proposal:new section.22Controversy.22.3F, Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster#New section proposal:Cultural impact and Talk:Namie, Fukushima. Same info in all three talk pages, as they should be applied there fast as possible.

23:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't take a position, but rather lets reliable sources determine what is and is not a hoax, and then follows their lead. TimothyJosephWood 01:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that "reliable sources" have fallen to this - The Daily Mail, The Mirror, New York Post, and CNN.

Or, in two pictures:

Daily Mail publishing article without doing proper research themselves ignited this hoax all over again. 01:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would suggest you find a reliable source that confirms that it is a hoax. Gestrid (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one: http://time.com/4403093/fukushima-exclusion-zone-japan-photos/ 01:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that reliable source seems to regard the pictures as genuine. Dbfirs 15:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then everything is settled. 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Template

Could somebody please direct me to the template that states how many times one's userpage has been vandalized? Thanks OldEnglishHero (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OldEnglishHero: Is Template:User Vandalized what you want? Deor (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the number isn't automatically updated in the case of vandalism (and there is no reliable way that it could be), so it relies on being updated manually. I don't really see any value in the template. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this was what I wanted OldEnglishHero (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working with "Episode List Template"

...or at least I think that's what it's called. I've been looking at episode lists for the various Star Trek series, and now I want to work on the list for the 1964 Flipper series, which leads to three questions:

  • Is there a way to have text following what will appear in quotes WITHIN the "title" field? A prime example would be: "SOS Dolphin" (pilot episode) - but there would be others as well. I'm considering the possibility of having an "aux" column-field substitute for the title field so I could manipulate it "freely", but first I'm wondering if the REGULAR title-field could be worked this way.
  • Is it possible (and if so, how?) to have the display-row for each "short summary" divided into two parts, consisting of a larger section on the left for the short-summary itself, and a smaller part to the right for a guest-star list formatted as multiple lines of "name of role: name of actor" (and/or possibly special notes)? This info is too bulky to include in the "title/airdate" row (especially after I add fields for Writer and Director).
  • Is there an official color scheme for representing various seasons of a series?

Thanks 2601:545:8201:AB7A:2539:DD26:C4D:FF93 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post declined due to sourcing

A post I submitted about a month ago was declined because the reviewer claimed it did not adequately show the subject's notability, and that Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of the sources used were from third party web sites and/or news publications, so I'm not sure why they weren't considered adequate. Can someone advise? Thanks, SS 24.148.30.197 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not using a registered account, and your IP address has apparently changed since you edited the article or draft in question, you will need to provide a bit more information before anyone can likely offer an help or advice. TimothyJosephWood 12:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just logged in. Does this help? Thank you. Sschneider621 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sschneider621, looking at the sources in the draft, this is how they seem to break down:
  • Sources 1, 7 & 14 - broken links
  • Sources 2, & 3 - no mention of the subject of the article at all
  • Source 4 - Official biography by employer (not an independent source)
  • Sources 6, 11, 12, 13 & 15 - links to various website homepages, no coverage of the subject
  • Source 8 - mostly about the company, mentions the subject of the article in passing twice
  • Source 9 - mostly about the acquisition, mentions the subject of the article in passing once
So for various reasons, these sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject, mostly because they are not independent, or they are entirely or mostly irrelevant. Having said that, source 10 seems to be a really good one. It appears to be independent, and is in depth coverage of the subject himself. More coverage like this is what is needed to improve the article and demonstrate notability. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the draft in question is Draft:Pete Kadens? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am working with that assumption, yes. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genstat

Genstat, a software product of VSNi is being insistently rewritten by User:Biosci (Thailand) a VSNi group, who ignores a request to declare COI. I know there is way to mark suspected paid editing on the article talk page, but I forget what it is. On a peripherally related note, how can I report that WP:UAA has a three-day backlog. 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC) —teb728 t c 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello teb728 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use {{connected contributor (paid)}} to label the suspected financial conflict of interest on the talk page, and administrative backlogs can be reported at the administrator's noticeboard. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a few Wikipedia pages.

I would like to create a few Wikipedia pages. How can I know if they are appropriate before I spend a lot of time learning how to do this and then creating them? I have several subjects in mind. - Two of the subjects are about historic architectural structures that are intriguing, beautiful, well done but not known at all. One of them was cutting edge technology for 1929 when it was built. The other one is a major surprise out in the middle of nowhere. Nothing has been written about them before so finding references will be impossible although I know the owner/developer of one of them. - I would also like to write an article about an artist who is deceased. Her work is amazing but I can find no documentation about her on the internet at all. I knew her personally and own several of her paintings. She also did some notable charitable work sharing her story, encouraging the abused and down trodden while helping women to love and understand themselves and live more fully with dignity and grace. Does anyone have any words of wisdom or direction for me? Do you need more information in order to give direction? Thank you. TrueColor (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueColor: Welcome to the Teahouse. Although your desire to contribute to Wikipedia is admirable, I am sorry to have to tell you that your article ideas, as you describe them, are not acceptable for Wikipedia. We publish articles about notable topics, as Wikipedia defines that word. This means that the topic has already received significant coverage in independent, reliable published sources. When you say things like "not known at all" and "nothing has been written about them" and "I can find no documentation about her", you are telling us that these topics are not eligible for Wikipedia articles at this time. Anything that you could write about these topics would be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to research and write articles about these topics, and submit the articles to publications that do publish original research, such as local historical journals. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Cullen says, documentation doesn´t have to be on the internet, but it must still be WP:RELIABLE sources, and of course what he said about notability still stands. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consider asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, maybe someone there has any bright ideas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion - can I edit it?

My first article was marked for speedy deletion. I contested (not sure what it is called), but not sure what the process is from here.

I honestly wrote the article in the most encyclopedia-ish manner I could, and felt like I was just stating facts. Also, I do believe the article meets the nobility standard. What do I do now? Can I go back and edit the article some more, or do I have to wait until a decision is made?

Finding the whole process very intimidating and don't want to mistakenly break any rules.

Thanks. Janis Jlk0221 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jlk0221. Creating a brand new article is one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and most do not get it correct the first time around. I have posted a note on the article talk for the reviewing administrator to consider moving the article to a draft (not generally available to the public yet). This would give you some more time to work on it and seek additional guidance without the risk of losing your work to one of the few processes on Wikipedia for deletion of articles that are not yet up to snuff.
It may be helpful to check out guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article, and consider the tutorial available at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Adventure, as they cover a lot of the bases that are needed for getting used to the way things work here. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlk0221: Welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your first question, yes, you can edit your article at any time, including if it is moved to draft space. A few other comments: Your references are poorly formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners, and follow its recommendations. Also, you have used another Wikipedia article as a reference. No user-edited websites are reliable sources, and that includes Wikipedia itself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, you can add the text {{subst:AFC draft|Jlk0221}} at the very top of the article, including the curly braces, once it has been moved to draft status. This will allow you to use our Articles for Creation service, which allows experienced editors to review a draft (once the draft is submitted for review) and either leave comments on it about what needs to be improved or tell you the draft passed the review. (If it does pass, they will also move it out of draft space for you.) AfC is specifically designed to help new editors like yourself to avoid situations like the one you're in right now. Gestrid (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from sandbox to production environment

Hi, I wrote my contribution in the Sandbox but now when I try to copy it to the production environment it shows all messed up. What am I doing wrong?Panthersilea (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably going to have to move the whole sandbox by using the more button at the top of the page. It's easier than copy-paste moves and won't mess up the formatting. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Panthersilea, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account cannot move pages because it has less than 10 edits so please ignore the above advice. I have copied the source from User:Panthersilea/sandbox to Draft:Wolfgang Römer with the source editor. I see you use VisualEditor. I don't use it and haven't examined how to copy source with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having Youtube videos on your userpage

How do you put in a Youtube video in your userpage without an external link? Or is that not possible? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary "Roach" Sanderson, If you mean embedding a youtube video in a user page, no, although WP does currently support the limited use of some embedded videos, embedding youtube videos directly is not supported, and likely never will be due to copyright issues. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the user owns the copyright to the video and are the one who posted it on YouTube, they could upload it to Commons and use it on the userpage. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But only if it is likely to be useful to a Wikimedia Foundation project, White Arabian Filly and Gary "Roach" Sanderson. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Semi-Protected Articles

I want to edit a semi-protected article. I do not wish to create junk or anything but I can't because I don't have an account and don't want to make one since I am doing only one article. What should I do? 205.189.194.203 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do it unless you create an account and it's autocomfirmed. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paste {{request edit}} on the article talk page along with your specific request, and references for your preferred changes, and it will be added to the list of pending requested edits. There is usually a backlog, so it may take some time, but someone will eventually pull it either form the list or it will be answered by one of the regular editors on the article in question. TimothyJosephWood 19:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can also click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions. Lots of users create accounts to edit one article or use some of the account features without editing at all. That's perfectly fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Draft:David Breskin and declined it, noting that large portions of the draft were unsourced, and that the draft appeared to be written to promote his web site. The author, User:Cahadley, replied at length on my talk page. I said that I would request the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns that I have about the draft are tone issues rather than notability issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Just looking into this concerns, I think I can help the article but i hope the creator is not here to promote.--Music Boy50 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove a citation from an article.

How to remove a citation from an article?Ankit 17:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ankit. When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, usually what you will see is markup similar to this:

==References==
{{reflist}}
or <references />

In that case, (usually) the text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to the first statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display as Footnotes (e.g.[1][2]) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^ symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, while there are sometimes good reasons to remove citations, that type of activity invites scrutiny because verification of content – use of citations – is the lifeblood of Wikipedia articles. So upon any removal, please leave an edit summary explaining the reason for your removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit:. Thank you. But is there any way of removing citations using the Visual Editor.Ankit 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know. I don't use VisualEditor and can't try to look for an answer right now. I'm sure another user can help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ankit. As you have not specified the reason for removal of a citation, please do read article Wikipedia:Link rot before you proceed to delete a citation. Jazze7 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazze7:. I created an article and then added inline citation to a wikipedia page, later i got to know that a wikipedia page is not a reliable source for citation so i wanted to remove that. Now can you please tell me if there is a way of removing citation using Visual Editor. Ankit 09:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ankit ☎

click on citation number / press del on keyboard. Remember that visual editor is in Beta mode. Some tasks are conveniently done in visual editor while others are easier in source editor. Jazze7 (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazze7: Thank you for your assistance. Yeah visual editor isn't always good, though I use it to add citations,it's easier.Ankit 20:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User logs

Hi, is there a way to see how much time I've spent on Wikipedia? Just a little point of curiosity, but it would be interesting to know. Does Wikipedia have a tool for this or is there an external application that I should use? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Icebob99. As far as I am aware the answer is no. There is no official status on Wikipedia similar to "being online", and a user is instead tracked by their activity rather than simply their presence. You may however check out this tool for a range of statistics related to your activity on Wikipedia and related projects. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Thanks for the link! Icebob99 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation of articles about un-notable clients of a music label

Looking through the recent article creations, I noticed a large number of articles about music artists which consisted of just a redirect to OWSLA#Artists (e.g. Aryay). Instead of going through the AfD process for each one individually, is there some way to get an Administrator (or somebody with mass tools) to address this situation? Gronk Oz (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 32 redirects total. But, I'm not sure it really is an issue unless one of these artists' names is common enough that it would be displacing some other potentially notable subject. TimothyJosephWood 12:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious about OWSLA itself: it seems to have a lot of promotion and not much substance. --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a ratio, it's not great, but that's mediated somewhat by just how little substance there is overall. I am tempted to call WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the massive lists that take up 80-90% of the article. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was what caught my eye - it's a circular dependency where OWSLA has lists that look impressive because of all the (apparently) notable artists, but their articles are simply pointers back to that article. But if nobody thinks it is a significant issue, then that's okay.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gronk Oz, a quick news search returns ~28k results, so it seems unlikely on the face of it that the label would have issues passing a run-of-the-mill notability test, and it doesn't seem to need the lists to do so. That's not to say that stylistically, the article isn't a complete eyesore, because it is at least in my opinion. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: The label may be notable, but I think you're correct about the lists not being very encyclopedic. This basically seems to be a list of all albums released by the label and is nothing but free PR that is more suitable for the label's own website. Notable releases should be mentioned for sure, but everything else probably should go per WP:LSC and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, or split off into it's own article. Of course, deciding on what is notable might be a bit subjective, but removing any album without a cited source or stand-alone article might be a good place to start. It also appears that OWSLAjosh666 one of the main contributors adding that release info have a WP:APPARENTCOI -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been proposed to delete as multiple problems existed. How could I know my problem fixed properly after modified my article?

My article has been proposed to delete as multiple problems existed. How could I know my problem fixed properly after modified my article?

Please see here my article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockplus. Would you please help me on giving advice about how to edit an article more suitable for Wikipedia?

Thanks and best regards, Grace Grace Jia (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the article itself; it is that the subject of the article appears not, by Wikipedia's standards, to be notable. If your objective is to help improve Wikipedia, you should choose some other topic. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although only an essay, and not a guideline, it may help to read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without addressing the question of the nomination for deletion, I see that the history of the article is a little strange, in that it appears that it was created with multiple tags already included in the article, presumably because the author used an existing questionable article as a template. If you create an article directly in article space, don't leave tags that were left over from a previous article on it. They may be a magnet for negative viewing (which, in this case, may have been appropriate). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for a template change to show up in an article?

I inadvertently saved Template:Islamism sidebar with a magenta test color. I changed it back to green, but it doesn't appear to be propagating to articles. It is green on the template page, but magenta on Sayyid Qutb#Political philosophy. I tried viewing on two other browsers, but it is still magenta. Any suggestions, or just wait? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The solution in such cases is at Wikipedia:Purge#Purge request to server. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a document on Wikipedia without outside references

I posted a document on an organisation which was rejected because it lacked references from outside the organisation's country. There is no writing about this government based organisation, apart from an act of parliament which established the organisation. How do I get it on wikipedia Sarurai (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. If the topic has not been written about other than in the act of parliament which established it, then in my view it isn't notable in Wikipedia's terms, so for now it won't have a Wikipedia article. If in the future it receives significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the organisation it could then have an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30/500?

Hey guys, TPM here. I've reached 508 edits (509 with this one), and I've been on Wikipedia for over 30 days. I joined November 9, 2013. Does this mean that I'm now allowed to edit Extended Confirmed pages? The Phase Master (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the foot of Special:Contributions/The Phase Master there is a "User rights" link which confirms that you do have that right. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Phase Master: This right is granted automatically: see here. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer desired

Hi there! Decided to jump into making some edits and creating a page for my favorite resource (have a couple of kids entering school age and found it to be really valuable) - GreatSchools.

Think I created a really good, in-depth and cited article!

There was a tag on there that was something like this is a new page. After the article was up for awhile and had one drive-by user clean up some language, I decided to get rid of it.

However wondering if a new page reviewer could take a look and give any suggestions or an "all clear - approved" type status for it.

Thank you! Cbattleb (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbattleb. I haven't done an in-depth review, but I've taken a look. It's quite reasonable for a first attempt (and kudos for managing to write a draft that good in main article space. I always recommend people to start in Draft space). My concern is that the page is too promotional. The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody, or any organisation, wants to say about themselves. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. I've looked at several of the references, and while they are all in reliable sources, they are all pretty clearly substantially based on interviews or press release; i.e. a lot of them is not what independent people have said about the organisation, but independent people quoting what officers of the organisation have said about themselves. I haven't looked at all the references, so I may have missed some that are more independent.
Secondly, (again on a cursory look, so I may be wrong) it looks to me as if a lot of the detail of what they do, and especially their products, is not backed up by indpendent sources. In my view, one of the things that a corporation should be least trusted about is which of their products merit mention in a Wikipedia article - very rarely should there be a complete list. Rather the question should be which products have independent people chosen to write about - reviews, or other articles. That should determine what gets mentioned (and if there happen to be any which have been written about unfavourably, that should also get a mention).
I've edited the lead to specify which country in the world the "national" refers to, and to wikilink the to-me meaningless phrase "PK-12". --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look and offering your feedback! I'll do some drafting work and see how I can incorporate what you've mentioned. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time! Cbattleb (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cbattleb. Just a minor point. You should probably use an {{Infobox organization}} template and not an {{Infobox company}} template. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looks like that change is already in place. Wahoo! Cbattleb (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can't ask my question

excuse me. I am a new user, my user name is میتراداست I can`t ask my question in section ask a question. please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by میتراداست (talkcontribs) 18:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up your name on Google translate, and it seems to translate to Mytradast.
If this is correct, have you considered requesting a username change to change it to the English version?
If it's not correct, then I sadly can't exactly help you. I could redirect you to an actual host, though.
The Phase Master (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, میتراداست. You did ask a question (you appended it to an existing section, but somebody has created a new header for it. But you haven't told us what help you need. Please edit this section to specify what it is you want. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, میتراداست, and welcome to the Teahouse! You may be having issues because you have to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Type out your question, and then put the tildes at the end, and we can help you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am having a problems with both the categories and having the page show up on google searches.

1) For the categories I read the help page, but am doing something wrong. I am trying to use three different "categories" that are listed as usable by wiki. But am not getting them to appear properly.

2) I can get to the wiki page through the picture and through a wiki link on the "Buffalo, NY" page, but not simply by typing in " Schenck House 1823" on a web browser. What am I doing wrong?

Thank you for your time, Optimumhunger (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Optimumhunger. The categories weren't spelled correctly. I have fixed them. As far as Google or other search engines finding a page, that is up to Google, et al. It takes a while for their web crawlers to find new pages. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the page not showing up, according to Wikipedia:New pages patrol "pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines".
The Schenck House 1823 article has not been patrolled, so Google are not looking at it. When a new page patroller does look at it, provided they think it is up to standard, they will mark it as patrolled - it will then depend how soon Google crawls it, usually somewhere between 2 hours and 2 days. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Optimumhunger: Another potential problem is that "Schenck House 1823" is not a standard title for a Wikipedia article. You should not capitalize "house" and there is no need to include "1823" in the title unless we had an article called "Schenck house" about another house. We do have Jans Martense Schenck house about a house in Brooklyn, but that is clearly different. In my opinion, your article should be moved to Schenck house if that is the common name for the house. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the Title from "Schenck House 1823" to "Samuel Schenck house"? "House" was capitalized because I copied it from other sources. But I understand for searches it is different. There are 4-5 houses with the name "Schenck" that are historic so differentiation is important. It is known locally and in historical documents as "The old stonehouse" and "the Schenck Estate". Is there a way to title it "Samuel Schenck house" (Buffalo, NY)?

The business of "... pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines" is a very recent change. There are 11983 pages listed at Special:NewPagesFeed as waiting for New pages patrol, the oldest being 4698 days. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find out how recent it is, but in the header of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX it states "I can confirm on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation that we will start working on this as soon as possible." That was in April 2012 (So it could well be a "very recent change") - Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Not indexed?, Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 October 19#Problem in my page, and Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC#A little bit of progress - David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wording was added to WP:NPP in this edit about 3 weeks ago. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above question, and my group wanted to thank everyone for helping us with this page. Thank you !

How to change logo of organisation

Hello, Can anyone explain how to change a logo in the infobox government agency of page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Foundation_for_the_Improvement_of_Living_and_Working_Conditions. This logo is no longer current. What file format and size should it be in? Thank you Sylvie Sylviemonks (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sylviemonks,  Done TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Chala, Peru – Request to explain in Spanish

User:Inca12 has repeatedly submitted a draft that is now at Draft:Chala, Peru. There is already an article Chala, but that appears to be about a region of Peru, and the draft appears to be meant to be about a town. However, the draft doesn’t have enough information to be even a stub on a named place. I am guessing that the editor doesn’t understand my efforts to explain that the title needs to be disambiguated from the region. Can someone please try to explain to User:Inca12 in Spanish that we will accept an article on a town, but the town has to have at least one reliable source, and has to have a title to distinguish it from the region? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The town certainly exists; it's at 15°51′07″S 74°15′00″W / 15.852°S 74.250°W / -15.852; -74.250 and clearly labeled on online maps. As for the title, I'd leave the article on the town at Chala, Peru and move the existing article to Chala (region). Deor (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never doubted that the town exists. The only questions were how to disambiguate it from the region, and how to source it. Named places are considered notable, but, like everything notable, must be attributed. As it is, the draft has one reference, which appears to be for the population, but no reference for the location. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello everyone

how can I put more information and images to the following wikipedia pages from respective links : 1.Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation 2.Vinod Mishra 3.Dipankar Bhattacharya Thanks :) Samyab502 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samyab502: Welcome to the Teahouse. Any changes you make to an article must comply with the neutral point of view and must be verified by providing a reference to a reliable source. Please read Referencing for beginners You tried to write a draft article about Vinod Mishra but we already have an article about him: Vinod Mishra. You should work to improve the existing article not try to write another one. You also included large blocks of text copied from elsewhere. Instead, you must write original prose summarizing the sources, with the exception of brief quotes in quotation marks, and referenced to the source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citing California Penal Codes

Hello. I asked this question at WP:HD, but the question got archived after being ignored for several days. Here's the archived query I need help with. Thanks.--Nevéselbert 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Often, there is no single right answer regarding which citation template to use. The answer is "any template that contains the fields you need to cite the source properly". One good technique is to look at Good articles and Featured articles on similar topics, and check to see which templates were used to cite similar sources. In this case, Template:Cite act may work for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Neve-selbert! Does Template:Cite California statute work for you? -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks replying, AntiCompositeNumber. I'm not quite sure. Clicking on those two external links, isn't really that enlightening.--Nevéselbert 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm still not sure how to correctly format the citation, given the lack of info those links provide. Could you please try?--Nevéselbert 18:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WAM

Reply here 36.253.254.27 (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bam-a-wop-bop-a-loo-lop-a-lop-bam-boo!
You might get more takers if you gave readers at least some inkling of where that link goes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CAN YOU PLEASE HELP TO PUBLISH NEW CREATION TO WORLDWIDE?

Please, if I have create something new that is in the world system and want to submit my article or biography, can you kindly help or allow me to send you my videos with everything about me to publish worldwide? I will be very grateful if you can help! Thank you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realpen pencil (talkcontribs) 14:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Read the original research policy. Wikipedia is not the medium for publishing something "new that is in the world system". Read the autobiography guideline. Wikipedia discourages its use to publish autobiographies. If you want to use Wikipedia to publish a biographical summary of someone whose biography has already been published, read Your first article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are lead actors in a film automatically notable?

Are they notable enough to be listed in an article about film (Tum Bin II, or only those with Wikipedia articles should be included? Cotton2 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cotton2. People can be mentioned in an article if they are relevant to the coverage of the article; they don't need to be the subjects of their own articles. (The case where people need their own articles is in lists of "notable" people.) —teb728 t c 07:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cotton2: Adding to the good answer above, I think that it is safe to say that an article about a notable film should always list the Leading actors. There should not be more than three or four who can truly be called leads. As for how far down the cast list we should go, that depends on who professional reviewers discuss when writing about the film. We should not list actors in minor roles, especially unnamed roles, unless it is a cameo appearance by a famous actor, and is discussed in reliable sources about the film. We should avoid attempts to promote the careers of lesser known actors by listing trivial roles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error - warning about using wiki as a promotional vehicle

Got this warning but don't know what item in the article caused the warning...? Beatnut88 (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beatnut88: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about Kim Carpenter, then please be aware that unreferenced biographies of living people are subject to deletion. This article has no references to reliable, independent sources, which are required. Instead, it has a few external links, which do not belong in the body of an article. I suggest that you read and study the excellent essay called Your first article and the similarly useful Referencing for beginners. Once you understand those essays, you will have the necessary skills to write a Wikipedia article that will be kept. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Beatnut88, if you want to make changes about Kim Carpenter, do them at Kim Carpenter, not at the redirect page Kim Carpenter AM, where I see you have been editing. Any changes you make to the redirect page will be lost. —teb728 t c 07:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to have the article moved into draft space so that you can work on it without having it deleted? I can move it into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon and I are working with the editor. I think the subject is notable and I am going to help them rewrite/restore it. I think we have this situation under control. --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of websites like amazon for referencing product listing

Hi there, I was wondering if it was possible to use websites such as amazon.com or brand websites as references in order to list the products one may have. Thank you for your help KiwiFrenchTouch (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KiwiFrenchTouch: Welcome to the Teahouse. External links do not belong in the bodies of articles, although they are allowed in references as links to reliable sources. A separate section listing a small number of external links is allowed at the end of an article. Visit the shortcut WP:EL for more information. Linking to external sites like Amazon which sell things is almost always inappropriate. Please read Wikipedia:Spam for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KiwiFrenchTouch: In most cases amazon.com is not a good reference for a product, for they profit from the sale of the product; so they are not an independent source. —teb728 t c 07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for both answers. In that case, I wasn't intending to promote websites that amazon, but I understand that it is inappropriate. Thanks for your help! KiwiFrenchTouch (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with review of a draft and final publishing of the article

Hello, I was trying to publish an article about this Indian personality Draft:Shantanu Maheshwari. I made the changes that were suggested, in a more formal tone. Could anyone please review how to improve it and help to get it published? The sources mentioned in the draft are published, reliable, recognized and independent in India. There seems to be a citations issue, which I couldn't figure out. The article has been in the making for quite some time and would really appreciate any help on getting it published. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phosphenes296 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Phosphenes296. Looks like the page was protected by @Amatulic: so that the protection level will have to be reduced in order for anyone to accept the draft. Looks like it was deleted per this discussion in 2012, but judging by the content of the discussion, the draft you have submitted, and perhaps the notability of the person itself has changed significantly. We can see what Amatulic has to say about the matter. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would say that you should request temporary undeletion of the deleted article for comparison, but in this case it is obvious that much of what is in the draft could not possibly have been in deleted version, because the draft was deleted 4 years ago, and the draft refers to 2015 and 2016. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: @Timothyjosephwood: @Phosphenes296: there is no history in the deleted version because I merged it all with the draft, which can be seen in my edits on August 15. The entire history of the original deleted article is now in that draft and can be used to compare with the current version. The draft is currently waiting for review. If the reviewer approves, I or any other admin can move the article to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement by User:Amatulic that any administrator can move the article to main space implies that the title was salted after the repeated attempts to re-create the article after its deletion after the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Amatulic seems to want to defer to AfC, any thoughts Robert McClenon? The sourcing seems fairly good. Poking around finds a few thousand stories on news, so there seems to be plenty more available. Given, a chunk of the coverage seems a bit fluffy, but that can probably been expected for a teen pop personality. Sourcing could be improved on the filmography and awards sections, but I don't see anyone trying to take it to AfD over that. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a Technical Movement Request. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the draft article got moved to Shantanu Maheshwari. I've been working 20 hour days and wasn't comfortable with my mental clarity and the near-zero time available to me to review the article, so I deferred to others. I'm glad it worked out. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was moved to the main space. Thank you all for the assistance and help! ~Phosphenes296

Hi there, I created an article for Jeremy Bronson that was accepted and rated as "Start Class," but for some reason it doesn't come up when I Google his name. Is that to do with the article's rating? I've seen articles that have been rated as stubs come up when Googled. Palofpups (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia have nothing to do with Google or how they choose to sort their search results; if you have a query for them, you need to follow the instructions here. The Jeremy Bronson page is only a couple of days old, so it's possible it just hasn't been crawled yet. Although Google's search algorithm is a trade secret, it's fairly well known that PageRank is based on incoming links; given that this article has no incoming links, it may well be that this has a very low ranking and is just buried a few pages down in the search results. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is brand new, it takes it a couple of hours to turn up on Google--server lag or something. Incoming links or not, Wikipedia tends to place in the first page of search results. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something I've noticed is that my articles get indexed by Google with tremendous haste when I include a Google Books link in the references. '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source code, the page has a meta robots tag of noindex nofollow. Which tells search engines, "Do not crawl or index this page."

I'm running across the same issue with an article I created. And the only thing I figured out is it needs to have a new page reviewer to look at it and ensure the entry is up to Wikipedia's standards.

How to do that, however, I'm not really sure. Cbattleb (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's only about 12000 pages in the queue for NPP, see section #Search above. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Can I create?

Hello everyone, Please how do I start in creating articles on Wikipedia? I have a project at hand on the Wikipedia Asian Month before I move on to my interesting pages.--Music Boy50 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple ways you can create a new article for Wikipedia.
  1. First, there's the kind of messy method of creating a redlink like this one, which automatically creates a page to be created. This is very easy to do, makes the article un-orphaned because it's linked to somewhere on the encyclopedia, and is a much appreciated way of killing the dreaded cloud of redlinks hanging around if said page is on, say, a List page.
  2. If you go to "Beta features" under "Preferences," there is a beta feature called "Content Translation" that adds the following three buttons under your "Contributions" tab: "Create page," "Upload media," and "Translation."
  3. If you search for a page that doesn't exist, in this case "Redlink," a line of italicized text reading "The page "Redlink" does not exist."' This is complete with a redlink to the page in question.

--Vami_IV✠ 02:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Thanks for your ideas, cool. --Music Boy50 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

How do I create an information box on the right side of every thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Medina (talkcontribs) 17:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Max Medina - Infoboxes are inserted as templates - we have lots of options - see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes - but it is often easier to see which box has been used on a similar article.
I suspect you want an infobox about a UK Act of Parliament, so look at the source code for another Act - say Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 which starts "{{Infobox UK legislation". Go to Template:Infobox UK legislation and copy the source code from that page, including the opening and closing brackets. Paste this at the top of your article and fill in the relevant information - do NOT delete parameters that you do not have the information for, these will not show in the article, and can be filled in by another editor at another time. - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project

Bow to create a Wiki project. What template to use on Wiki project. How to get Wiki project functions, just like Wikilove, Wikipedia as in month etc.