Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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

"Synopses" on iOS, and how to edit

When I open a page such as Urban Agglomeration on an iPhone or iPad, there is a one-clause synopsis ("An extended city or town area comprising the built-up area of a central place and it's (sic) suburbs or a group of towns linked by continuous urban area") right after the title and before any normal content, in the space where hatnotes appear; but on a laptop (OS X 10.7.5, Safari 6.1.6), no such synopsis appears. And on iOS or OS X, whether with Safari or with the Wikipedia app, when I edit the page, no such text appears. What's going on? Why doesn't this text appear on the desktop, and why can't I edit it on any platform? SeanWillard (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Unpatrolled userpages?

I once saw a post either here or at ANI about the backlog of unpatrolled userpages. I have Npp, and I'd like to patrol some of that backlog, but I can't find that post or that backlog. I checked the Npp pages/feeds, archives, list of special pages, and still can't find it. Does anybody know where it is? I wish now I had put the link in my sandbox when I saw that. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi White Arabian Filly. Special:NewPagesFeed has a "Set filters" menu where you can choose betwen the namespaces Article and User. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Using images for biographies on living persons

Hi,

I am a member of WikiProject Women in Red and trying to determine the best way to get approved images of living professors. (Math, Science, Archeology). I have been reading the tutorial articles on images and copyrights and I want to be very careful in obtaining images that will not be deleted.

Many of the professors have photos of themselves on their University web pages or academic sites, but there is no copyright or license information provided. What is the best/correct way of obtaining these images?

Thanks MauraWen (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MauraWen. We can only use copyright free or freely licensed photos of living people. Lack of a copyright notice on an image is not evidence that copyright does not exist as there is no legal requirement for such a notice. We need written evidence that a photo is either in the public domain or has been freely licensed in an acceptable way.

You have several options. If the person is nearby, take a photo yourself and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Or contact the person, asking for them to arrange to have a freely licensed photo uploaded by the photographer. You could try contacting the university public affairs people as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

help me

Template:Help ME My company page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniworld_logistics. pls check and suggest me Gudda (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Guddatyagi01. This article has been deleted as a copyright violation. It seems that promotional content was copied and pasted from the company's website. Please read Your first article for information about the proper way to write an article. Since it seems you are an employee, please also read our policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. Please comply with these policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality control and other elements of Wikipedia

Hi all, so I was browsing a question on Quora related to the reliability of Wikipedia, and I found an answer (by a parapsychologist, so...) that makes these claims:

"Wikipedia has no quality control, no scholarly supervision, no editorial expertise or expert review. If you’ve dealt with anonymous people on Quora, you can be assured that it’s either just as bad or worse on Wikipedia, where nearly everyone is anonymous and accountability is nearly non existent."

This struck me as rather silly. I found Wikipedia's quality control policies rather easily, and I know several scholars supervise Wikipedia (can't think of specific ones right now) but I'm having a hard time finding the 'editorial expertise and expert review' part. I've seen them in the talk pages of some articles but don't know where to go.

Does anybody know where I can find the articles for these policies? TangoFett (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, TangoFett! To answer your question, no "scholars supervise Wikipedia". While a small minority of Wikipedia editors may have terminal degrees in the subject matter they edit - and a couple members of the |Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees [1] hold lectureships or professorships - there is no codified process of scholarly supervision. Theoretically, a precocious middle school student could reach the most dazzling heights of responsibility on Wikipedia (except for the OTRS volunteer team which requires its members be over the age of 16).

To your other questions: there is a process of quality control, as in the case of Wikipedia:Featured articles, however, it is not analogous to scholarly peer review; most Wikipedia editors do choose to remain anonymous, though some disclose their real life identities; there are guidelines for accountability in content, however, like all projects of this type, it can be abused by those very determined to do so.

Wikipedia is as useful as you make it and one should always apply common sense and critical thinking to anything one reads, regardless of the source (Wikipedia or otherwise). You should read Wikipedia in a way that satisfies your own ethos of reliability.

All that said, I would suggest that Wikipedia is probably, generally, as accurate - if not more - than your average parapsychologist. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

TangoFett Here on Wikipedia an editor's personal knowlege and expertise about a subject is not as significant as with many other "knowledge repositories". This is because WP policy requires article content to be sourced only from previously published information. Thus it is perfectly possible for a literate 14-year old contributor with good research skills to write a decent comprehensive article, simply by doing good research. It is actually, IMHO, far easier to write an acceptable article when you have no prior knowledge (and more importantly, also no opinion) about the subject; because that forces one to follow only the sources. The essential expertise needed to write successfully on WP is research skills and the ability to distinguishe between good and low quality sources. Good WikiProjects can help with evaluating and selecting sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome Thank for giving me the opportunity to be a part of this gigantic encyclopedia of information... continuously creates and used by the people... for the People [User:Wili] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruneshwar Gupta (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Aruneshwar Gupta! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes an "official" website?

I'm cleaning up some bare urls in biography infoboxes, and in the infobox documentation it says that the url should be the "official" website of the person. I've now seen a few that were Twitter, IMDB and Facebook pages for the person. Are these considered official? Thanks in advance!! – gwendy (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gwendy. An IMDb page should never be listed as an official website since it is not controlled by the subject. Facebook creates unofficial pages for celebrities, and hacking is common, so great care is in order. Impersonation is also a problem on Twitter, so only verified accounts should be listed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I knew it didn't feel right, thanks for helping me parse it out, Cullen³²⁸! – gwendy (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

About a information not sure

Hello, im a french contributor on Wiki Fr and im sometime translating Wiki page. I recently found an information given on the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triosence which is : "The second CD, Away for Awhile remained in the German International Jazz Charts for over six months." The problem i found absolutely nothing about a "German International Jazz Charts"... What would would be the right thing to do : write a  ? or something else ? Thanks Raw Writer RawWriter (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We have an article here that would be a good starting point to help you find a source. Regards CV9933 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Does Drewmutt have the capacity to judge articles with references in other lenguages?

I have the impression that he does not follow links to find out the source, unless is an american or english one. I,d find this discriminative and the opposite of helping. Otherwise, it would be great to have a transparent and public chat with him in order to clarify some issues. Is that possible? Vicroth (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Vicroth! You can initiate a public discussion with any editor by posting a message to their Talk page. Here's some info on how to use them - Help:Using talk pages. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be polite, why don't we ping @Drewmutt: and let him know we're talking about him? Rojomoke (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Does English wikipedia really check out and accept references in other languages?

I would like to contribute, but I just read that articles with references in other languages are speedy delated, even with top quality references. Is it better to remain local? Vicroth (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vicroth. Whatever you read somewhere is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. On the contrary. This is the free online English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of only the English speaking world. If reliable sources are available in many languages, then English language sources are preferred. But if reliable sources about a notable topic are available only in languages other than English, then please feel free to cite those sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vicroth. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. As Cullen328 posted, it's perfectly OK to cite non-English sources as long as they satisfy Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. However, you also should try to understand that since this is English Wikipedia, it's quite possible that many readers will not be able to understand the information in such sources, thus making verification a bit difficult. Assuming you would not be citing a source that you couldn't read yourself, you can help things out by providing as much information about the sources as possible per Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include and even a possible translation of the relevant information in the source being cited. Doing these kinds of things will make it much easier for other editors to check the reliability of the source and verification the information found in the source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Vicroth, where did you read this? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

how to make an addition to a page

hello

I searched for LIVINGSTON HIGH SCHOOL, NEW JERSEY AND NOTABLE GRADUATES.

I am trying to add myself to this list as a best-selling author and also as a pulitzer prize nominee.

how to go about?? thanks Mark Greenberg Mggvisions (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, unless you provide a reliable source, this would be considered a hoax, please provide one. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 20:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mggvisions. The article in question is Livingston High School (New Jersey). Listings of notable alumni in school articles should only contain people who have current Wikipedia articles. I just removed two people whose articles were deleted. Since there is no current Wikipedia of you, your name does not belong on that list.

DashyGames, please be aware that lack of a reference to a reliable source does not necessarily mean that the information is a "hoax". We only come to that conclusion when a search for sources fails and there is evidence of a hoax. That is not the case here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I can't find the appropriate policy or guideline right now, but isn't it the case that an item can be included in a list without there being a corresponding article, if sources are provided demonstrating notability? Cordless Larry (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The guidance I had in mind was WP:CSC (although it is technically about standalone lists, not lists in articles): "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". Cordless Larry (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I agree that in general, a redlinked entry in a list article is acceptable if a reference is provided showing strong evidence that the topic is likely notable. Especially when there is no hint of promotionalism. However, alumni lists are an area where I think there is general consensus among experienced editors that we want blue links on such lists. The risk of promotional editing in favor of non-notable people is just too high in this specific topic area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Larry, there are sometimes redlinks in notable alumni lists, but generally these are people who meet exceptions to GNG. You can show a baseball player or a judge is notable with one link. If notability is dependent on meeting GNG, it is generally better to write the article first to avoid reference clutter in the school article. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Concur with User:Cullen328 - there is general consensus that on alumni lists we want blue links. We have a lot of trouble with people adding themselves, some arguing that they will be famous soon, so "it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". In one case the school website had a list of every alumnus, and an editor was adding them all, citing the schools website - Arjayay (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the faster method for translate from German and Spanish wiki to English?

Regards Tomaguill (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tomaguill. Please read Wikipedia:Translation which should give you the answers you need. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

BUT, don't automatically translate the article and leave it that way, the automatic translation is to give you a start. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 19:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

there will always be subtle idiomatic items that need perusing. use a sandbox and get it right before making the new article Dave Rave (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I USE OFFICIAL SOURCES FROM AN EMBASSY! I think I,m using very reliable sources and they are not being accepted.

Hi; I used the official page of the Austrian Embassy Cultural program and the official magazine of the Spanish representation of Spanish woman in the visual arts, and they are not being accepted. Is this normal? I,d like to know why (I used in the article about Teresa de Marco, nominated to deletion for not reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_de_Marco Regards Tomaguill (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomaguill. Your two references are to articles written by the artist herself. These are not independent, reliable sources and so do nothing to establish the notability of this artist. Please read our notability guideline for artists and also Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources are OFFICIAL from the the AUSTRIAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTERY! and the AUSTRIAN EMBASSY IN BRATISLAVA (SLOVAK) https://www.bmeia.gv.at/europa-aussenpolitik/auslandskultur/kulturforen/kulturforum http://www.rakuskekulturneforum.sk/program/ OFFICIAL PROGRAM FOR 04 /APRIL http://www.rakuskekulturneforum.sk/program/ FINALLY OFFICIAL PROGRAM FOR 05/04 http://www.rakuskekulturneforum.sk/program/2017/04#!e:387 Tomaguill (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tomaguill: Of the four sources you cite above, the first one is a dead link (page not found), and the second and third do not mention the subject. The fourth is written in a language I do not understand, so I cannot comment on it - as Cullen suggested, was it written by the artist herself? Wikipedia is not particularly interested in what people have to say about themselves, no matter where that is published: the sources should be independent of the subject. And please TURN OFF CAPS LOCK on your keyboard when commenting. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Embed one infobox in another

I am trying to figure out how to embed an office holder info box (Infobox officeholder) to a scientific info box (Infobox scientist. I have tried to read up and I just do not understand how to do it.

I would then like to do the same thing in the Norwegian version of the page.

Thanks,

Ebba Ebba Tellander (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ebba Tellander to embed the infobox officeholder template into infobox scientist, you need to add | module =

and then add the infobox officeholder parameters between the $\wedge$ in the module.

John Infobox
Born	John Officeholder Person Infobox (1950-05-05)May 5, 1950 Template City
Died	October 10, 2010(2010-10-10) (aged 60)
Mayor of Wikipedia
In office 1994–1998
Website	example.com

For example, to create the infobox on the right, you would use the code:

{{Infobox scientist | name = John Infobox | image = Example.jpg | caption = John Infobox in 2005 | birth_name = John Officeholder Person Infobox | birth_date = {{Birth date|1950|5|5}} | birth_place = Template City | death_date = {{Death date and age|2010|10|10|1950|5|5}} | module = {{Infobox officeholder | embed = yes | office = Mayor of Wikipedia | term_start = 1994 | term_end = 1998 }} | website = {{URL|example.com}} }} Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

not all infoboxes will take or accept other infoboxes. check the use of module= or the other options. you might need to swap the order so the 1st is in the 2nd instead of the 2nd being in the first Dave Rave (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Images

Hi! I am currently writing a new article and I want to add some images. What should I do to upload the images in Wikipedia?

Wikipedian (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Faceless Wikipedian. A lot of relevant pages are linked to at WP:IMAGES, but I will try to give a short overview.

First, you should make sure that you are allowed to use those images; this means checking their copyright status. The rule of thumb is that if you did not create it yourself and took it from the web, it is probably copyrighted and cannot be used.

If the image is available under a license compatible with Wikipedia's (it must be a free license, but not all free licenses apply) you should upload it to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. Go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and follow the instructions to upload the file. If the image is not available under a free license but verifies the criteria listed at WP:NFCC (which is roughly the equivalent of "fair use" in US law, though a tad more restrictive), you can upload it on Wikipedia itself (not on Commons) by going to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.

Once the image is uploaded (either on WP or on Commons), it exists on the Wikimedia Foundation servers, but it does not appear in any article (yet). It can be included in articles by the use of the syntax detailed in Wikipedia:Picture tutorial (the most basic use is [[File:(name-of-your-image-including-the-extension)]]).

Let us know if you have further questions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

HELPPP

I enter the wikipedia and the menus and all of that is in a different language that google doesn't know! For example, instead of talk it says Heczaxo, instead of Preferences it says Hequaatlaac, Instead of redirected from it says meniitomoxde, google first said it was czech, then turkish, then spanish... help. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 10:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it only happens in the English wikipedia, i entered the spanish one and it's in spanish. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 10:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dashy. Make sure that Special:Preferences says "en - English" in the language box. You can use this link to see your preferences in English. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter now it's in English, I'm curious abou how it changed to that language. --Dashy (message me) (my contribs) 10:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Help Requested on a Biographical Article on a 22 years old Blind Prodigy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arjunabharti/sandbox On the basis of material collected from independent & unbiased print and electronic media, I have drafted the above Article about a young Blind Artist who has won many awards & competitions, and has helped in fund-raising for various charitable projects. I am doing so for him because although he is physically handicapped, he is contributing his mite for the Society at large. The sources for the information have also been cited in the above Draft. Please feel free to edit the above Article so that it meets the criteria for publication in Wikipedia. Thanks & Regards Arjunabharti (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arjunabharti. Without reading the draft in any depth, I note that large portions of text (including two whole sections) lack citations. Are those parts based on the sources you mention above? If so, you need to cite the sources using inline citations; if not, then the material doesn't belong in the draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I will try to help, although it seems like everything I put on here gets taken down. Let me know what I should doFilm Fanatical10069 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the text in a bit more detail, Arjunabharti, I think you need to reword parts of it to make it more neutral and less promotional. For instance, "Jugpreet is a multi-talented singer..." shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Some might regard him as "multi-talented", but that is an opinion that needs to be attributed to its source (e.g. "According to critic X, Jugpreet is a multi-talented singer..."). Similarly, "Jugpreet has already recorded a song..." - why "already"? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I now see that you have previously created the draft and had it reviewed at User:Arjunabharti/sandbox/Jugpreet Bajwa. When a draft is rejected, you should improve that version of it, rather than creating a duplicate like you have with User:Arjunabharti/sandbox. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry and Film Fanatical10069 for the valuable suggestions regarding Wikipedia's Practices, please. The needful has been done, and the Draft has been re-submitted.

The previous Page had to be recreated in order to solicit your advice because the previous page was simply deleted by the Administrator without pointing out the portions that were being objected to. Your Comments were more specific, please. Thanks & Regards Arjunabharti (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There are still two versions of this draft, at User:Arjunabharti/sandbox/Jugpreet_Bajwa and at User:Arjunabharti/sandbox. The former was rejected by a reviewer, and now has the reasons for the rejection listed at the top; the latter has been submitted for review. Maintaining two versions of a draft is not recommended as it can confuse the reviewer, and anyone else who tries to help. Maproom (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arjunabharti: Which page was deleted? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Review of Draft Capitol Hill United Methodist Church Washington DC

Is this draft sufficient to go live or does it need work? Draft: Capitol Hill United Methodist Church (Washington, DC)

Aliikai (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aliikai and welcome to the Teahouse. It is only two sentences long, so you have more work to do. We aren't a social media site that lists congregations. Wikipedia articles are about topics that are already well-known as shown by what has been written or said about them in reliable independent sources, in depth, not just mentions. Is the church an historic building? Has the congregation done things that has made them well-known? StarryGrandma (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(hmm? I guess it's changed now... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC))

@Aliikai:, it's fine. Move it to an article, so other people can make it better. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's still only two sentences long, and the references don't do enough to establish its notabilty. If it's moved to an article, it will be in danger of deletion. Better to improve it first, then move it to article space. Maproom (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well - opinions vary; that's a normal and healthy thing. I've never seen something like a Church be deleted; after all, it's in NY Times and records of Congress; I can't imagine it being speedy-deleted, and if nominated for a deletion discussion it would no doubt be improved. I like to make things live as soon as possible, because that's how Wikipedia works, lots of people editing it, etc. If it were an article about a company, or even about a person, then I'd say no. Anyway. Opinions vary; it's up to you, Aliikai, which route to take. It's fine if you want to develop it more as a draft. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

PS I searched a little, and I can see several other reliable sources; here are some links to help,

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 86.20.193.222 (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen articles on churches deleted because they don't pass our notability criteria. Its existence isn't enough. Nor probably are comments in the Congressional Record, where any Congressman can have their comments recorded and do to please their constituents. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly plenty of Congressmen close to this one :-)

And yes, I've seen that type of thing deleted too. But not like this; like I said, it wouldn't be speedy. And anything else should result in a google and lots of hits... 86.20.193.222 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)This turns out to be very interesting history. I feel Aliikai should write the history and not leave it to others. An encyclopedia should be history, not a directory listing. Leave out the list of clergy. The church began in 1802 and is now two large churches on the same block, one black, one white. Start with that. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I will look into the other sources mentioned. I was only looking for online news, but the books look like they may have good info. And yes, I was hoping that it would be ok to just start an article and hope that others take it up, but I may be the only one with enough interest to create the article even if there might be more interest for folks to read the article. Some of the other churches listed seem to only have a couple of sentences and are only notable because of their Historic building status. Seems to me they could use more information as to why they are historic. Mount Zion United Methodist Church (Washington, D.C.) 108.56.196.25 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin American Economies New Article

My draft for a latin american economies article is in my sandbox. I was wondering if someone can check it and give any suggestions. Danicroi (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Danicroi: Hi there. I assume you mean the article in User:Danicroi/sandbox, right?

Would you mind moving the parts about "For my english project..." elsewhere - for example, make User:Danicroi/Project or something?

Because it's easier to work on it if the entire page is the draft article, rather than meta-stuff.

I'll try to make comments about the article soon (maybe within an hour), and/or I'm sure other helpers here will take a look too. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(...a short time later...) Having read through it briefly, I advise you move it to a live article. It's generally good, it seems a valid topic and the references seem to check out (from brief reading only). I could make a lot of comments about suggested improvements, I could also edit it...but all of that is easier if it's live. Others will no doubt work on it too. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have made the article live. Welcoming all suggestions!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_Economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danicroi (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Danicroi. I see that you "moved" the article by copying and pasting what was in your sandbox. While I don't think this is necessarily a problem in this case as you were the only user to have edited the sandbox versio, in future you should use the move page feature to preserve the history of the original draft. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to 'Economy of Latin America' to bring it in line with Economy of Europe, Economy of Chile, etc. The current article should become a redirect. Dwaxe (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources in diffrent languages

Is it okay to cite sources written in a different language than the article or should try to find another sources written in english? ProjectSaver (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi ProjectSaver and welcome to the Teahouse. Foreign language sources are perfectly fine to use. If the same source in both English and another language, then it's recommended to use the English version, but otherwise just use the foreign language source. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing the performance of a hydraulic cylinder with a valve built in the cylinder's piston.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT A HYDRAULIC CYLINDER: a hydraulic cylinder extends or retracts at a speed where the pressurized oil supplied fills the expanding chamber of the cylinder. The oil is usually supplied by a fixed volume pump. This results in the cylinder's piston moving at the same slow speed (but with full available force) when acting a light or heavy load.

A cylinder with my piston valve extends faster against a light load, and then automatically changes to its slower speed, with full force capability. The numerical ratio of the piston area, divided by the piston rod area, is the same ratio between the faster speed and the slow, high force speed. I have built cylinders with ratios of 6, 8.5, 9.5, and 18.

When I use one of my cylinders in a press, since the oil can flow easily through the piston, I've found that a modest spring force can quickly return the piston to its starting position.

There is, in written hydraulic text books, on the subject of hydraulic cylinder regeneration-circuits, a circuit which is similar in principal to my piston valve cylinder. The difference is that their valve and piping are located outside of the cylinder. My valve and hole through the piston are located in the cylinder. The pressure drop resulting from the regenerative oil flow in my cylinder(passing through the piston) is much less than the pressure drop in other circuit where the oil must flow around the outside of the cylinder. The large pressure drop causes many problems in the external valve model.

QUESTION?; Is this subject suitable for me to write an article for Wikipedia? Any advice or help would be appreciated.

I have had difficulty describing this subject. I still have my old shop where i developed and made my cylinders. I have some cylinders which will operate. I have made some amateurish cam cord video, and I am learning to use a drawing program on my computer.

Little john 31 Little john 31 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, @Little john 31:. Sorry to say, that is not suitable for a Wikipedia article, because we don't allow original research. As an encyclopaedia, we only cover subjects that have already been extensively written about by other "reliable sources".

Unless your invention gets published in books and/or discussed in newspapers, it would fail our notability guidelines.

However, I hope you are not put off; with your knowledge, I'm sure you'd be a great help e.g. at WikiProject Engineering. Just make sure any edits you make are supported by a reliable source, and not your own knowledge. Cheers, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Little john 31. Wikipedia only includes articles about topics which are notable, which means that the topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. You seem to be describing your own original research, and one of our core content policies is that we do not publish original research but instead summarize what has been published elsewhere. I suggest that you write an article for a publication that covers mechanical engineering instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ Little john 31: Have you searched Google patents? Patents on the subject might provide some ideas about how you could describe your work. Best.Hymmolaya (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Basic editing question

Hi - I would like to edit some text on an article as I believe that it is incorrect. However, I was wondering whether I put this up on the talk page first to highlight the error and discuss it with the other editors, or do I simply go ahead and edit someone elses text. I wasn't sure what the etiquette was.

Thanks in advance for your help

Gallags6 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gallags6. In general, Wikipedia encourages users to be bold, and make changes that they think will help improve the article. If someone reverts your changes, which is always possible, the next step is to discuss it with them on the article's talk page and reach some sort of agreement. TimothyJosephWood 14:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tim for your advice. Ill go for it!

Gallags6 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gallags6: Timothyjosephwood is quite right. And the qualifier that is sometimes added to that guideline is "be bold but not reckless". The simple fact that you thought to ask here shows me that you obviously would put some thought into your edits, and base them on reliable sources. But if you think a change might be controversial, there is always the option to discuss it on the article's Talk page first. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

working on multiple drafts at once

Hi,

I am a new editor and participating in the Women in Red Archeology Task Force. I am currently working on the Archeology Redlist. I believe it may be more efficient for me to be working on a few archeologist drafts at a time.

I don't see any way of doing that with my one sandbox/draft area, unless I work on all the drafts in the sandbox. Please advise on the best way to work on multiple drafts.

Thanks MauraWen (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse MauraWen The safest way to work on draft articles is with the WP:AFC process so you could call your sandbox draft Draft:Helen Thomas Waterhouse for instance and create as many other drafts as you wish and they would be safe from speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You could also create multiple sandboxes, with names like User:MauraWen/xxyyzz. If you click on that link, you will reach a "non-existent page", but as soon as you type content into it, and click "Save", it will exist. Maproom (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A good way of doing it is, to edit your user page (which is User:MauraWen), and put links to pages like these;

== My Sandboxes ==

* [[User:MauraWen/Sandbox one]]

* [[User:MauraWen/Sandbox two]]

* [[User:MauraWen/Something else]]

The *'s make bullet-points. The names can be anything you like. Then when you click on "User" to see your user page, you'll have links to create and edit as many sandbox pages as you like. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

specifics about article

hi i'm new on wiki.i want to know few things about publishing an article / page.

1. how to publish a page or article without any mistake ? 2. if i write about a person can i copy the texts about him from his personal website, like his bio?

thank youIsbat raihan (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Isbat raihan:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added some links to basic guidance pages on your user talkpage. Please have a look, and feel free to come back here anytime if you are stuck and need more assistance. Creating an article can be difficult for new editors. When you are new to Wikipedia, editing other articles first and making smaller corrections and additions might be a good idea to get some experience with Wikipedia's formatting and content guidelines. But that's just a suggestion - if you want to try an article right away, see How to create your first article for a good overview. To your second question: texts from a person's personal website should generally not be copied for two reasons. Such content is copyrighted and cannot be used without the copyright owner's explicit permission. And, even if the owner grants permission, such content is usually not neutral enough to be used within an encyclopedic article and it may not be reliable. Valid limited usage of "self-published" sources is detailed at WP:SPS, but such content needs to be phrased in your own words. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

hi thank you for quick response @GermanJoe. before i try to publish something can you tell me if i do any mistake when publishing a page,can you advise me to fixed the exact issue if it gets rejected somehow?Isbat raihan (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Isbat raihan:, please sign your message only once at the end of your post. Signatures in edit summaries or elsewhere are not needed - and confuse the formatting :). To your question: when you follow the step-by-step guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article, it includes a link to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation. "Articles for creation" (or AfC) is a process, where other editors will review your draft article before it is getting "published" (moved) in main space. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

adding info

Dear all, Apologies, I'm a newcomer and unexperienced. I added a name of a Dutch female architect (not being myself) - Susanne Komossa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_architects

The system automatically generated a hyperlink on the name 'Susanne Komossa' and add information to the page. To make the info as complete as possible I added a draft text (unexperienced I saved the text).

Q1: is it prefered to add information about Susanne Komossa in the separate wiki page or can I just leave this blanc? And if the latter is prefered, how do I delete the text which I have now? Q2: The text about Susanne Komossa should not personal. Can I include a hyperlink linking info to the university page of Susanne Komossa or is this considered subjective? SusanNG (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SusanNG. The article you wrote, Susanne Komossa, has been nominated for speedy deletion. You must take quick action to add references to independent, reliable sources that show that this person meets our notability guideline for creative professionals. You may find Your first article to be helpful reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle editing tests

Hello. Just a quick question, what is 'editing tests' under twinkle's warn menu? Can I have an example too? Thanks! 09:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requiem II (talk • contribs)

Hi Requiem II, welcome to the Teahouse. Twinkle displays the name of the used templates. The description "Editing tests" is at {{uw-test1}}, {{uw-test2}} and {{uw-test3}}. Twinkle also has a "Preview" link you can use without saving. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Request feedback on article draft

My first article is in draft mode, I'd like to request feedback if it is ready to go live. There are 2 sources quoted in which one editor indicated they were not reliable sources. He also indicated I was "quoting a little too heavy." That said I was thinking I should just take those 2 online sources off and it would be acceptable and balanced. They are online blog articles from credible publications/organizations. Another editor stated I have properly shown the artists notability. Thank you for your time and feedback.Ktlnlindler (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ktlnlindler: The notability looks fine, so it should be acceptable. It's definitely very quote-heavy; for a start, I'd remove The award "honors a lifelong dedication... because that's info about the award, it's not info about the subject of the article. In general, try to use your own words instead of quoting so much - so you could say it's their lifetime award or highest award (if it is), but not their quoted blurb about it.

Remove the non-neutral/weasel word the groundbreaking Working South. I'd reduce the quotes by about half. It would look better if you split it into about 2 or 3 paragraphs. Add an {{infobox person}}.

But all of that is just prettying it up, it's perfectly acceptable; if you're feeling bold, you could move it to a live article yourself on the 18th, when your account is 4 days old - I doubt very much it'd be in danger of deletion. Or submit it and wait a bit longer for a reviewer.

Oh and, I'm not sure about those blogs; your call. You could ask on WP:RSN if they're acceptable as RS or not. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wdlcome to the Teahouse, Ktlnlindler. I agree that the artist is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article, and also that your use of quotations is excessive. I like using quotes in my articles, but I am careful to select quotes that include some uniquely colorful and insightful language that cannot be conveyed in neutral language summarizing the source that you write yourself. I endorse the suggestion of cutting the quotations in half. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Category

I am trying to create a category for page Henry W. Laster it needs to be linked with the category of LGBT: Male Actors.. Is there a way someone can help me post it there..

Conqueryourpc (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Conqueryourpc: Like this. You put articles into a category by putting [[Category:Whatever]] at the end of the article. The rest is automagic. And you don't need the colon at the front, in articles.

You only use a colon if you want to say the actual name of the category - for example, on this page here; if I was to write just [[Category:Cats]], it would put this page into the category and show nothing. (In my example there, I've used 'nowiki' to avoid that). But I can put Category:Cats with a colon. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Can a person post an autograph of a person if they have it?

04:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conqueryourpc (talk • contribs)

@Conqueryourpc: It's debatable, but generally only if the person is quite well-known for signing things - otherwise there are privacy concerns; also the copyright status of the image can be problematic. It's discussed in Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you make a box like the one on Sylvester Stallone page..like where its got his picture that kind of box.

TerraCoteHoda (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) ConquerYourPc

Figured out on my own... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

is there a code for efn's simlar to <ref name=whatever/>

Hi again folks! I know how to name a reference and simply insert <ref name=whatever/> into an article. I know how to use {{efn|statement}}, what I don't know is if there is a way to name an efn and use it repeatedly, easily, like a repetitively cited named reference. Do any of you know if this is possible? As always, thanks very much. DennisPietras (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Yup, you just use name=, see [2]. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. Yes, efn uses |name= and |group=. See Help:Footnotes#Template use by reference group type, the last example in that section. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to both! Great answers, and now I understand why some efn's end up being numbered instead of lettered! Why anybody would go out of their way to confuse readers by using numbered efn's and numbered ref's is syill a mystery to me, however! DennisPietras (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Lost a photo?

I uploaded a photo of an oil painting from a museum, and it didn't add to the page. When I try to re upload the image, the editor tells me that the image is already uploaded and that I'm trying to upload a duplicate. I can't locate the image I uploaded in order to place it in the article.Antifascistferret (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Antifascistferret. You can see your image uploads to Wikimedia Commons at this page. Click on the image of the painting, and an option to add the image to a wiki will appear. Click on that, copy the wikicode, and paste that code into the biography article. That will add the image to that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Antifascistferret. When you upload an image, a page for that image is created in Wikimedia Commons, a separate website from this one, English Wikipedia. You then have to add that image to the article you want in en.wiki using the method described above. I would guess you were looking for your image on en.wiki. John from Idegon (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's quite likely to be deleted from Commons, however, unless you can demonstrate that the painting is in the public domain. You've tagged it as "own work", but if you've photographed it in a museum it's clearly not your own work, and unless you can prove that the the artist has been deceased for 70 years this will be a copyright violation. ‑ Iridescent 17:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've got it worked out, thank you so much for explaining how this works, I appreciate it.Antifascistferret (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Antifascistferret: Which museum is the painting from (the name of the museum)? When was the painting created (just the year is fine)? Also, when was Lynnda E. Solfield alive (again, birth year and death year are fine)? I can't find any information about this painter. You can not take a picture of a painting and then claim it as your own when uploading it (even though you stated the artist). The painting may be under copyright protection still. Please add these further details so we can make sure copyright is not being violated here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference Antifascistferret, I have the same questions about the file and have asked for feedback c:COM:VP/C#File:Painting of Ginger Goodwin.jpg. I also posted on your Commons user page, so please provide anymore information you have about the artist who painted this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page help

Hello,

My name is Sara and I am the Public Relations Manager for Plant Therapy Essential Oils. I was hoping to create a Wikipedia page for our company but I am unsure what category "Essential Oils" should be under or how to go about creating this new page.

Thank you!

SaraBuddecke (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SaraBuddecke. You have done the right thing in disclosing your conflict of interest, both here at the Teahouse, and on your user page. Please be aware that it is very difficult for a new editor to write an acceptable encyclopedia article about their employer. Begin by reading our notability guideline for organizations and companies. Then, read and study Your first article. Both emphasize the importance of providing references to significant coverage of a company in reliable, independent sources. By far your most important step is to assemble a list of this coverage. If that type of coverage of your company does not exist, then the company is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Use the Articles for Creation process, so that a draft you write is reviewed by experienced, uninvolved editors before being added to the encyclopedia. Summarize what the range of reliable, independent sources say about the company. Do not include any trace of advertising or promotional language, and this is difficult for someone like you who is paid to make your company look good. The article must be written from the neutral point of view. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

concerning valid resources

The article for Min-on Concert Association was approved but reviewer said it needed independent, credible resources. Here are the current footnotes—not sure what is wrong with them:

• 1 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110904/ent/ent2.html
• 2 Fowler, Jeaneane Fowler, Merv (2008). Chanting in the hillsides: Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism in Wales and the Borders. Brighton: Sussex Academic. ISBN 978-1845192587...
• 3 Seager, Richard Hughes (2006). Encountering the Dharma : Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and the globalization of Buddhist humanism. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520245778.
• 4 
 Machacek, David; Wilson, Bryan (2003). Global citizens: The Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement in the world (Reprinted. ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780199240395.
• 5 Laurence, Felicity; Urbain, Olivier (2011). Music and solidarity questions of universality, consciousness, and connection. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412847841.
• 6 "About the Competition". Tokyo International Competition for Conducting. Min-on Concert Association.
• 7 Palmer, Arvin (1971). Buddhist Politics: Japan's Clean Government Party. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. p. 10. ISBN 9789401029964.

Stgrlee16 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stgrlee16. The reference from the group's own publication does not establish notability, since it is not independent. Several of your references are to books issued by university and academic publishers. In general, such books are considered the highest quality of reliable sources. The question is whether these books provide significant coverage of Min-on Concert Association, or are they passing mentions? You can include one or two sentence quotes from the sources, providing evidence that the coverage is significant. Include page numbers in your reference. Coverage that extends over several pages is evidence of significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

someone gave me feedback on talk tab of my article draft. no signagture

i dont know how to respond to the person since i dont know who they are. they left feedback about my article on the talk tab of my article draft page (my article is still waiting for review and approval or denial.) thanks. Annaweltman 19:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaweltman (talk • contribs)

Howdy @Annaweltman:.

Like any page, you can click on 'history' and see who-wrote-what-when. So, here, it shows that the commentator was 82.24.122.84 (talk · contribs).

Cheers! 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, I just noticed - they did actually sign the comment anyway. You probably didn't think it was a signature, because it was an IP user - that is, someone without the account, same as me. So their signature is the part saying,

82.24.122.84 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You can maybe contact them on their talk page; some people keep the same IP address for a long time. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Annaweltman: Or reply on the article's Talk page, which keeps the whole conversation in one place. To send a notification to them, start off your reply with "{{ping|86.20.193.222}}" (as I did here, for your notification). Then finish off your reply with four tildes (~~~~) to sign your message. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, ping doesn't work for IP users. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, 86.20.193.222 - in that case I suggest replying on the article's Talk page, and dropping a quick note on the IP User's Talk page to alert them to that discussion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Good user page

Can you say how to make a good user page? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adityavagarwal. There is some advice at WP:UP about what you can an cannot have on your userpage, so it's worth reading through there first. We do have a User page design center, which contains various graphical codes you can use, or you can just pick a user whose userpage you like and copy the pertinent bits. As long as you comply with WP:UP, you can pretty much do what you like! Yunshui ^雲_水 13:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Top tip, find a nice one and copy it. I mean, not entirely 'copy', but you can steal their code, changing pictures or whatever. Click on a few more experienced users - like user:Yunshui, above - to get ideas. Then "steal" them :-) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC) I mean, it'd be nice to say "I stole your idea, hope you don't mind..." but nobody ought to object too much.

Yeah, I would "steal" them :). Also, the userpages of user:Yunshui and many people are not colourful. :P I remember seeing a few really decorative userpages, so if you find any, can you say to me too? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had several people copy the scrolly bar thing on mine, and I don't mind. I stole it from somebody else anyway...☺ White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it does not even matter right? Atleast the userpage looks good. I was anyways planning to take user:Timothyjosephwood, his style of writing signatures. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that page really had quite a bit. I knew much of them, however, from the questions asked by others. :D Yeah, I can just grab a userpage and stick it on my userpage, that would be a cool idea. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal, see also Wikipedia:User page design center. Unfortunately we don't seem to have something similar for signatures. Also, the problem with my own signature is that the markup for it is so long, that I don't have room to include links to both my talk and user pages. I plan on fixing that eventually, but I haven't yet. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you so much for the link. :) Also, I guess I should leave the plan for now. :P After the markup thing is done, then it might be a good idea. :D Also, yeah, the html included for the font thing is a lot by you. That looks nice. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I like a challenge. I think you can wrap a div around it, to avoid duplicating the font part. So, two linkys;

<div style="font-family:Impact;">[[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;">Timothy]]</span><span style="color:#6f3800;">Joseph</span>[[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#422501;">Wood]]</span></div>

TimothyJosephWood

224 characters; your current sig with one link is 210. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Done and done. In my defense, I learned HTML before 4.0 was ever released.

TimothyJosephWood

17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Editors working together???

I recently observed two editors communicating this on their Talk page (See quote below). Can I do this too? Can I implicitly invite other editors to go to certain pages? Can I implicitly invite them to remove certain edits?

Quote:"Sungenis et al.

Thanks for your help. If you feel so inclined, there are also a lot of primary-sourced bits at Michael Voris's BLP which we might find to remove. End QuoteTachyon1010101010 (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tachyon1010101010. This is a collaborative project and it is completely appropriate to openly communicate with fellow editors encouraging improvement of various articles. It is not appropriate, though, to form organized factions of editors to push a specific point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely! 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:57, 15 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)

@Shameran81: Search links should not be added to stubs or articles. You can add {{find sources}} to an unsubmitted draft if you remove it before submitting. It produces an error message in articles but can be added to talk pages. If you omit |ARTICLE TITLE then the name of the page is automatically used. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Special Contributor: and @PrimeHunter: for the quick responses and code. Shameran81 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there is

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)

Excellent advice. Thanks again! RM2KX (talk) 12:38, 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)

@JoeTooSerious: NFOOT says "playing in fully professional leagues", which may not be the same as "is a professional player". Admittedly I am a bit out of my depth here to tell where that particular case falls. Maybe you could ask at WT:FOOTY? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. They help me (as a newbie) to better understand the process. The subject has played in two professional games (Scotland & Czech Republic) and as of 9pm tonight, will have signed a professional contract and will be paid to play full time for all of 2017 (Arp-Nov) in a fully recognized professional league sanctioned by the USUSA. Unless I'm missing something, I've satisfied WP:PAID, WP:FOOT and WP:PEACOCK. If you see anything that is suspect, please let me know and I will edit. Thanks again! JoeTooSerious (talk) 13:27, 16 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)

Which noticeboard should be used for disputes regarding UNDUE? It's unclear from extensive discussions to-date which aspect of UNDUE might be in question. Thx Humanengr (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: It's usually best to keep all of the discussions on the talk page of the article, all in one place. You can post on noticeboards and ask for participation, pointing to that discussion. If the discussion gets split over several locations, it can be very difficult for people to follow.

The usual noticeboards to ask for input on UNDUE would be WP:RSN and, for living people, WP:BLPN.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:30, 15 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)

@AddWittyNameHere Thank you for your explanations. The link is now fixed! Source editor continues to humble me but I think it is getting somewhat clearer with the explanations that you and others have offered. Thank you.Silver Water (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Silver Water: You're welcome! I'm glad to hear so. Wiki-markup (the whole shebang of 'fancy stuff' like references, categories, links and wikilinks and section headers and such) can be a bit of a steep learning curve; you'll eventually get used to it, though. :) If you have any other questions, never hesitate to ask them. We've all had to learn one way or another—no one is born knowing wiki-markup. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:22, 15 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)

Ah... @David Bilddulph. Thank you so much. Now the link works. It just didn't occur to me that the acute accent would make so much difference. After multiple tries of a variety of options, it is finally linking exactly where I want it to. Thank you so much!

I can explore how to add photos now.

Thank you again for your brief and clear instructions.Silver Water (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help creating a page

I want to create a page but there isn't any red letter link when i type what i want to make a page out of into the search engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Eckelkamp (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kevin Eckelkamp: Hi, welcome.

Please try WP:WIZARD, which will guide you through the process.

Good luck, and please don't hesitate to ask for more help, any time. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure Isn't Working

Hi, I'm new, and I tried the Wikipedia Adventure, but it isn't working. More specifically: the links of the missions don't work and the Adventure is only on half the page, the other half is white. Is that because I'm on a mobile device, or is there another problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSoulTheBlogger (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @DarkSoulTheBlogger:

I'm sorry to say, The Wikipedia Adventure uses rather 'non-standard' elements, and I'm not suprised about problems with it on a mobile device.

Maybe one day you can get use of a desktop or laptop for an hour or so. It's worth it;

But meanwhile, I suggest the alternative, Help:Getting started. And for anything else, please ask again. Good luck! 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. @Cullen328:, you know a lot about mobiles. Any comments? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DarkSoulTheBlogger. I do most of my editing using an Android smart phone. I use the desktop site on my phone rather than the mobile site, which in my experience gives me full functionality in miniature form. I have never gone through the Wikipedia Adventure, though. I was already am experienced editor when that was introduced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure says: "Unfortunately, this game is not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices." It was added 4 September 2015.[3]PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh my, I just tried the Adventure with the visual editor function enabled: It trashes quite a bit of it.

Also that warning at the bottom of the page, maybe the warning needs to be moved to the top?

It is really is a nice introduction, and I hadn't seen it until I saw these posts. Endercase (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I use Wiki Markup?

On most pages, my bane is having to use VisualEditor to edit pages, which can be annoying, because it doesn't provide clear examples that I can relate to (e.g. the markup for an Infobox is not present on any pages in VisualEditor, but on many sites that still use Wiki markup have the code). And there are many variants of this format (being different sites), so I can't rely on any one site to give me the clear markup used on Wikipedia. However, on this page I can use markup. Why is this? Is this a thing, just for Teahouse questions? Or is there an option for this? If so, where can I find it? Is there a video tutorial for it? If so, where can I watch it? Which all boils down to: How do I use wiki markup on Wikipedia pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X4nMan20O() (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@X4nMan20O(): if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing there's a drop down menu of options to chose visual editor, source editor (markup editor), both or remember last choice. You can change to your heart's content. There's a primer on using the source editor at Help:Wiki markup. Nthep (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

How do I ask for feedback on my draft?

Hi, I've drafted my first entry and I'm wondering if I can find some good editors to give me kind feedback.

Thanks, OfTheSea — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfTheSea (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can choose whether to ask your question here or at the Help Desk, but you shouldn't ask the same question in both places as that is liable to waste the time of editors answering a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a WIKIPEDIA page

I really need your help. I HAVE A CLASS ASSIGNMENT THAT WE HAVE TO CREATE A WIkipedia page about a local female leader who is not famous but has contriBute to the community can be even your mom...I have some information on one local leader but I finds it hard to createn a Wikipedia page for her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice Gonelevu (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please tell your teacher that we have specific guidelines for articles. I will post more information on your talk page, which you can show to your teacher. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, their user page has been nominated deletion. Endercase (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

how to download a song

How to download a song — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toffer77 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Toffer77: That's not what we're here for. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing a page title / url to updated name

I have found an article for an organization whose name as changed since the creation of the page, INCITE!_Women_of_Color_Against_Violence. Source for new name. The talk page has addressed this before, although I cannot edit the title in visual or source editor. It seems that the url will have to be changed as well, and probably all of the wikilinks linking to this project. Im a bit over my head in how to do this. Could you redirect me to a page that has instruction on this kind of edit???