Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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

nominating articles for merger or deletion

I found the article City Farm and started editing but the content doesn't seem different from Urban Agriculture, which is a much more comprehensive article. Doing some research outside of wikipedia "city farm" doesn't seem to be a different type of urban agriculture. How do I nominate an article to be reviewed for merger or deletion? Red 00 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Red 00. Merger is what you need here. The procedure is detailed at WP:PAM. As both of these articles have been around for a while, I'd say this would be a type 3 merger. The page I've directed you to is very detailed and seems clear and easy to follow, so my suggestion would be to take a look and come back if you need any clarification. I'd agree with you that Urban agriculture should probably be the target article. John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, John from Idegon. I will bookmark the merger instruction page for the future and see about the level 3 merger for city farm and urban ag! Red 00 (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

East High School, Anchorage, Alaska

I was checking East High School in Anchorage, Alaska and it says it was established in 1954. It was established in 1961. I have lived in Anchorage, AK since 1953 and my brother was in the first graduating class of East High. Can this be corrected?

Thank You Linda Miller 24.237.53.27 (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 24 etc. Welcome to the Teahouse. This really isn't the place for your request. We answer questions on how to edit Wikipedia. So I'll tell you how to get some action on your request. First, the nature of an encyclopedia is we don't write about a given subject such as this school, we write about what is written about the subject. So in order to change the information a reliable source would be needed. That shouldn't be too hard to find as newspapers are reliable and the opening of a new school is definitely something a newspaper would cover. So if you find a published source, you can post to Talk:East Anchorage High School requesting the change be made. Or perhaps even better, just change the article with the source as a reference. I can't emphasize enough though that no matter how certain you are of the accuracy of your knowledge, you cannot use that as a basis for an edit. John from Idegon (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a log of pages reviewed by me?

I know there are CSD logs, and AfD logs, but is there a log somewhere (either userfy like CSD)part of Wikipedia, or on WMFtools? Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 00:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1: Yup. Yours is here. (To find the logs for any particular user, go to their user/usertalk/contributions -> click logs in the tool section of the sidebar -> select 'review log' from the dropdown -> click 'show') AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

AddWittyNameHere Thanks! I was actually looking for the Page Curation log, and am now wondering why Wikipedia has a review log, when it appears that everytime I edit a mainspace page it gets "reviewed" by myself automatically.L3X1 (distant write) 00:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least you found what you were looking for now, yes? Review seems to be tied to Pending changes. Seems like the log is somehow treating every page not under pending changes to be at some sort of PC-0 level or such; PC-1 is mere (auto)-confirmed status needed to auto-approve your own edits; and PC-2 was repeatedly strongly rejected by the community... Not the most useful log for en.wiki purposes, I suppose, especially if done this way. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Remove typo'd ping, re-add L3X1 & re-signing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)

@L3X1: You have the Autoreviewed user right, which is granted to accounts over 3 months old with 100 edits. It helps people patrolling recent changes to easier identify vandals. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! L3X1 (distant write) 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "Autoreviewed" is really something people get. 86.20.193.222, only new page reviewers may actually mark pages as patrolled. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Special:UserRights/L3X1 ? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I was just clarifying that you need new page reviewer and not "autoreviewed" to mark pages as patrolled/reviewed. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite true. Sorry for any confusion.86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason that I have to hand accept a lot of my PCR reverts now? I used to only have to do it once in a while, but in the past 10 I had to accept 5 of my own edits. I also got to patrol a few AfDs, I saw the link at the bottom L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's because of "known problems" with PC in general.86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought The Tempest had Jason and Rebekah in it.more dots to come

I thought The Tempest had Jason and Rebekah in it. I was trying to print out the one I originally read for my social work205.154.246.130 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Your question is rather unclear; if you mean Shakespeare, see The Tempest#Characters.

But anyway, this page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. For general-knowledge type questions, please try the excellent Wikipedia:Reference desk. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article about a politician from around 30 years back

I want to create an article about an ex-central minister of india. His name is Puli venakata reddy. The only thing that currently runs in my mind is this story, it is from long back and I have a doubt whether i can write article about him or not. PLease suggest and help me move forward. Thank you.2601:408:8000:F945:9C15:C048:6562:B9DE (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure! Draft an article! You are protected by the first amendment. Make sure you don't accidentally commit slander or libel. However to create an article it is best to Special:CreateAccount 🖤Copernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Any article would have to be based on reliable sources - not your memory. Please read WP:FIRST.

And "Freedom of speech" is utterly irrelevent; see Wikipedia:Free speech 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Link to easily "find sources" for any topic or stub, as on AfD?

There's a handy tool on the AfD entry for an article I've been working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Viola_Wyse) that offers channels for finding references for the article:

news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Is there a way to get this tool for other articles or stubs? This seems like it would be useful at the beginning of an article or stub development, in addition to on the deletion page. Maybe it is easy to add in to any article, and I just didn't know it.

Advice or feedback welcome!

Thanks Shameran81 (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shameran81: Hi, yes, there is.

The code to make that happen is, {{find sources|ARTICLE TITLE}}, for example, I'll put below {{find sources|Ashley's Sack}}

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You can put that on the talk page of the article, if you like. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

replacing an article with a new article

The article, and the new article, are about John Endecott, the founder of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600's. The new article incorporates research that had not been available before. Also, the new article takes a skewed POV in the old article and leaves it more balanced. To me the article is clearly better than the previous article, and I am in no way connected to the subject.

My concern is that the article will be rejected by one of several people watching it. I don't know how to get around this barrier. One of the users names is Magic Piano.

Please help. Bfant (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your concern is justified. I see from the article's history that you have already found it difficult to follow Wikipedia's policies, adding a large section of irrelevant material, and using references to "Ibid", to "[]", and to unpublished manuscripts. If you now delete an article which has "Good Article" status, the result of contributions by dozens of competent editors including Magicpiano, and replace it by your own work, I predict with confidence that your changes will be undone and the current version restored. If you believe that the article is unbalanced, you should say why on the article's talk page, and suggest how it could be improved. Maproom (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Just so it be clear, I am not opposed to the introduction of new material to the John Endecott article (or any other article), especially if there is new research that would unambiguously clarify things like his ancestry and birth. However, this research does need to appear in reliable sources; i.e. it needs to not be your own (or someone else's) unpublished research, and it should be focused on the man. If you have questions about specific language you would like to add or change, feel free to raise it at Talk:John Endecott. I try not to bite, but you should be prepared to engage the sources currently used in the article (in particular Anderson, whose work you are effectively questioning). Magic♪piano 00:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is a photograph better than a painting?

I am just curious, and after searching Help, Teahouse and specific article talk pages, I can't find an answer to this question. I understand that a photo is more realistic than a painting, generally. But if (strictly hypothetically) my choice is only between a painting of someone smiling with their family and a photo of the person alone, on their death bed, I'm going to pick the former. No one cites a Wikipedia rule or best practice, so is it just a matter of opinion? RM2KX (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, bad example, because pictures should be only of individuals. But the point is that the painting is pleasant and the photo is not. RM2KX (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RM2KX. You may find some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. In most cases, we want a freely licensed or public domain image. Obviously, we use paintings of people who died before the invention of photography. In my opinion, if a freely licensed painting is clearly superior to a freely licensed photo, then use the painting or use both. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It actually isn't anything I'm doing, but a couple of discussions I've been watching. RM2KX (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey RM2KX. One of the problems with photos is that they are often overall of poorer quality than paintings, since paintings are likely to have been well preserved, and photographed with modern equipment. Compare this image I recently added to Tour de France. Not only is it black and white, but there is a lot of damage there, and actually if you check the image it derives from it's literally taken from a scan of someone's old photo album.

But overall, image choice is one of the most subjective parts of making an article, and not only least governed in detail by policy, but least governable in that regard, since so much of it boils down to personal preference. TimothyJosephWood 22:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen³²⁸ and TimothyJosephWood! That's what I was wanting to know. Specifically, 1) I've been watching Harry Truman's infobox image going back and forth between a photo and painting, and 2) I asked a question a while ago about Andrew Jackson's image on the edit-protected List of Presidents of the United States that no one has ever responded to. *shrug* RM2KX (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's only semi-protected, so I could edit it myself, I think, but... I'm not ready to do that one yet as it would probably be reverted. RM2KX (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

RM2KX: Ah, see US government officials, at least in the age of photography, are special, since they have "official photos" which are produced by the federal government, and are therefore in the public domain. Basically anything unclassified produced by a federal employee in the course of their job are available to the public and therefore usable on Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Broad rules like this would apply if other factors were equal, but they never are, so it's always an editorial judgment call. I sometimes replace a bad photo with a good drawing that I found in Wikimedia Commons, and haven't met much disagreement. When editors disagree on this or other questions, it's something to hash out in Talk Page. Unfortunately, they sometimes support an opinion by inventing a rule, or by simply slandering dissenters. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello RM2KX. Please note that List of Presidents of the United States is a semiprotected article, which cannot be edited by unregistered IP editors or those with very new accounts. But your account is autoconfirmed so you can edit that article as you see fit. This is especially true since you expressed your concern on the article talk page months ago. Go ahead and change the image if you want. I take your point that the photo shows Andrew Jackson in the frail final year of his life and does not show him at "the top of his game". So, maybe the painting is a better choice. On the other hand, it is an important historical image since it is among the very earliest photos of a former U.S. president. I think it should be in Andrew Jackson in the section about his final years. In the case of Harry Truman, a Featured article, we have many excellent color photos and at least one excellent painting to choose from. Making a major change to a Featured article without consensus is a bad idea. I have a hard time seeing how a painting should be the lead image for an article about a mid 20th century American president who was photographed so widely. I have no problem including the painting elsewhere in the article. The proper place to discuss this issue is the article talk page, not in edit summaries, and I see no discussion on the talk page. So, make the change in the first case, and discuss on the talk page in the second case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Assessing an article one created themselves

Possibly a dumb question, but in chasing down some changes to biographical articles, I found another editor who creates many biographies of athletes, and once they are done editing, sets the assessment on the article (typically to level C) themselves. Now over in Wikiproject Biography it says in the assessment FAQ, quote: "Anyone can rate a biographical article, but if you revised an article enough to change its potential rating, or if you have a conflict of interest, someone else should review it." It seems wrong to me to create an assessment on an article you yourself created, how could you possibly be objective about it? I thought I would bring it up with this editor on their talk page but I wanted to ask here first. Is this common practice? Am I missing something? Thanks. --Krelnik (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Krelnik. Lots of individual WikiProjects have their own guidance for assessment, and while it's probably ideal that these are followed as closely as possible, in practice, the only classes that are terribly important most of the time are WP:GA and WP:FA, since these have a highly formalized review process, can qualify for special statuses like being WP:TFA, and have a process for demotion if they fall below the accepted standard.

Besides that, everything between start and B class is highly subjective. Although criteria has been fairly formalized (see WP:ASSESS), the actual application can vary widely, and there's no process for demotion if an article no longer meets the quality assessment. There's also no real special status or even requirement for ordered progression, meaning you can nominate a completely unassessed article for GA as well as you can a B class article.

So overall, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Most readers barely look at a talk page anyway, and most editors don't pay much attention to the intermediate classes. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I wasn't concerned about the actual assessments being applied, just the false impression given to an average reader that this article has been assessed when in fact it was self-assessed by the only person who ever edited it. Incidentally you don't have to visit the talk page to see the assessment, there's a gadget any logged-in user can turn on that will display the article assessment right under the title of the article. When I give workshops on editing and using Wikipedia, I recommend users turn this on so they can see the quality rating of the article right as they start reading it. (It's under Gadgets > Appearance "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header"). --Krelnik (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that I would really recommend that. I can't find it right now for the life of me, but I could've swore there was an independent evaluation of the rating system that had pretty poor overall results as far as consistency goes. It's probably somewhere obscure on Meta: or something. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, well consistency is not likely to improve if everyone is assessing their own work, now, is it? Ah well. Thanks for the replies! Have a good rest of your day. --Krelnik (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Krelnik: The real problem IMO is visibility, and therefore accountability. Ratings below GA are in the thousands probably weekly if not daily, and mostly go unnoticed, while ratings of GA and FA are much much smaller in number, and posted on central noticeboards where experienced editors are aware, and if someone is grossly out of line with the standards, they can be removed from the pool of reviewers. Logistically, that's simply impossible to do with lower ratings unless our pool of contributors were many many times that which it currently is.

Moreover, many editors simply don't care about the other ratings, which makes them unreliable. For example, an article I wrote basically solo, Baltimore railroad strike of 1877, is currently up for GA review, but is rated C class. I don't personally care about getting B class because I know it doesn't particularly matter. Readers using your tool would assume that it is then currently a so-so article, but it will likely very soon jump to the top 0.5% of the best articles on the project.

Finally, more than half the articles on the project are currently rated as stubs. Some of that is probably because they are, and some of that is probably because no one has ever bothered to re-review them. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Krelnik. As previously discussed, only Good articles and Featured articles get a systematic peer review. On the other end of the spectrum , we have many articles rated as stubs which are actually significantly better than stubs. I will re-rate informative, useful articles from stub to start without any hesitation, especially if I have expanded and added references to the article. I see nothing wrong with involved editors upgrading stubs, since no one else is likely to do so. I encourage you to do so as well. I believe quite strongly that a useful, informative article with at least two or three solid references should not be rated as a stub. I have been editing for almost eight years, and care very little about the distinctions between Start, C and B class articles. Effort spent assessing these mid range articles would be better spent improving them, in my opinion, and taking them through the Good article process when appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Rejected, please advise

Trying to prepare article for new professional athlete. Pro contract pending. I want to keep article as draft and launch once contract is signed. Not sure what specifics to avoid rejection. Advice needed. Thanks! JoeTooSerious (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello JoeTooSerious. Thanks for admitting your conflict of interest; if ever you get an editing contract, you must disclose it in the manner prescribed by WP:PAID. I am going to assume this refers to User:JoeTooSerious/sandbox/Tim_DiBisceglie.

The short answer is that you should read Wikipedia:Your first article, but more details follow.

For any Wikipedia article, you must demonstrate the subject is "notable", i.e. that independent sources have published non-trivial stuff about them. In particular, WP:NFOOT describes the conditions under which a football professional is deemed notable. Please note that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability: if the subject is not notable (at least yet), the article will get rejected.

If the article passes notability muster, it will be kept, but some sentences will not (you should not negociate a contract stating that sentence X will be kept, because you never have any guarantee for that). For instance, ...is a tough player with good field vision, takes full advantage of his 6’2” frame with reliable aerial game etc. fall under WP:PEACOCK and will be removed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think they might mean a contract for the soccer player, not for the editor. Lectonar (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I did read WP:PAID and I am a volunteer.

I did read WP:FOOT too and I thought signing a professional contract would qualify. Admittedly, I skimmed WP:PEACOCK too quick initially and I see where I can delete words and phrases that fall into the 'peacock' category. I hope I can address WP:PEACOCK issues and the subject would qualify under WP:NFOOT by signing a pro contract. Or am I pushing a boulder up a steep mountain here?JoeTooSerious (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Should reverts of substantive content normally be first discussed on Talk pages

(except for cases such as vandalism)? Humanengr (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Humanengr. Talk page discussion is not required before reverting, although it is often the best course of action, especially if you already know that the change will be controversial. You can remove unreferenced material if you are unable to find a reliable source to back up that content. In the case of contentious material about a living person, our policy on biographies of living people is clear. Such material should be removed immediately without discussion. Always keep in mind that improving the encyclopedia is the purpose of editing, and be prepared to discuss matters with any editor who disagrees with any of your reverts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Another example is the removal of copyrighted material. In many cases, the material may be a material proportion of the entire article, but can be, in fact should be, removed immediately. God practice inlcudes identifying the source material in an edit summary, but opening a discussion on the talk page would be a bureaucratic nightmare.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That said, I agree, absent some exceptions, that it is good practice, if not absolutely required, to open a discussion on the talk page prior to the removal of a significant amount of material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Be bold, but not reckless. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

reliable source

Is this source considered a reliable source that I can use to add lines on Wikipedia?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In short, yes. This is a reliable source for basic facts. This website looks like it is intended for children. Remember to use multiple sources. Copernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk [User talk: CopernicusAD}} :D 14:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. For well-deleloped articles about major topics of art history, such as the Mona Lisa, I think that it is best to use high quality academic sources, rather than a website for children. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

can i post an article on the following topics

1. Yogeshwar G. Kasture - an Indian inventor who has invented 'Chakka Jam Theory' and 'Indian Thought Process Analysis', the tools for channelization of human weaknesses. In this the article will be about the inventor.

2. Chakka Jam Theory - a tool for channelization of human weaknesses, in this article i will be writing about this theory, this theory has been published in an international journal 2 years back.

Capuneet (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Capuneet. The overarching rule for any subject which determines whether an article should be written about them, is that the subject should have received sustained in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This doesn't count unreliable sources like blogs, it doesn't count "trivial mentions," and it doesn't count things like pieces published by the subject/originator, or organizations they are closely tied to. It does however include non-English sources where no English sources of equal quality are available.

So whether a subject is appropriate for an article is almost always going to have to be decided on a case by case basis, and even then, decided not based on what the subject is per se, but rather what kind of sources are available. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article for more in-depth guidance. TimothyJosephWood 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I searched for them on Google, and found nothing about Yogeshwar Kasture, and very little about Chakka Jam Theory. That's a bad sign. I might have missed things, or there might be offline sources (newspapers, books), or there might be sources in another language. But as far as I can tell, right now, they would not pass the basic requirements. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help editing a page: Gosei / Japanese Go Titles

I'm currently working on the English articles for Japanese Go tournaments, and I've found something I don't quite understand:

In all other Go tournament articles, the link to the article itself is blacked-out in the Go Competitions box at the bottom of the article, but not in the Gosei Article, and I don't understand why.

Patrick.a.mueller (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Convenience links: Template:Japanese go titles, Meijin, Gosei (competition). Maproom (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Template:Japanese go titles was linking to the redirect Gosei (game) rather than directly to Gosei (competition). Now that I've changed the template to bypass the redirect (and purged the cache), it appears in black (unlinked) as it does for the other articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Patrick.a.mueller (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, it's a general feature that wikilinks directly to the page itself are displayed in bold without linking. See Help:Self link. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

reverting a revert

Someone reverted my edit on a highly contentious page. Subsequent to that, at my prompting, there was substantial discussion both there and at a noticeboard on a particular issue. Though that issue was seemingly resolved, another was identified though no detail was provided. That later topic was explored back on the article talk page, where it seems there was no substance (AFAICS) to it. I can attempt to obtain a 'consensus', but strongly doubt that the objectors will participate to any significant degree, much less with anything but diversion, and much less agree. So, at this point, my question is what is the proper procedure for effecting a revert of the revert? Humanengr (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Humanengr. Achieving consensus is the fundamental technique we use to improve and expand articles on contentious topics. Discussing proposed changes on the article talk page is, for all practical purposes, mandatory. Make your best case there, referring to reliable sources plus Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If that is not successful, follow our various dispute resolution procedures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx -- the issue at hand is the question of whether there is a still a dispute (if not, so I can revert a revert). In the moment I have opted for Third Opinion on that point, have notified the other party, and am awaiting … Humanengr (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone reverts you without being a troll or a vandal, there is by definition a dispute, and it should be taken to the talk page in first instance. See also Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I initiated discussion on the talk page several days ago; it went from there to a noticeboard and back with extensive discussion. The objections were expressed in general terms with no specific justifications despite my repeated requests for such. One of the objectors turned up after my original post in this thread, and so it now stands awaiting Third Opinion on whether there is a dispute. Humanengr (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

submitting draft

Two of my articles are ready to be considered as an article. One of them is in sandbox w a push for draft but the other isn't. What code do we use on the page to get it out of draft mode? Songuitar333 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You may use the {{AFC submission}} template if you want your page to be reviewed and, if accepted, moved to the mainspace, more info about the template here. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 07:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Selkirk Transit Edit

Tender Occurs in March any Interested Bidders If so Edit the Page TheRileynator (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheRileynator. Can you please explain your intention in your edits to Selkirk Transit (which I have reverted), as well as explain what your message above means? It's quite unclear, at least to me. What is being "bid" on, and why would interest in bidding make editing the article appropriate? At least at the surface, it appears you are seeking to have people who want to buy something related to this topic, express their interest in bidding by editing the encyclopedia article. That is not an appropriate request for Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The user has been blocked as a sock, so, fuhghettaboutit, I guess. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am looking to draft a new page for a US House candidate. What should this page look like?

I have been rejected so far due to lack of citing evidence, as the statement is that a candidate is not notable until they win an election. I believe that this isn't entirely true, and the page I am trying to edit and expand is referring to a special election for a US House seat. To be fair, the first draft was a stub, but I hope to expand it to prove notability of the Libertarian candidate. What should I include to signify notability? are there any basic headlines I should follow? Thank you.

Fvwendt (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fvwendt, Unless you can show that he is notable for something other than running for Congress, he does not qualify for an article unless he wins. To show he meets the general notability guidelines, you would need to show that his life, entirely excluding his current candidacy, has been the subject od detailed coverage in reliable sources, totally independent of the individual, any of his employers or his campaign. These sources must not be interviews or written from press releases. However, if he has held an elected office at state or federal level previously, that would make him notable. Our notability qualifications are myriad, but they are fairly objective. If you would link to the draft, answers could be more specific. John from Idegon (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, Thank for pointing out the notability requirements. He is an author as well, with published work on Amazon, but to be fair his coverage is primarily tied to the Montana Libertarian Party's first convention in 30+ years, the link to the draft is here.

The main article I am attempting to improve is this: Montana's at-large congressional district special election, 2017 Fvwendt (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fvwendt: Please note that I fixed the indentation on your reply and made your url links into Wikilinks as an example for you. That being said, simply having written a book does not make a person notable. The special notability standard for authors is at WP:NAUTHOR. I doubt he would qualify, but I haven't done any research on my own. I avoid articles on politics like the plauge, so someone else will have to advise you on the other. Best. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I link to a subsection of a main article in Wikipedia?

I have already linked to the main article, North American Fur Trade, and would like to link a little later to 8.1 Metis People, but so far can only link again to the main article. Can you help? Thank you.

The help is so fantastic here that I am really enjoying the process of preparing this piece on Eugene Oregon history.Silver Water (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You create such a link the same way as you would a link to the main article, except that you add #name of section after the article title. For example, [[Paralobesia viteana]] creates Paralobesia viteana, a 'normal' link, whereas [[Paralobesia viteana#Description]] creates Paralobesia viteana#Description, a link to the 'Description' section of said article. As such links look fairly awkward, you are generally best off piping such links. (Like I did for the previous link: [[WP:Piped link|piping such links]] produced piping such links). See also WP:ANCHOR. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Just in case: the nowiki-tags seen in the edit view are just so the examples show up properly on reading-view; it's the code visible when reading you should use. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, AddWittyNameHere. I am still having trouble with this as I don't understand "editor source" speak. I have posted another follow-up question, but re-reading what you have written I have a new idea about how to make the changes stick and will try that right now.Silver Water (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Water: Basically, you have the text that appears on the page when you read it. (AKA "reading view") That should show a bunch of [[ ]] and such in my examples above. Normally those would not show up because their function is to make a link. To get them to show for you when looking at my answer here at the Teahouse, I had to add <nowiki></nowiki> around them. Those are also called nowiki-tags. However, because the function of nowiki-tags is to stop various bits and pieces of wikipedia syntax from doing their jobs, it would stop any link you make from working if you accidentally copied the nowiki-tags along with the example mark-up. Whether or not you're likely to copy those along depends on whether you try to copy from what you see when looking at the page ("reading view") or whether you first start editing the page and then try to copy them ("edit view", which is further complicated because there are—among other more niche options—both a What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get wiki-text editor out there, called VisualEditor, and a Show-All-The-Mark-Up wiki-text editor, usually called the 'source editor', 'wikitext editor', 'oldschool editor' or similar--and those result in pretty different "edit views").

As to your new question, another editor has already answered. You were doing everything right, except that you missed a diacritic in the name of the section, resulting in you trying to link to a non-existent section (because there is no section called Metis people in North American fur trade, just one called Métis people) (Had you tried to link to a section that didn't have any diacritics, though, your link would have worked) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

redirect or delete?

I have revised an existing article in which I include content from other articles which makes them obsolete. Can I redirect the obsolete ones to the new one, or just delete them? Thanks, as always.TBR-qed (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed and welcome to the Teahouse. That would depend. First, if you took material from other articles you must indicate that in your new article, either in edit summaries (which you didn't do) or on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It is plagiarism to use other editors work without acknowledging it. The articles should not be deleted. Their history preserves the record of the original editors work. If everything is in the new article, redirect with Template:R from merge. Since you have been indicating what you are doing on talk pages, there shouldn't be any objection. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing a draft. How do I make it an article

I just wrote a book and would like to do a brief wikipedia entry on it. It's a draft but how do I make it an article? Sapphire the Dragon (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Sapphire the Dragon. Your page is located at Draft:Sapphire the Dragon (Novel). If you want it reviewed for insertion in the Wikipedia mainspace (i.e. that it becomes a "real" article), you should copy-paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft page. However, before doing so:

1. Check our pages about conflict of interest and promotion.
2. Prove that your book is "notable", by adding references to independent reliable sources (for a book, it usually means reviews of the book by newspapers columnists). As the draft stands now, it is likely to be rejected, because the references only prove that the book exist. Notice that if such sources do not exist, Wikipedia will not accept an article about your book (at least not yet).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

reliable sources

May I know what kind of reliable sources that I need for my article? Anis2520 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Anis2520: have you read WP:Reliable sources? Take a look at that and let us know here if you have any specific questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Double square brackets not working to cite wiki pages

I have checked the wiki page instructions on how to cite wiki pages within another wiki text. I am working in wikibook. Does that make a difference? I can't get the information overload page to come up as blue and then link to the appropriate wiki page What am I doing wrong please? Thank you Vickthestick (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Vickthestick!

The problem is that you are trying to link from Wikibooks to Wikipedia. Here at the Teahouse, a subspace of Wikipedia, [[information overload]] creates a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Information_overload, but the same syntax in Wikibooks points to https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Information_overload, which does not exist. There is a Wikipedia page about cross-wiki linking that can help you on more general matters; in that particular case, the syntax you are looking for is probably [[w:information overload]]. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Vickthestick, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikibooks at https://en.wikibooks.org and the English Wikipedia here at https://en.wikipedia.org are separate wikis. You need an interwiki prefix to make a wikilink to another wiki. Wikipedia has wikipedia: or the shortcut w: so [[w:information overload]] at Wikibooks will link to our information overload. I don't know Wikibooks policies but you can write [[w:information overload|information overload]] to not dislay w: to readers. See more at Help:Interwiki linking and Help:Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Vickthestick (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My article was marked as may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion

Please what do i do? am new in this community and want to be here, my main aim is to help feed people with information they may need. thanksMarvelire (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Marvelire. Your article has been nominated for deletion because it is unambiguously promotional in tone. This is probably because it is copy/pasted from the main website of the subject of the article. Because of this, I have also nominated for deletion due to being a copyright violation. Content on Wikipedia needs to be restated in the authors own words, and with very few exceptions cannot be copied and pasted from other online sources. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article before giving it a second go. TimothyJosephWood 12:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy, will revisit and make correctionsMarvelire (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Article has been rejected, require advice.

I have had my article rejected due to tone, notability, and it sounded too close to the source.Please can you advise on how I can rectify this. Thank you. Kim Lintern Klintern (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kim. There are lots of passages currently in your draft that are promotional in tone. For example:

• They specialise in high quality mould made artists papers.
• ...renowned for its high end fine art papers
• ...are registered trademarks of St Cuthberts Mill.
• ...has become a highly lucrative business.

These are all the types of passages you would expect to find on a company website, in a commercial, or maybe a quarterly report, but it's not the type of language that an encyclopedia uses. Encyclopedias are written in a more-or-less dry matter-of-fact manner that avoids statements of opinion and colorful language. So all of this type of puffy language needs to either be removed or replaced with basically disinterested bare facts.

You probably also want to check out our beginners guide to referencing since your draft doesn't seem to currently follow our standard practice, and formatting all our references correctly will help to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability guidelines. TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

GA

Can you say if Green Bay Harbor Entrance Light meets GA? I nominated it, so if there are any issues, I can modify it. I think, the article seems fit for a GA. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll do a quick read and leave a talk message if I see any issues. (I have 6 GAs.) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Having my draft online

Hello, I am trying to add an article about Galeries Lafayette Haussmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Galeries_Lafayette_Haussmann) which is the flagship store of Galeries Lafayette in Paris. There are a lot to say as it's the birthplace of the brand, I did a lot of research and I'm disappointed it has been declined. I already updated the sources and rewrote the passages that could appear subjective but the article is still declined. I read it again but don't find it subjective, could someone help me re-writing or pointing out the passages that seems to have a POV tone? Thank you :-)

Arthemisbilon (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Arthemisbilon: almost all of it has a strongly promotional PoV tone. Are you connected with the store? It's very difficult to write neutrally about a subject you're connected with. Another problem is that it's unclear what the article is meant to be about – the brand, the building, or the business that operates from that building? Maproom (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Arthemisbilon. First of all, you should probably focus on developing the relevant subsection of the already-existing article (Galeries_Lafayette#Flagship_store) - your draft is bound to give a lot of duplicate information compared to the company's page.

Moreover, from a quick read of the article, multiple sentences sound unencyclopedic (and systematically casting the shop in a good light). See for example:

1. true but WP:PEACOCK claims: the iconic symbol of the store, offers shoppers a wide range of brands, from the most affordable to the most prestigious; ...offering a wide choice of snacks, drinks and cuisine from around the world.
2. editorializing It all began in 1893, when..., As soon as the swinging sixties got going, A new era began in 2001, etc. - replace by down-to-earth equivalents In 1893/in the 1960s/in 2001.

All in all, you should strive to write something more boring. That is how encyclopedia articles are supposed to be. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

name pronounciations and IPAc's

How do we add an IPAc for names that are hard to pronounce like for example the artists Mayuka Thaïs & Kunimi Andrea? Songuitar333 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!!Songuitar333 (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Songuitar333, and welcome! For English (or possibly if the artists use anglicised pronunciations of their names?), see Help:IPA for English. The definitive overall guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! 

Songuitar333 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. What's the difference between IPA and IPAc? Pel.

@Pelagic: There are two different templates, called {{IPA-en}} and {{IPAc-en}}. They're very similar, it's a technicality, and really not important. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI question

I am trying to search the ANI to find a discussion about a specific article. Is this possible for non-admins to do or is this a restricted function? Ies (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out. Ies (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding employee disclosures and meeting requirements to avoid draft deletion and get approved

Hi, I've been working on the draft for Iglu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iglu and now have been suggested that the draft be deleted.. The article has had several revisions in an attempt to meet the policies required. I also need to add a {{connected contributor (paid)}} but not sure how to do it exactly.. Any tips or advice would be appreciated

TimSensei (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have taken the liberty of changing your question so that it links to the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template rather than actually adding the tag to this Teahouse page. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How to edit a category page, i.e. add one line to an existing category page

I want to add "Little Buddha (1993)" under the "L" heading in the list of films at Category:Films about reincarnation

However, I'm a novice editor and quite clueless on how to do it. Please go ahead and make the addition if you like. Little Buddha [[1]]is a film about reincarnation, so it is DEFINITELY an appropriate addition to this category. Thank you.Dave S. H. (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dave S. H. and welcome to the Teahouse.

Categories on Wikipedia are collected from the articles themselves. So, to add an article to a category, what you actually do is add the category to the article.

More specifically, go to the Little Buddha article and edit it. Near the bottom of the edit text, you'll see the list of categories. Simply add the line.

[[Category:Films about reincarnation]]

in the correct place (Categories are most often in alphabetical order) and save. After a little while, the article will show up on the Category page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

American Institute of Architects

I am trying to verify membership in the American Institute of Architects, especially the Chicago chapter, by Herbert Sobel (best known as the unsuccessful company commander in Band of Brothers).Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gaarmyvet. I see records for an architect of that name active in Chicago from the the 1930s to the 1980s. However, an interview with your Sobel's son mentions other careers, and his suicide attempt makes it highly unlikely that he was practicing architecture in the 1980s. My best guess is that there were two Herbert Sobels from Chicago, which is a big city with a big Jewish population. One was an architect and the other was your ill-fated Army officer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a real possibility. "My Sobel" did graduate with a degree in Architecture but it's possible he never practiced. Stephen Ambrose wrote that he was a clothing salesman before the War. Sobel's son wrote in what I have to call non-RS that his father was middle class and wore a suit to work every day. I think I need to back off from my absolute identification of Sobel in those two items based on the Tribune on his page. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin American Economies Article

Hello, I am writing an edition for the "Latin America" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America). It is about the economies of latin america. I was hoping someone can read it and critique it. I particularly need help with making sure that my tone is not biased and objective and with identifying any locations where I should provide more citations. The article is in my sandbox Danicroi (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Danicroi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any problems of tone or bias with what you have written at User:Danicroi/sandbox; but I doubt it will be accepted as an addition to Latin America. That article is about the region, its people, its culture, its economies, its last 16,000 years of history. Your sandbox is about the current state of its economies and their short-term prospects. Maproom (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Danicroi, just to "complete" Maproom's reply: Your draft could become a new separate article, rather than a section in the article about the region. It would need a title that clearly and unambiguously represents the subject, the current (as of 2017) state of the economy of the region. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

where did my question go?

I submitted a question and now can't see or find it. Help Chris Jarvis 1959 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This is the first question which you have submitted, see Special:Contributions/Chris Jarvis 1959. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Jarvis 1959:, perhaps you weren't logged on with your User name at the time you posted your query. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

adding photos/iimages

hello, thank you for this help forum. i am interested in adding pictures to articles, and wondering what i need to know beforehand (ie. how to obtain permission, best practices, etc.) thank you Stirpicult (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Stirpicult: Simplified answer: Because we want Wikipedia to be free to copy, images (almost always*) needs to have a licence saying anyone can copy it. If you take the picture, that's quite easy; you can upload it to commons, giving permission. Most pictures from elsewhere don't have the right licence; you can ask the copyright holder to give permission.

There's a basic guide at User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image, and much more detail in Wikipedia:Uploading images. If you get stuck, please ask again.

• Certain 'non-free' images can be used in limited ways, such as a company logo; see WP:NFCI and the links from there. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm new here and not sure what edits are allowed

Hey, I would appreciate some tips and advice on what I can do to get started. I really want to help Wikipedia :) Thanks please get back to me asap SeriousBlackkk (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey SeriousBlackkk. I'm pretty new also, and I've just been searching for articles on topics I'm knowledgeable and passionate about, and diving in. My three main offerings for you are, 1) Don't add significant details without having sources to cite. Most facts must be verifiable to the reader. 2) Take a look at talk pages and edit histories (although the latter can be very long) to see if what you want to add has already been discussed, altered, or deleted. 3) Use Wikipedia Help a lot. Open a new tab and search "WP:____", such as "WP:Citing sources" and it will guide you. Also, Teahouse is equally useful for the really tricky questions. RM2KX (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

BE BOLD! - Quite a good place to start is, Wikipedia:Cleanup - for example, try anything in Category:Articles needing cleanup from March 2017. Once you get started doing things, you'll learn more - and have lots more questions :-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Cites

AM I allowed to write about another cite on Wikipedia? Wikipedian (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Wikipedian. It's not entirely clear what you mean by "write about another cite". Information in articles should generally all be sourced to relevant citations, which allows the content of articles to be verifiable for readers. If you mean "another website," as in a website that might have its own article, then that depends on whether it meets our standard for notability of websites. Maybe if you can be more specific about what you mean, we can be more helpful. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If you mean, can you use Wikipedia as a reference - no, you cannot. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank You! Wikipedian (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Double transclusion

If I transclude a template onto my user page that is transclusions of other templates, will it work properly? Thanks! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi A lad insane, welcome to the Teahouse. That works fine. You can test how something will look with the "Show preview" button. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I get my new page Ella Thorp Ellis Accepted?

I am new to Wikipedia -- On a figurative "mission from God." What do I need to do to get my new page Ella Thorp Ellis accepted? 2601:648:8303:75A0:94DE:633D:4D2D:CCFA (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is 'your new page'? I can't see any page in the listing of your contribution. --CiaPan (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

CiaPan it's at Draft:Ella Thorp Ellis. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

THX, Roger. --CiaPan (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Flerkk Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. You need to establish notability by adding references that show there is widespread coverage of her in reliable sources. At the moment you have more content about her father and no sources which mention her? Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Viewing draft article from outside WIki

Hello. I'm working on a draft article which is almost complete. Is there a way to allow a non-Wiki user to view the draft without sharing my login info? Thanks, Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Theresa at Indevelopmeant and welcome to the Teahouse. If the article you are talking about is Draft:Edgardo Miranda-Rodriguez then you could just send them the URL ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edgardo_Miranda-Rodriguez ). Of course, if they look at the History of the article they can see who has been editing it (as anybody can do for any article). --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the speedy reply and for the welcome! That's fine about seeing the history. I just didn't want to have to give out my login info if it wasn't necessary. Thanks again! Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Gronk Oz is correct, and you must definitely not share your login info, as to do so would be a breach of the Terms of Use. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David. That felt like the case to me, but I wanted to check. Best, Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There are no private edits or pages at Wikipedia, unless it's later deleted by a user with the required permission and then you cannot see it yourself. Anyone knowing your username can click the "User contributions" link under "Tools" in the left pane of User:Theresa at Indevelopmeant. You have a shortcut to it on "Contributions" at the top right of any page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, PrimeHunter. Yes, I've been using Contributions. I meant that I wanted to have a friend who knows my subject read it over for me. It's not published yet, so wanted them to view it in the context of the Wiki page, if possible, without having to give them my login info. Thanks for following up! Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theresa at Indevelopmeant: Anyone can see any Wikipedia page, no matter who you are logged in as. For example, not only can you see Draft:Edgardo Miranda-Rodriguez, you should also be able to see user drafts by others, such as Draft:Alfred Jean Garnier, Draft:Amy Malbeuf, Draft:Brenda Francis Pelkey, and so on; anyone can edit them too. They don't show up in the normal Wikipedia search, but they are still available.

If your friend (or anyone else) goes to this address;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edgardo_Miranda-Rodriguez

...then they will see your draft. They don't even have to log in. Best of luck, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for following up! I can't wait to get this page up and published soon... Best,Theresa at Indevelopmeant (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Viewing contributions of other users

I recently initiated an SPI against a paid editing Syndicate and many of the Sockpuppets were blocked. However when I try to look at the contributions of the Sockpuppets, no results are returned [2]. Her talk page however indicates that the person has made many edits. Why are her contributions missing? Jupitus Smart 11:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jupitus Smart That contributions list does not include deleted edits i.e. edits on deleted page, or edits otherwise deleted. Here shows they have 0 live edits & 1 deleted edit on English Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank for the prompt reply Joseph2302. Issue Solved. Jupitus Smart 11:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: The link to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec is on "Edit count" at the bottom of user contributions but the tool is often very slow or broken. The link on "accounts" is efficient and reliable but only gives the total number of edits with no distinction between deleted and visible edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

need help to submit my article

hello, I am new to Wikipedia recently i submit my article (Ahad Raza Mir) which was declined I need advice to edit the article for resubmitting. SaqibK (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@SaqibK: Hi there. In the box at the top of it, there is a button to "resubmit". If you think it is ready for a review, click that and follow instructions. It may take several weeks to get it reviewed, because there is a big backlog.

If you want any other help, please ask again. Best, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

How to create subsections

I am working on the history section for Eugene, Oregon. I need to do a little more work on footnotes but am nearly done. I've begun to explore how to create subsections and would appreciate advice regarding whether or not I have done it correctly.

"This page is automatically cleaned every 12 hours." In my explorations I also ran across this phrase. I am really hoping it does not mean that the Sandbox is wiped out. It doesn't seem to be but an explanation would be helpful.Silver Water (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silver Water, firstly the sandbox under your userpage is safe, it is not deleted except if it contains a major transgression. I've taken a look at User:Silver Water/sandbox, the section headings are not working because for some reason they have "nowiki" tags - I suspect it's due to an error in the Visual Editor. I have removed the tags and also fixed the formatting - Wikipedia uses sentence case in section headings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Water: There are two ways to make edits: The source editor where you write and see markup code to do things and have to click "Show preview" to see what it will look like, and the VisualEditor which has menus to do things and always tries to display what the result will look like. Most of our help pages are written for the source editor. You use VisualEditor. Often it automatically places <nowiki>...</nowiki> around attempts to write markup code. This instructs our rendering software to display the code instead of activating it. Adding to the confusion, VisualEditor doesn't display the nowiki tags because it tries to display what the rendered page will look like to readers. Click the "Paragraph" button in VisualEditor to get a menu where you can add a heading. User sandboxes starting with "User:" and a username are not cleaned automatically. Some sandboxes like Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting/sandbox are not specific to a user but can be used by everybody. These sandboxes are automatically cleaned but you can still find old edits to them by clicking "Contributions" at the top right of any page and then "diff" at your edits. Your own User:Silver Water/sandbox is the only sandbox you have edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Roger (Dodger 67) Thank you for your help, especially fixing the formatting. You've made my job much easier.

@PrimeHunter Thank you for your explanations. These are very helpful. I may be able to attempt the source editor now. Prior to your explanation it just looked like something only a techie person could do.

Silver Water (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

History of a former business

I am interested in creating a page on the history of a business which operated for 26 years in my hometown (1961-1987). It was a cheese factory, but the larger story is around the rise and decline of the dairy industry in that area over time. I found no references to the business on the internet. A story about the business is included in a town centennial atlas. Will this pass the notability test? TCGuy76 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

TCGuy, it would have to have more references than just the atlas. I'd suggest looking on Google newspapers archive or something like that. It's a great resource for older people or businesses. If you still can't find anything, then instead of making an article specifically about the factory, you could write an article about "Dairy industry in Xxxx County" which would be easier to reference and probably easier to write as well. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

TCGuy, don't limit you search to Google. Go to the town library, contact the County authorities ask if they have public archives, also look for publications at the state level, a nearby college history department may have useful sources. You can even ask the local and state agricultural organizations and the chamber of commerce. Just keep in mind that all sources you use must be accessible to the public, any private documents someone shares with you as a "special favor" are not usable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

how do i improve my page?

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

my page Maurizio Pellegrin (link above) was turned down twice, how can i improve it? I put many citations from reliable sources (press, galleries and museums) can you please help me? What else should I add?

Thank you!

Maria Grimana Maria Grimana (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maria Grimana, you have "over-referenced" the exhibition list, it has 44 references, but the entire rest of the article has only two! Reliability is not the only criterion that sources must comply with, they must also be Independent. A gallery writing about their own exhibition or an interview with the artist are not independent - for Wikipedia's purposes such sources only prove existence, not Notability. So you need to firstly find sources for all the biographical information and then you need to find actual critical review articles about the exhibitions, and get rid of the interviews, adverts and announcements. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

thank you so much for your suggestions. i worked on it. i eliminated non relevant citations and added articles and writings of critics. do you think what i did is enough? do i have to submit it again and go back to the end of the line of drafts waiting to be evaluated or i don't loose my position

thank you!

Maria GrimanaMaria Grimana (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Images

How do I upload a photo to the info box of a wikipedia page?Shubasketball (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shubasketball, welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the license of the photo and where you want to use it. Where did you get the photo and which article is it for? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering too. DylannStormRoof (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

One of the big editors

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you get to be one of the big editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwags323232 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The only way I know is by making a lot of useful edits, Mattwags323232. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattwags323232: If you mean becoming an Administrator, they are elected by the other editors. The process and their role is described at Wikipedia:Administrators. Of course, it still depends on doing just as ColinFine describes above - "administrators are expected to have the trust and confidence of the community, so requests from users who do not have considerable experience are not usually approved". --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mattwags323232: Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates says: "Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least one year, will have thousands of edits in various 'maintenance' areas of the project, and will have made measurable contributions to articles." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I want Wikipedia to be like google

I want Wikipedia to be almost like Google but more of an encyclopedia version.

Time235236 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Time235236: Hi there.

Wikipedia mostly concentrates on being a great Encyclopaedia, not a search engine. Other companies, such as Google, do searching so much better.

You can use Google to search only on Wikipedia, by putting "site:en.wikipedia.com". For example, try googling site:en.wikipedia.com Thailand

The Wikimedia Foudation (Wikipedia's host company) have done some work on developing a search feature called the Knowledge Engine - but it's quite controversial. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Time235236: because your question (if it is one) is vague, I wondered if what you meant was that you would like to have a browser search-box to search Wikipedia instead of Google by default. If so, various browsers already provide the option to search Wikipedia in their preferences. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Tools/Browser tools. But also see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, if the query was about general Wikipedia content. PaleoNeonate (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

How to add a person

Hello I have a person that I want to add to wikipedia how do I do this? FlaggTyokea (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi FlaggTyokea. Has the person been written about in some depth by reliable sources, that are entirely independent of the person? What is your connection to the person, if any?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

no he has not

FlaggTyokea (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no personal connection to this person. I just looked him up and did not find a wikipedia. I thought it was strange seeing how he contributed to a part of american culture but he has not been written about in depth

FlaggTyokea (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FlaggTyokea, the nature of an encyclopedia is we write about what has been written about a subject, not about the subject itself. So if nothing has been written about this person, there is nothing to write here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

FlaggTyokea, can you tell us the person's name so we can look and see if we find sources that cover them? MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Page access

• Lora Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi...is there any way to stop people from messing up the page about me (Lora Johnson)? Lora Elise (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any obvious problem with this article. Do you disagree with what it says? EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for replying...I made a few fact corrections concerning dates and events (the page is about me) and someone I do not know modified it, causing me to have to correct it again. I k=just added a 'connected contributor' banner at the top but do not know what else may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lora Elise (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add a photo...how do I do that? Lora Elise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lora Elise (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to these changes by User:RJay (official)? If so why not explain on Talk:Lora Johnson what your concerns are. (The changes seem to be very mild so I don't see what the problem might be). You speak of 'correct it again' as though that person had introduced a mistake. See Wikipedia:Images for how to add a photo. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The former issues were with something written earlier by someone else, and added back by the more recent contributor. I changed the year from 2005 to 2008 and corrected to better reflect the nature of my transition. Some items in the former content were derived from a Chicago Now blog published last summer, which did not have everything correct. I wish for the Wikipedia entry to be as factually correct as possible. I have also now added a photo and made a few minor grammatical corrections. Lora Elise —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Lora Elise —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lora Elise. Wikipedia articles are, for better or for worse, things that anyone anywhere in the world can edit at anytime, so there's not really anything the community can really do to prevent anyone from editing the article. In certain cases, an article may be protected to prevent serious disruption or vandalism, but those cases are pretty well-defined and only considered to be a last resort. Articles by there very nature are considered to be imperfect and it is hoped that mistakes will be fixed through collaborative editing. In addition, even though the article is written about you, you do not have any sort of final editorial control over the content of the article as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. I suggest you take a look at WP:COIADVICE, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:BLPSELF for information about what to do when you find something in error in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lora Elise, I did not mean to make any mistakes. I have since retired from Wiki, hence my page doesn't exist. I was not aware the previous editor(s) on your page was you yourself; I simply found the article of one of my favorite authors (huge fan of Ice since I was a kid, no I'm not gonna fanboy here, promise) and thought I could improve it. I did look up some dates on the web I thought reflected actuality, and I'm sorry I got it wrong. I thought I did improve the article overall. Sorry for encroaching. It was a good faith edit, and I never thought you were the editor of your own page. Peace. -rJay 184.47.211.83 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing Australian Government Web Archive

Hi all, I want to reference a government report which is no longer hosted by the Department, but a cached version is available through the Australian Government Web Archivewhich is a project of the National Library of Australia (and I would assume a trusted and reputable source). Is it okay to directly link to that? Do I need to put any protoccols in place? And can anyone point me to where I'd find this answer already answered (as I am sure it must have been). Saludos Trishhepworth (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Trishhepworth,

There is no problem using an archive to reference the document's contents (it could still be problematic for assertions such as "the report was posted on the government website on date X", of course). A reference is a particular document; a web link is merely the means to obtain it. Of course, it is still better to use a reputable archive service such as a national library than other sites because it is less likely to have posted a forged document or to undergo WP:Link rot; but even a link to a personal website would do if there is no better alternative.

To take a purposefully silly analogy: when referencing a book, you give information that identify the text such as ISBN/edition number/etc. but you do not add "borrowed from the Sidney library" or similar - any book with the same edition number will do. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Trishhepworth,

The {{Cite web}} template has fields for the original URL and an archival URL. You may be able to access it from the toolbar above the editing box. Pelagic (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you [[Tigraan] and Pelagic that's exactly what I needed to know and more. Much appreciated, apologies for the slow response Trishhepworth (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of information

How to determine which information is relevant for which page? For example, is a celebrity's political opinion relevant and should it be on their page? DylannStormRoof (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DylannStormRoof. There is no easy answer to that sort of question in general: it usually comes down to individual cases. What we can certainly say is that if their political opinion has not been reported in a reliable source, then it shouldn't be in the article. Beyond that, it will depend on the individual case. Have they themselves made a big issue of their politics? Has their opinion been widely discussed, or just mentioned in passing? Has it been reported only in one partisan source (sources that are not neutral may be used as long as they are reliable sources, but if they represent a minority view among the sources, that should be reflected in the prominence given to material from them). By the way, I understand that you are not Dylann Roof, but I find your choice of user name very disturbing, and possibly contrary to the policy in WP:DISRUPTNAME --ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 08:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylannStormRoof (talk • contribs)

When will pages be fully protected

By what standard does Wikipedia apply full protection on pages? Level of fame? Power? Net worth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylannStormRoof (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page protection policy is explained at Wikipedia:Protection policy. Fame, power, and wealth are irrelevant. Pages are protected if they have been subject to destructive edits. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So if nobody vandalizes Donald Trump page, it will be put on semi-protection? DylannStormRoof (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The article about Donald Trump was heavily and continuously vandalized before semi-protection (and now extended confirmed protection) was implemented; so it now not being vandalized is the direct result of the applied protection. Lectonar (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit descriptions

What kind of things should I put on there? X4nMan20O() (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello X4nMan20O() and welcome to the Teahouse. Your username is rather tricky to type!

Your first step should be to read Help:Edit summary and perhaps WP:Edit summary legend. The goal of the edit summary is to allow other editors to more immediately discern the purpose of your edit: are you adding tags, correcting spelling, removing vandalism, etc. You should be concise, but you are allowed to put a fairly complete description of what you are doing. I think it's a good idea to check the preference box that pops up a warning if you don't supply an edit summary. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summaries so far look fine to me. It's no big deal; just, very helpful if you say something to indicate what you did with the edit. Which you've been doing.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How to place the tip of the day on your user pages

The tip of the day department develops and maintains helpful tips on how to use and get the best out of Wikipedia.

The July 21st tip explains how to display tips on your user page (or user talk page).

If you'd like to help maintain the tips (a great way to learn the ropes), there's a template that displays the tip of the day a day early.

We also maintain a library of the tips, arranged by subject.

If you have any nifty tricks that you rely on in your use of Wikipedia, please stop by the tips workshop and share them!

Have fun.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I change my username

Can I? Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEricHarris (talk • contribs) 07:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can; see WP:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone semi-protect the page "Onision"?

I do not have access to semi-protecting pages as I work on mobile and it's more than likely that the cause of a bot removing a semi-protection temple from the page "Onision" is because it has expired. Onision had told his fans to edit his Wikipedia page with silly information and so it should definitely be protected again. The last vandalism was 2 hours before this post. Depthburg (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The place where you can make such requests is WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Question from new editor

Hello,I am abizer,new to editing of wikipedia...please help me find content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abizer16 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added some links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Trouble linking to a subsection of a main article

I got advice yesterday on how to do this but my attempted fix is not taking. For the link I tried North American fur trade#Metis people but the brackets don't take and the link just goes to the main article, not to the subsection.

I am brand new as a "Wikipedian" (I like the sound of that by the way, reminds me of Olympian!) I have been using the visual editor as the source editor language is unfamiliar and daunting.

If you could also point me in the direction of information about how to post photos, that will be my next and last step before asking for review.

Lovely community here. Thanks.Silver Water (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You forgot the acute accent on the e of Métis. Try North American fur trade#Métis people. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Water: For the photos, please scroll up this page a bit to #adding photos/iimages, and see if that gives enough pointers. Ask again otherwise. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)