Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How to present new evidence on a historical house

Long standing tradition says that the Clement Weaver House, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Weaver>, was built in 1679. I have new dendrochronology evidence that shows the house could not have been built before 1707.

As a first edit to a Wiki page, I added a section to the page on this study and its results, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Weaver%E2%80%93Daniel_Howland_House#Dendrochronology_Results_Dating_House_to_1707>.

Because this is a controversial finding, I did not change the main page, but rather added these new findings at the end.

My question to the experts is whether this is a reasonable method, or should I do this in another way.

Thanks! Cottonwood125 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

people

Hi

Can you create an article about a specific person? i.e. their lives journey success etc? SxeFitStudios (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How to submit extensive changes on a talk page

I have a conflict of interest and have extensive changes to submit on a wiki page and am unsure of how to make this clear when the edits are on a talk page.

Most of the text is new text. There is also a lot of text that I would like to propose to be deleted, either because it is obsolete, irrelevant or has been re-written and some current text that has been moved.

Because the changes are extensive, I don't know how to submit this information on a talk page without making it too confusing.

My proposed changes are in a new section on the talk page. Should I:

1. cut and paste a clean version of the text with footnotes. 2. somehow show the new text with the old by perhaps italicize the current text and marking the current text for deletion with brackets? The new text would be in regular font.

I have a legal black line copy which clearly shows text added, deleted, moved from and moved to. Ideally, it would be very helpful if I was able to make this document available to the reviewers and simply post new text as a clean copy.

Any suggestions?BluebirdHill5 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi BluebirdHill5 - Firstly, thank you for not editing the page where you have a conflict of interest.
I have reviewed a number of such "re-writes" and the difficulties of the neutral reviewer when faced with large scale alterations are:-

1. Assessing whether there is a change of emphasis, or an attempt to "skew" the article
2. Coping with a large number of changes, when multiple references may need to be read, in order to verify that the references used support the proposed changes

We are all volunteers and, as someone who may be called away at any time, I cannot dedicate myself to a long, intricate, review, and I am sure many other editors are the same.
IMHO it may be better to concentrate on the main problems with the article initially, and then deal with minor items as several separate requests. The problem with extensive changes is that, if the reviewing editor disagrees with any part of the proposal, the whole may be rejected. Furthermore, understanding the major amendments, allows the minor amendments to follow on logically, whereas, if the first amendments are minor, and appear to conflict with the rest of the article (as the major changes have not been implemented) they may be rejected as illogical. Good luck - Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay.

Even if I break down the edits to smaller sections, how would you suggest that I note the language to be deleted and why? If this were done on the actual page, you could delete, provide a note for the deletion, and insert new language.

When you provide a citation on the talk page, is a citation number assigned to the reference once it is accepted?BluebirdHill5 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Lost draft of article

Can't find a draft of an article I was working on yesterday - where should I look?SDAcord (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SDAcord, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find a list of all pages you have edited here: your contributions. Perhaps this is the draft you are looking for: User:SDAcord/How to create a wikipedia article – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

help to improve my frist article in en.wikipedia

My first draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Videoart_at_Midnight was declined with the following reason: This draft reads more like an advertisement for the art exhibition than like a neutral Wikipedia article.

So I deleted two sentences "The entrance is free. Everybody is welcome" and paragraph "Edition" which sounds probably most like an advertisement. Now it's actually just the translation of the German Wikipedia version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoart_at_Midnight.

I resubmitted the new draft.

If it still sounds like an advertisement, please let me know. Or please don't hesitate to make corrections. I'm not a native English speaker and certainly need help for a serious wikipedia article.

Two third of the visitor of the platform and also of the web site are english speaking. A lot from US. I think it is relevant and worth to be mentioned also on en.wikipedia

Looking forward to getting your comments.

Best Bueschinger Bueschinger (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Bueschinger, It looks pretty good to me, except the German article has more references. I think you've got it neutral and it doesn't read like a commercial now. By the way, if you have a source for the "it's free and everybody is welcome" it wouldn't be advertising if you phrased it in a neutral way like, "no admission fee is charged." White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thank you for the positiv feedback. I added: Admission is free and open to the public. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bueschinger (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That sentence should probably be accompanied by a reference to a reliable source, Bueschinger, as White Arabian Filly suggested. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, when you translate an article from one language variant of Wikipedia to another, you need to acknowledge the original article in an edit summary, as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects. I will edit the article now and make a note of the translation for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

additions not accepted

I try to place some open source systems on the List of home automation software page. This does not work. I think I don't understand the concept.

Can you help me? Derk van der Wal (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

According to this, your additions are being reverted because you keep adding links to articles that were "deleted some time ago." Although I see that you are working on a draft for an article about openHAB, it currently suffers from some sourcing problems. My recommendation for that is to:

• gather professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are unaffiliated with openHAB.
• narrow it down to the highest-quality ones that are specifically about openHAB. This does not include entries in "lists of (whatever) software," or sources about something else that happen to mention openHAB in passing. Even sources about people affiliated with openHAB do not work.
• summarize those highest-quality sources, then arrange those summaries into paragraph form. If there is not enough material to form at least one paragraph, then the subject may not be notable.
• post just that version first and wait for that to be approved. After it is approved, then start expanding it with additional and/or affiliated sources (but still excluding ad-like listicles like "best (whatever) software of [year]").

Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Derk,

As you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_home_automation_software&action=history it does accept your changes but MrOllie undoes them. Maybe it is because there doesn't exist any pages for the addition you make. Maybe you should first add a page for your addition and then add it to the list. In any case, it is a good idea to just ask MrOllie why he undoes your changes.

Best Alireza1357 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Where can I make a suggestion for the "Wikipedia languages" on the "Main Page"?

Hi,

I'm new here, so sorry if this is something obvious. I don't know where to ask the following question/make the following suggestion, so any help would be much appreciated.

I noticed that the quantity-based categorization of languages on the bottom of the main page contains a one million, a 250 thousand category, and a 50 thousand category.

Since some of the languages categorized as having more than 250 thousand pages have now more than 500 thousand, including Persian, Arabic, and Portuguese (nearing one million), and considering that there is a wide gap between 250 thousand and one million, it would be appropriate to add a 500 thousand category for listing these languages. This would encourage language diversity and add to Wikipedia's common knowledge and neutrality (As an Iranian, it would make me proud too :).

Where can I make this suggestion? Love Alireza1357 (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I suspect that's probably an issue for Meta-Wiki (which is about as far as I can guide you there as I never log in over there). I don't think en-wiki has control over this main page, just this one. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might have more info on what to do over there (or someone over there who is already familiar with Meta-Wiki might want to go there with you), though I'm still pretty sure it'd have to be brought up on Meta eventually. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alireza1357, welcome to the Teahouse. Ian thought you meant https://www.wikipedia.org but you are clearly asking about Main Page#Wikipedia languages. Requests can be posted to Template talk:Wikipedia languages. The limits are sometimes changed. They are chosen to give a reasonable length to each list. meta:List of Wikipedias shows six from 500,000 to 1,000,000. The editors of the template may consider that too little for a separate line. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Where to check the validity of specific references

Hello! I would like to know if there is any section where I can consult about the validity (or not) of a source as a reference, for different topics of specific items (for example, websites valid as a source for articles on software). I ask that because sometimes we want to edit articles on specific topics (science, technology), which will not appear in the mass media, but in specialized webs of the sector, which we may not know and do not know if they are renowned, or if they are respected within of that specific area of knowledge.(I think I have seen a section where some media were discussed and listed as reliable, I do not remember where) Thanks!Ane wiki (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Aloha and welcome to the Tea House. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask the community at large about reference issues. Happy Editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Ane wiki (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My article was deleted?

I just created my first wikipedia.org article - for "Memoriad". The article had already existed but had been previously been deleted for being like an advert (and I agree).

The new page I made is 100% original wikipedia content, cited extensively, and definitely not like the original content. The only problem I see is that it is short (I only worked on it for 1-2 hours) but of course can be expanded by anyone.

However, it was deleted immediately under G4 (replacing a deleted page with very similar content or content that has the same problems as the deleted page) with the comment "this has even less substantial content than the previous version".

I don't see why this is a G4 deletion, and I don't see why the correct procedure here is not to continue adding content and improving the style, like surely every other Wikipedia page.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, or can offer advice, I'd appreciate it, otherwise it feels like 2 hours wasted! Daniel16056049 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have G4'd it but I do see why one might tag it for that.

My advice for writing any article is to:

• Gather as many professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources as you can find.
• Narrow the sources down to just the ones that are specifically about the subject (e.g. an article in a newspaper specifically about it) or provide in-depth coverage (a whole chapter in a book) -- but have no direct connection to the topic (so not the Memoriad website)
• Summarize and paraphrase those sources in a simple text editor that removes all formatting (I use Microsoft Notepad).
• Rearrange those summaries into a paragraph or paragraphs. If you can't make a paragraph out of all of it, the subject might not be notable.
• Start the article with just that paragraph or paragraphs, then pad it with additional sources that don't have a connection but aren't as in-depth. Only add sources connected to the subject last, and try to never let them take up more than a quarter of the references.

It's generally best to ignore previous versions of any article except to gather any sources that were used (and only if they're high-quality). It takes a bit more work before hand but the first version you put onto the site will clearly establish undeniable notability and so make it very hard to delete. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Daniel16056049. De728631 is the best person to explain the situation in detail, since they deleted the article.

In my opinion, the three most important elements needed for creating a Wikipedia article that will be kept are:

1. References to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and
2. References to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and
3. References to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Everything else is secondary and can easily be corrected if the references are rock solid. And no amount of sophisticated editing can make up for weaknesses in the references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion

its about "mozavi technologies" page that i created just now but it is showing "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic."

what can i do to resolve this??

Mozavi (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably nothing as there are no references.... see WP:SPAMMER for some suggestions. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Please also see:

1. Your first article.

I hope this will help you. Please let us know if you have any question. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I reproduce the template on the Loara High School page

Hi, I am new as an editor to Wikipedia. I wanted to add someone to the article "Loara High School" section "Notable alumni" but when I do the entry ends up in black font. I would like it to look like all the others (which are in blue font). How do I do this? Thank you!!!! David H. Davidhhelman (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The blue font shows that we have an article on that person (linked like this). Please check whether the person you want to add is WP:Notable. Dbfirs 20:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Presuming that this was your attempt to add the name, Davidhhelman, then it did show up as a link in blue. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Davidhhelman, if you had already visited the page you were trying to add, Terri H. Finkel, it would have shown up in a deeper shade of blue, which you may have mistaken for black. Rojomoke (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox retrieval

Hello again! I'd like to ask about how I can get rid of the redirect page that has taken place of my Sandbox. Note that the original article has been created. The article in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaharituber_pfeilii. AWearerOfScarves (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi AWearerOfScarves. I have deleted your sandbox to free it up for recreation by you for a new topic with a clean start page history. You could have requested this by editing the page and placing {{Db-u1}} or {{Db-userreq}} at the top and saving (see WP:U1). To access a page that is a redirect, one way is to navigate to that title, then when you are redirected, you will see at the top of the page you arrive on, just below the title: (Redirected from NAME) Click on the link and you will acess the redirect. By the way, there's no actual need to use that sandbox. You can simply create a sandbox at a dedicated User space draft in your user or user talk namespace at an intuitive name for the topic you are writing about. For example, if you wanted to write about "Widgets", you can create a draft at User:AWearerOfScarves/Widgets. (You can also create drafts in the draft namespace.). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!AWearerOfScarves (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Constant edit count update?

Hey guys, The Phase Master here. I want to insert my edit count, but I want it to automatically update itself. How do I go about doing that?

Thanks, The Phase Master 19:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Phase Master. I don't believe there is a way of doing this. If there is, you will probably find it at Help:Magic words or one of the pages linked from there. It may be possible to write a Lua module to do it, I don't know: see WP:LUA. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine that this probably isn't possible at present, The Phase Master. If it was, I'm sure a lot of editors would use it on their user pages, and I don't recall ever having seen such a live count. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: User:UBX/LiveEditCounter makes a link to a tool displaying the count. Users can install a script which automatically displays the count when they view the userbox but only 35 users have done that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should ask if this can be created. In that case, where should I redirect my call?

The Phase Master 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: Past suggestions have been rejected. See phab:T32353 for a declined request to add it to the core software, and Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots#Bots to update edit counts for updating it regularly with a bot. mw:Extension:Editcount can do it but isn't installed here and may not be for performance and other reasons. The only mention I found is User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 59#EditCountBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Contents box

Hi, I"m Otto. I would like you to tell me how can I get the contents box to appear automatically when I am creating a new article, cause it doesn't show up with me no matter how many titles there are. Thank you in advance. Otto Sheva2 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Otto Sheva2. The table of contents is automatically generated when an article includes four or more headers. Looking at the articles you've edited recently, it doesn't seem like any of them have headers at all, so that's why the table of contents isn't generating, there's just no content to generate them. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sub group in a Wikiproject

Hi! I would like to create a sub-category in the Wikiproject/mammals for bats, like the one already existing for Primates, Rodents, etc. Can I just edit the page of the Wiki project and add the section on bats? Or should I contact a specific person part of the Wikiproject Mammals? I had a look to the Wikiproject Council, but I could not find the solution about my question. I mainly would like to avoid to not respect the rules of the wikiproject/mammals, as I am hoping to have some members to support my sub-group. Thanks in advance! Fulup56 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fulup56. The talk page for the mammals project is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Volleyball

Can we please play volleyball? ChristopherGozling (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello ChristopherGozling. Wikipedia is on the internet, so it is hard to play volleyball here. Also, if you continue with edits such as this, you will be the prey in the "block a vandal" game played by administrators. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the number of sources required before an individual is deemed to be notable?

Hi, I received your comment earlier on Draft: Bahren Shaari. Can I check what is the minimum number of sources I should have before the individual is deemed to be notable?

Thanks

Oywl (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not the number of sources that matters, it's whether they are reliable, independent of the subject, and discuss the topic in depth (not just a mention). See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidance. My personal opinion is that you are not far off establishing notability, but some of your references are just mentions. Try replacing those with ones that discuss in depth. Dbfirs 07:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Oywl. I don't think that the editor who reviewed Draft:Bahren Shaari is a Teahouse regular, but we can help you understand the rules. "How many sources do I need to cite for notability" is a "how long is a piece of string" type of question. What is required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Tens of sources that only mention the subject in passing likely don't count as significant coverage, whereas two or three in-depth profiles in national newspapers, for instance, would probably do the job. See WP:GNG for more information on the requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I have a better sense now. Will give it another stab on beefing up the content with credible and in-depth sources.

Oywl (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

getting onto wiki

hi there. got your email, so would you be able to help us with getting a couple of names onto wikipedia? Geofftsui (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geofftsui. By e-mail, are you referring to an e-mail notification about the Teahouse invite on your talk page? I'm just checking as there have been instances of users being e-mailed with offers of help to get articles on to Wikipedia, which have turned out to be scams. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geofftsui. Is it your custom to refer to yourself in the plural, or do you represent some organisation? Wikipedia allows only personal accounts. If that is your personal account, please see WP:Autobiography. Dbfirs 07:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

One more point, Geofftsui. Apologies if I'm misinterpreting your words, but "getting names onto Wikipedia" sounds to me as if your purpose is to make some names more widely known, i.e. to promote them. Please note that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia, and if you come here with that purpose, you are likely to have a rough ride. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which have already been written about in depth in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is my page going to be deleted?

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

I've done everything right!

Thank you.

Alibyte (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alibyte. PIVX has been nominated for deletion but no final decision has yet been made. The issue is whether or not there is enough significant coverage of PIVX in independent, reliable sources to establish that this company is notable. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You are free to argue in favor of keeping the article in the deletion debate, but it would be a good idea to mention that you wrote the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Alibyte: you have not "done everything right". For an article to be accepted, it needs to cite several reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. None of the sources currently cited is independent. For the article to avoid deletion, someone will have to find and cite some independent sources. Maproom (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

<pre> versus <source>

Suppose a programming source text is to be included in an article. If syntax highlighting is available for the language, then <source lang=language> is reasonable. Is there a recommendation where syntax highlighting is not available? Any objection to <pre> rather than <source>? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi PeterEasthope and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style#Code samples for recommendations. You can also use ... around text that you want to display rather than have parsed as in this question. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations within templates

Hi (again). How do you add a reference inside the infobox videogame template? AWearerOfScarves (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if that sounded a bit... blunt?AWearerOfScarves (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey AWearerOfScarves. You add refs to inboxes just like everything else, right in the parameter. For example:


{{Infobox video game
| developer = Really Awesome Games<ref>{{cite web|title=This really awesome game we made|url=https://www.realyawesomegames.com/thisreallyawesomegame|website=Really Awesome Games|accessdate=2 April 2017}}</ref>
}}


Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!AWearerOfScarves (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating anti Vandal Bots for Wikia.

HI! I own a wiki over on Wikia (littleshop.wikia.com) for Little Shop Of Horrors, right now I run AWB to operate my Bot, but I'd like it to be automatic and always checking for Typos and Vandals...does anyone know some software for that, thats preferably a .jar file or in a .zip folder? I currently run Windows 10. Thanks!FiveCraft (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi FiveCraft. As far as I am aware, Wikia.com & Wikipedia are not the same wiki, so they do not use the same bots & software. Though I am skilled in technology & such, I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask. Cypher7850 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FiveCraft. The Teahouse a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia - and more specifically than that, the English-language Wikipedia - so I'm afraid we're not well placed to help with technical questions about Wikia, which is an entirely separate website. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about Super Mario Bros. and Mario Wiki

About Super Mario Bros. series user Mario jc blocked in Mario Wiki me and my edited articles such as Ground, and I can't contact Mario jc. How to contact that user? Yoshi22222myl (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC) ==i m know about teahouse. Really by not me. MARIOFANFULL878 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Yoshi22222myl:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Volunteers here can only help with questions directly related to the English Wikipedia project for an online encyclopedia. Other "Wiki" sites are completely unrelated to this one, and generally have their own administrators and/or help desks. Improvements and new content for the English Wikipedia are appreciated, but please make sure to read some of Wikipedia's content guidelines first (i.e. articles need independent reliable sources (WP:V) and should cover "notable" encyclopedic topics (see WP:GNG)). Hope that helps. I have edited your header a bit to improve the section's formatting. GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also read the advice from other editors in previous threads (further down on this Teahouse page) and on your user talkpage. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Search engines cannot find page "Albert Fredrick Ottomar Germann"

I created the page "Albert Fredrick Ottomar Germann." Several links on other pages open "Albert Fredrick Ottomar Germann," but Firefox, Google and Yahoo fail to find the page itself. Searches on those engines find pages that link to "Albert Fredrick Ottomar Germann" but not to the main page. George Fleck (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This is probably because the article has not yet been reviewed, and therefore carries a tag warning Google and other search engines not yet to index it. By the way - the first five of the article's six references are to works written by the article's subject. It therefore does not cite enough independent references to establish that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me improve my first article?

Hi all;

I recently submitted my first Wikipedia page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Gordon_Stanton.

It was rejected, but then accepted. (Phew!). But it needs improvements. I'm a mathematician, not a writer, and I could use help to get it to the next level. I welcome any and all advice anyone has the time and inclination to give!

Edit: I found the page where the problems were listed - I did not achieve a neutral point of view and I heavily paraphrased from one article. I'm embarrassed if it seems I plagiarized - I wanted to make sure everything I included was factually accurate. I'm afraid that if I move too far away from the sources I found, I will worsen the point of view, so I'm unsure how to proceed.

MathsandStuff (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey MathsandStuff. The article actually looks pretty damned good for your first submission, and contrats on getting it published. I would probably note that good article isn't always synonymous with long article, and many articles are simply better shorter, especially in cases where there are pretty clear limits on the amount of information that's available, rather than being filled with lots of fluff that doesn't really add much other than word count.

The full guidance on close paraphrasing it at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, in case you haven't been linked to it, but the overall idea is that information itself isn't usually covered by copyright. Rather, what is covered is the original presentation of that information. So the presentation on Wikipedia has to be a significant enough original presentation on your part as an editor, that you can legally release it for public use under our Creative Commons license. If you're in a situation where there will be significant loss of context or vital information, or when in doubt, it's usually better to use direct quotes, although those quotes have be sufficiently short to themselves not be copyright violations.

Since this seems to be your area of interest, I would also encourage you to consider getting involved over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, where there's no shortage of work to be done and a pretty active community to do it. It may also be helpful to check out our pretty comprehensive guidance at Wikipedia:Writing better articles. TimothyJosephWood 15:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style: Bold text

I'm pretty sure I need to make a few changes, but please let me know if I'm wrong. I've been inserting the name Bogus Legislature in a few articles, in bold script like I have it here, but should I be using <em>...</em> or ''...'' instead, to make it in italics? The only article where I think it should stay bold is at Kansas Legislature, where I've created a redirect to it from a blank page on the subject. Am I right? RM2KX (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RM2KX, and welcome to the Teahouse. It should definitely not be in bold in any other article (except for Kansas Legislature) because of the way bold is used on Wikipedia. There is a difference between <em>...</em> and ''...'' tags: em is for emphasis ("This house is very big."), while ''...'' tags are for all other kinds of italics ("I read The New York Times every morning.") For Bogus Legislature, I see no reason to use either. It's a proper name, and proper capitalization is enough to signal that. It's not the kind of proper name that requires italics or quotemarks per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Names_and_titles or MOS:QUOTETITLE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! RM2KX (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking if i'm are not online, message appears my IP address can by blocked. How to fix it?

Yoshi22222myl (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking, but you seem to be under the impression that you could be blocked from editing. Looking at your contribution history, it appears you have a few things to learn about how Wikipedia works, but if you take the time to learn what Wikipedia editors are expected to do, you can become a valued contributor. Welcome to the Teahouse, Yoshi22222myl; we're here to help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If you always log on then you will not receive messages intended for possibly someone else using your IP address. Sorry you had to welcome yourself, someone else should have done so, but the welcome message has lots of guidance about using Wikipedia. I'm not clear whether you are trying to add content "about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally" or whether the content is factual. It needs to have been written about in WP:Reliable sources before being included here, and needs references. Dbfirs 07:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Southern

I want to add three Southerners to the "Politicians and office holders" category under the Conservatism in the United States article. These three are John Taylor of Caroline, John Randolph of Roanoke, and Nathaniel Macon. Do I have any authorization for this ?Thanos54! (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thanos54. It cannot be possible to include every single notable conservative politician to that list in the article, since the list would be unmanageably long. The list must be limited to a reasonable number of people who have had a major formative influence on the development of the conservative movement. I notice that adding various people had been controversial in the past. My recommendation is to propose your additions on Talk:Conservatism in the United States in order to gain consensus from the other editors interested in that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How long should an RFC run

I removed the word "ultramicroscope" from the lead of the Microscope article. It is not verifiable, lacks references, and is not mentioned anywhere else in the Microscope article, or even in its own article. I got reverted multiple times and called a liar for saying it's not anywhere else in the article (it isn't) and told it's being discussed on the talk page (it wasn't being).

So, as a courtesy to other editors I opened an RFC on an article that isn't being edited about whether or not we should keep an unsourced statement that isn't covered anywhere else in the article or on Wikipedia, or anywhere besides the places that have copied it from Wikipedia, in the lead of the article.

How long does one usually discuss something like this, keeping a random, unverifiable statement in a science article?

With so many articles needing work, including worse in this article, why are editors fighting to keep random unsourced statements in articles? I usually add sources with everything I add, is that a waste of time? I edit on a cell phone and could clean up 50 articles in the time it has taken to try to remove one unsourced statement. Although I got very irritated, I don't understand why my original edit edit request was drive-by rejected. Are the any science editors on Wikipedia?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The word "ultramicroscope" no longer appears in the lead of Microscope so your immediate concern is moot. However, our article Ultramicroscope indicates that such a thing exists, so it is not outlandish that an editor may reasonably believe that it belongs in that article. Your defensive responses to messages left on your talk page may have escalated the situation a bit. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors and do your very best to resolve disputes. The purpose of an RFC is to seek input from other editors, so I suggest patience and a collaborative attitude. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding to my answer above, it is never a waste of time to add references to articles. It is an improvement to the encyclopedia and I commend you for that practice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In 2007, a book was published named One hundred years of nanoscience with the ultramicroscope. Perhaps that can be added to the article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a technology, rather than a microscope, and it's interesting because it was very advanced for its time. The book might be useful for its article or for Microscopy, but I bet I could find a source that defines it today as a method rather than a microscope. This article is in bad shape, I argue it needs other work on the basic article before adding a now obscure technique. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think when the response to a polite and correct request for edit is, "Not done: The Ultramicroscope text appears to be on topic and adequately placed in this article. -- Dane talk 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)" indicating Dane didn't even look at the article or my edit request followed by my other edit requests being denied without reason, ignored, and reverted off the page, to put the burden on me to be polite in the face of such overt hostility is not reasonable. The article is in bad shape, unsourced throughout and contradicts Wikipedia's other articles that it links to in almost every other sentence. It shouldn't take 12 hours over 6 days to remove one statement that has no sources or even any support anywhere else in the article or on Wikipedia. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have been mentioned here I will respond with my rationale. I denied the edit request based on the context of it's usage in the article and "An ultramicroscope is a microscope" from the associated wiki page, which I assume to be correct. Furthermore, as it was removed fro the page under WP:BURDEN, I have done some simple research and added references. I added it back in with the source as it is another "major types of microscopes". I will give you one more reminder of the assume good faith policy. You accused me of not looking at the article or your edit request. I would have had to look at your edit request to process it. Just because it wasn't processed in your favor does not mean that I did not review it, as I had. -- Dane ^talk 03:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, there is no "overt hostility" in Dane's response, except possibly in your imagination. If the article is in as bad condition as you say, then continue making general overall improvements rather than arguing at length about a single point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? He keeps adding unsupported information. His source does not call it a major tyoe of microscope, it calls it a microscope arrangement, what I suggested above. Is there a list of improvements I'm not allowed to make? I should allow inaccuracies by editors with accounts? This is the lead of a major article. Everyone else should be more concerned about it's accuracy than scoring points against me. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please cultivate a collaborative attitude and refrain from false accusations of "overt hostility". You are allowed to make improvements when you gain consensus from other editors for such improvements. Get to work building consensus, and abandon accusing other people of things that no one else can see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Should I do this to make my points on Wikipedia, purposefully trash a high profile article to get a dog IP editor to play fetch? When you treat people this badly when they start by innocently trying to improve the encyclopedia, what I thought Wikipedia was about, you wind up with people having bad attitudes. Humans aren't trained by being treated like shit. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You cannot correct another editor's bad behavior by behaving badly yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We agree on something! --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

But you also can't correct someone else's behaviour by vandalizing a Wikipedia article, as City claims he routinely does. --04:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk)

Vandalism has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia, and that editor's conduct was not vandalism. We value accurate use of words here. They stated that they violated Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which is not about vandalism. If their disruptive behavior continues, then they may be subject to sanctions. The same applies to you and me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How long should the RFC run? It takes about ten seconds on Google to show that light, electron, and scanning probe microscopes are major types. It's been a week to find what should be readily available information, if it true. This is in the lead of a major article, with probably 1000s of readers since it was inserted. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:RFC, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached or it is apparent it won't be. Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Identifying biographical articles that lack authority control

Is there a listing somewhere of such articles? Or a way of submitting a query for them? Beyond that, since it's possible to include an authority control template for someone with no wikidata entry is it possible to find these using some kind of query? TIA! SewerCat (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SewerCat. I'm not sure what you mean by an authority control. Do you mean when an article is protected from being edited? — Gestrid (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Gestrid. If you look near the bottom of Dorothy Livesay, for example, you will see an 'Authority Control' entry that is produced by one of these templates. In this case there are no parameters to the template which implies that Dorothy Livesay is in wikidata. In face, she's Q1250325. I would like to know how to find biographical pages that lack these templates. In other words I want to work on wikipedia pages for people that don't have authority control templates. SewerCat (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Image placement and disputes

I'm trying to update my universitie's pageto leave 1 or 2 images to the left and one pnaorama image in the middle, silimar to U Illinois Urbana under 'campus'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_at_Urbana%E2%80%93Champaign).

My problem is a lot of random IPs are editing the placement of various images. Almost all images are changed back to being on the right side and are very small. They're citing the Maunual of style, yet I am following its guidelines on image size.

Is there a minimum size for pictures that wide and are centered to be displayed as a panorama? Does this warrant a dispute resolution? Thanks TheTrashMan (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheTrashMan. General guidance can be found at WP:IMAGESIZE. Our standard way of displaying images is in thumb format at 220px though other ways of displaying images are available, if there is consensus for that. The key to achieving consensus is talk page discussion and it has been ten years since there has been any discussion by human editors at Talk:University of Wisconsin–La Cross. Make your case there, since other forms of dispute resolution depend on previous talk page discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The message appears the word that my articles can be deleted. How to fix it?

Yoshi22222myl (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yoshi22222myl Please carefully read Why was my page deleted? and what users have written to you at WP:TH#Why_users_deleted_my_article?. --DashyGames (contribs) 14:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How to fix my articles that no one user can't change my created articles?

Yoshi22222myl (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yoshi22222my: It is not possible to protect yourself a page to prevent other editors from editing it. But deletion is another procedure than normal edition. Please make sure to read carefully what others have written to you at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why_users_deleted_my_article.3F. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Which Tea

PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PaleoNeonate. If you click on the image and look at the file description you will find: Tea of different fermentation: From left to right: Green tea (Bancha from Japan), Yellow tea (Kekecha from China), Oolong tea (Kwai flower from China) and Black tea (Assam Sonipur Bio FOP from India). TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor-quality 1st humor PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to survive this day. I may as well log out now. TimothyJosephWood 12:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PaleoNeonate, with all due respect to Timothyjosephwood, some editors just take it too seriously, you made my wikiday with this xD. --DashyGames (contribs) 14:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I took no issue at all with is answer. I actually thought it was humor too, or at least, hoped so. But having looked around, some people did seem to overdo their jokes; compounded with the number of people who have made some, it can probably be a difficult day for some who have to clean the mess (I will not put links, but a few keywords: afd, ani, new nicks, etc)... I put another "innocent" one on the science reference desk earlier. Have a nice day, PaleoNeonate (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Earl Grey. Hot. — Gestrid (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New wikipedia article Ntelabi Bukari

i created an article on wikipedia but in title the user:Title name occurred how to remove this user word and when wikipedia live the article means how many days wiki get to live an article ??Ntelabi Bukari (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, Ntelabi Bukari. What you created was your own userpage, rather than a Wikipedia article ("mainspace page"). Wikipedia articles can be created using the article wizard.

However, you should definitely read Wikipedia:Autobiography beforehand. If you decide to create an article about yourself anyways, you absolutely need to demonstrate that you are "notable" (which in the Wikipedia's context means roughly "has been discussed at length by reliable independent sources" as opposed to "is worthy of notice"). The present references in User:Ntelabi_Bukari are blogs and the like, hence not reliable sources and likely not enough to demonstrate notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Sabbath is not a rock band?

In the top of the Black sabbath page it says that it is a rock band yet everywhere else it says it is a heavy metal band. Are you able to change it?

Thanks2407:7000:952C:6586:A516:9113:C7C0:124 (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP from Nelson, NZ - as the article states Black Sabbath were "formed as a blues rock band" so they were not heavy metal for their entire existence. As blues rock and heavy metal are both sub-genres of rock music, using the over-arching term "rock" seems appropriate for the first line - and this is then expanded in the article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why users deleted my article?

Yoshi22222myl (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Yoshi22222myl. It looks like it was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A1, for lacking sufficient context to identify the subject. And with all respect for User:RickinBaltimore, if it was similar to World 8-4, that's probably not the best criteria to delete it under, since it is fairly evidently about the Super Mario Bros. series.

Unfortunately, while we appreciate your contributions, it looks like your article consists mostly of original research, and doesn't cite any sources for it's content. Content on Wikipedia needs to have sources to back them up, so that the content can be verified by readers.

You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 12:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hello Yoshi22222myl and welcome to Wikipedia. I think you should not edit the english Wikipedia, because you do not write English well enough. For instance this edit is incomprehensible. Sorry.

This being said... From what I can see, you created World 8-4 which has been tagged for speedy deletion, but not deleted yet. The speedy deletion tagging is probably incorrect, but the article should be deleted regardless: Wikipedia is not a video game guide. You cannot just create "your" article, it needs to follow the rules, and even then it is not "your" article, but Wikipedia's article, that can be edited by anybody. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tigraan, I've added the english to the should not edit Wikipedia, as Yoshi22222myl can contribute to the Wikipedia in (insert the user's native language here), for more info, visit The list of Wikipedias. --DashyGames (contribs) 13:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I am stuck. How should I proceed, I created draft but not able to move ahead

Hi Just created a draft with link can anyone help me if this is possible to complete this and let me what is reaming, what more should I add, I dont have much reference Santosh Singh Dagur 08:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshdagur (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Hello Santoshdagur, have you read Your first article yet? this article explains how to create and develop an article more than I ever could, also, your signature must include at least one link to either your user page, your talk page or your contributions (per WP:SIGN), you can do this easily by going to The preferences tab, in the signature section, you find a textbox, you can write your username there and unmark the "treat the above as wiki markup" box for an easy way to make a simple signature. --DashyGames (contribs) 14:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating an article for a music album

Hello, I am in the process of creating an article for the debut album of Satan (band), a band from the New Wave of British Heavy Metal movement. They are a notable band within a notable movement. So far, for references, I have found AllMusic and IGN pages on the album that review it. Are there anymore references needed besides these two? Keep in mind I'm working on the article very slowly because I want to get it right the first time.Manytoomany (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Manytoomany. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for albums. We require multiple sources to establish notability, and two is a plural number but the very smallest among them. Personally, I would not consider writing an article without citing at least three or ideally five or more independent, reliable sources. Your draft article, User:Manytoomany/sandbox, currently contains zero references to sources, although it alludes to two. I found the first but not the second, but I should not be expected to engage in a complex Google search to find your sources. It is very difficult for other editors to evaluate the quality of a draft article if you have not yet actually provided properly formatted references to reliable independent sources. Please read Referencing for beginners. References to reliable independent sources are the gold that allows acceptable articles to be written. Everything else is secondary summarization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating an Article in Wikipedia US that exists in another country already

Greetings, I am trying to create a Wikipedia profile for an entertainer that already has a profile in Wikipedia France and in Wikipedia Arabic, could you tell me how to go about it? Do I create the article as if it was new or is there another procedure I must follow? Thanks, Anna PoliAnna Poli (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anna Poli. First, let me comment on terminology. Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" because this is not a social media site and we do not promote people. Instead, we have neutral encyclopedia articles, including biographies of notable people. As for this entertainer, your first job is to determine whether or not this person meets our notability guidelines. For example, review our notability guideline for creative professionals. If you can make a convincing case that the person is notable, then you can either translate one or both of the other articles, or write a new article. If you translate, you must provide attribution to the editors who wrote the French and/or Arabic articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Anna Poli. Please keep in mind that each language Wikipedia has its own standards for notability and qualifying for an article on other Wikipedia projects does not mean the individual will qualify here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Anna Poli, I wish to raise a small but vital point that I fear you might miss. Wikipedia projects are organized by language, not country. This one is the English Wikipedia, it has no specific connection to the US, Britain, or any other English-speaking countries. Similarly the French Wikipedia is not about or connected to France. Each Wikipedia is managed and organized independently, while the entire Wikipedia project (along with other related projects) are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks

A user made some edits that I reverted solely because the edits seem to violated WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I informed the user. And then he accused me of bigotry over something I posted over a month ago, now in Talk:New York dialect/Archive 4. During the archive discussion, I misreported the fronted /oʊ/ as being highly stigmatized, and I was asked where I got such a notion. So, this was what the user called me out for.

It may be original research that the fronted /oʊ/ is highly stigmatized. When I hear the fronted /oʊ/, I find the sound to be rather annoying. The sound sounds to be drawn out, like a drawl, and drawls can be perceived as annoying. (The Southern drawl for instance is highly stigmatized).

Did I violate a Wikipedia policy in this? I need to know.LakeKayak (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LakeKayak. I'm not clear from what you said who was arguing which way. But the answer is that 'no evaluative language (such as "stigmatized") should ever occur in Wikipedia's voice. Only if a cited reliable source says that it it is stigmatized (not necessarily using that word, of course), should the article say so. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

For one problem, this occurred on a talk page, and it never was going to be instated the article. However, I am a little confused with why the word "stigmatized" should not be used in an article. "Stigmatized" refers to social attitudes. Therefore, we would only be stating what the social attitudes are to a certain phonological feature, but not calling them Gospel.

For clarity's sake, this may be easier to follow. (I still will not use names.) User A accused me of bigotry because of a comment that I listed from a previous discussion I had with Users(plural) B. In the discussion with Users B, I posted the listed comment to correct myself from something I had said. Is this comment considered a personal attack?LakeKayak (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It depends on who is doing the considering; these things are often subjective. I'd advise you to let it go, and to avoid interacting with User A in future, if possible. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Rivertorch. And I still thank you nonetheless ColinFine nonetheless for your input.LakeKayak (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I'm that person he is referring too. He spoke outside of a citation. To quote him here on a talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_dialect/Archive_4 "It may be original research that the fronted /oʊ/ is highly stigmatized. When I hear the fronted /oʊ/, I find the sound to be rather annoying. The sound sounds to be drawn out, like a drawl, and drawls can be perceived as annoying. (The Southern drawl for instance is highly stigmatized)" he used the term annoying himself, then went on to say the southern accent was highly stigmatized. That is why I called him prejudice. There are many that view it as prejudice to talk down on others that speak a certain way. There are still unfortunately people that will look at things like loan worth, custody arrangement, employement, someones gulit/etc by the way someone simply speaks. That's why I was offended by his comment. That he edits accent related wikipedia pages and engaged in this name calling "annoying" worried me. Barzul25 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Barzul25 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the nuances of the words "stigmatize" and "prejudice", feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. I wouldn't mind. Otherwise, I'll make the same suggestion to you that I did to LakeKayak: just let it go, and try to avoid the other user. You both are really new here, and you got off on the wrong foot. That inevitably happens sometimes. What's important is that you don't let it sour your perspective or interfere with your development as a contributor. We have millions of articles to edit, so there's no reason why it should. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I already have let it go.LakeKayak (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Article

How to know the number of wikipedia the article appeared on?Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Adityavagarwal. Do you mean the number of Wikipedia Articles that link to another article? If so, you click "What links here" in the sidebar on the left of the screen. TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. No, I mean the number of wikipedias with the same article. For example, the English wikipedia and the dutch wikipedia has an article "x", that count.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There is sometimes confusion as to whether the articles are on exactly the same subject, but you should get an idea by looking at how many languages are listed under "Languages" at the foot of the left-hand toolbar, or look at "Wikidata item" under "Tools" on that left-hand toolbar (subject to Wikidata's limitation to one-to-one mapping, which causes problems when the breadown of article scopes differs between different language Wikipedias). --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the help :). Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Where do i start

Hello, Im new to wikipedia where do i start Kondavarsha (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Kondavarsha:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any improvements for articles in your area of interest are appreciated - I have posted some general links with basic information on your user talkpage. If you plan to create a new article, WP:Your first article is a good start. But I'd suggest to start with smaller additions and corrections in existing articles first to gain some experience with Wikipedia's formatting and content guidelines. Some of these "rules" can be quite confusing for new editors (and sometimes for regular editors as well :) ). When adding content, please make sure to provide a reliable source for the information. WP:REFB has some guidance about how to format such references. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Kondavarsha. You may want to check out our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. And since you appear to speak Portuguese, if you happen to do so at a fairly good level, you may want to check out Category:Articles needing translation from Portuguese Wikipedia, where there are about 800 articles for which the Portuguese version has content that can be translated into English and used here. Just make sure that when you translate over the content, you also include the original source too.

Feel free to ask follow up questions here or at my talk page if you need additional help. TimothyJosephWood 14:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood i dont speak portuguese i translated that article using google translate. Thanks a lot of you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kondavarsha (talk • contribs) 14:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Kondavarsha (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kondavarsha. Just a heads up, it is generally not an acceptable practice to add substantial content to articles using machine translation, unless you can also find a source in a language you do read that can support the content. Machine translation can often make non-obvious mistakes that can take quite a long time for someone to come along and correct in an article.

However, machine translation can be a very useful tool for trying to find English sources. For example, if google translate tells me that someone was probably a member of the French Parliament in 1930, you can probably take their name and that added information and find a good source to back it up. TimothyJosephWood 14:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood Oh i didn't know about that. Thank You! Kondavarsha (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood Is it necessary to be trained to be a member of the CVU? Kondavarsha (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, check my new article

Dear Editors!

I mostly edit the Hungarian Wikipedia, but now I started one here. Please somebody review my article, and tells me what else I could do, what should I do to make it acceptable. Here is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bokorember/Attila_Meszlenyi This is a translation of this: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meszl%C3%A9nyi_Attila

Thank you for your help. Bokorember (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bokorember. For future reference, you must provide copyright attribution when translating content, just as you must when copying between pages. Please see Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. I have fixed this for you here. I haven't otherwise looked at the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Bokorember (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I made a few small changes, some of which are from Wikipedia's manual of style. As for acceptance, my advice is to devote most of your effort to improving sources and references. Clear references to reliable sources should be the foundation of every article. Ideally, inline citations to reliable sources support every significant claim made in the article. When you say that Attila publishes only on the Internet, your source is a link to his online gallery. The source does not support the conclusion (see WP:NOR). In most cases, Wikipedia does not consider IMDb and Facebook to be reliable sources. It looks like there may be some reliable sources in the "Recommended literature" section (which I have renamed to "Further reading". Maybe some of them support claims made in the article? Using citation templates is a good habit. They format the citations for you so that they are easy for readers to understand and use. —Ringbang (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Ringbang meant to say that "In most cases, Wikipedia does not consider IMDb and Facebook to be reliable sources", Bokrember. At least that is what I would say. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; corrected. —Ringbang (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Bokorember (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Experience

Hello thanks for the invite i would like to know how I got in to this, I haven't been on wiki for long? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noice Gary (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Gary Noice, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know exactly in what circumstances HostBot invites new people here, but I guess it was because you seem to be unclear how to use Wikipedia: you had an edit to an article undone, and you have been putting items on your User page which do not appear to be related to Wikipedia. I've put a welcome message, with a load of links, on your Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I just got one as well. I was being accused of vandalism and IP hopping (this was before I registered) and posting things that are considered trivial...though it has since been implied that other person doesn't know anything about what I posted. I'm sure the person that's accusing me will follow me here as well. Go figure..Frank.chan1983 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frank.chan1983. You've tagged along on someone else's question, but at least part of what's being asked here is essentially "What does it mean that I've been invited to the Teahouse?"

I've seen the HostBot give out two different kinds of invitations. One is the rather generic one you and Noice Gary received. HostBot hands these out based on some algorithm I've not seen, to be sure, but it is not every new account. It has a different one that it sends to people who have had an article rejected from the AfC (WP:Articles for Creation) process. In both cases, the invitation is not any sort of rebuke. It's just an offer to come here and get your questions answered. There are other bots issuing invitations, such as the one that suggests you go through the WP:Wikipedia Adventure game. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing article title

How to correct any article's title or name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman Prasada (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process is decribed at WP:Moving a page. If, however, you are referring to a page such as Nilima Katiyar, you would need to provide sources to show that the common name of the subject is not that which is supported by the reference in the article. There can, of course, be confusion when a name is transliterated from another language. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why get a "Please stop making disruptive edits"

I have a friend that has been adding to and correcting entries for

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

from IP address: 198.72.216.163 But recently got a message that they were being disruptive and would be denied access to Wikipedia unless they stopped. They were not told why they were being disruptive, but were afraid of losing access so they stopped making any changes.

Can you please tell me (so I can tell them) what the complaint is really about? BriarFox (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I can see that's problematic is adding tunnels that lack either an article or a source. If there is no article about a tunnel, then the entry on the list needs a source to verify that it is a real tunnel. I wouldn't say that's disruptive

@Justmeonhere: IP editors are people too. Try talking instead of just throwing templates around. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. One obvious piece of advice for your IP friend is to use an informative edit summary to explain each change. Without an explanation it is easy for another editor to assume (perhaps wrongly) that the edit is disruptive. Your friend can of course discuss the problem with the other editor, either on the IP's user talk page where the warning was placed, or on the other editor's user talk page, or on the article talk page, but a clear edit summary would be the best starting point. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Thank you for responding and helping.

2) I don't understand the comment

   "Try talking instead of just throwing templates around"

I didn't intentionally throw a template. How should I have asked the question? BriarFox (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That portion was addressed to Justmeonhere, the user who left the message on the IP's talk page, hence the ping bit before. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

BriarFox, can you pass on to your IP friend that it's important to familiarise themselves with the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability (and to consult Help:Referencing for beginners if they need to)? Meanwhile, Justmeonhere, can you provide a bit more detail or be more precise about your reasons for reverting in future? It's not really clear that the IP editor's edits were disruptive in the sense outlined at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

external links in main body

Is there any template I can use for articles that have external links in the body?The garmine ^(talk) 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey The garmine. See Template:External links, which will add the article to Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. But I would add that the category already has almost four thousand articles in it. So if you have the time, the better solution is to try to fix the problem if you can. It's not uncommon for articles to sit in a maintenance category for many years before someone gets to it. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing to prevent individual or brand defamation

What are the rules of editing if the citied post has alleged defamation for a brand or an individual and no legal venue to prove it? Is it fair to post the allegation even without proof? Reason I ask is, I came across a few pages where the content is written one sided. Any edits made are immediately reverted by handful of repeat editors, perhaps watching the page. I have randomly noticed across on a few popular pages. I am new to editing community. Any insights on keeping the forum unbiased is welcomed guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jui89 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jui89 and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first step is to post your objections on the Talk page of the article. If there is no resolution to be found there, you can take the violations of WP:NPOV or WP:OWNERSHIP through the WP:Dispute resolution process, but if you feel the violations are sufficiently egregious and the other parties are unresponsive, you may need to go to one of the noticeboards, in this case, probably WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

If we are talking about the reversions and restorations occurring on the Gravity4 page, which has not - as far as I can see - been discussed on the article's talk page, then you should be aware that properly sourced information about a company cannot be removed merely because it reflects negatively on the company. You can argue that the issue is not notable, that it merely contains allegations in an ongoing legal dispute, and that presenting just one side of the dispute is non-neutral - but negative information about a company is certainly allowed by WP. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted

The page Noted is a redirect but I don't see why it goes where it goes. ? MrBrug (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's intended (I assume) for people who are searching for information on the New Zealand news aggregator website Noted, which is owned by BMG. Not very obvious, since Noted isn't mentioned in the BMG article at all... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :) MrBrug (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking an article in a language to the same article in another language?

To add from my above subject, there are actually 2 languages linked to "article A" and 2 other languages linked to "article B". However, all languages should be linked, preferably to "article A" (with the Enligsh one and more expanded references). Here, I will link to the Wikidata pages, to emphasize that there are 2 languages for each article. But I don't know how to link/merge all to the same one.

Article A: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5129641 Article B: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1942928

Please, if someone could supply a link to information on how to proceed with this, I would be very grateful. Hope you understand my concern. Thank you! Treetear (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Treetear:, if you think the two Wikidata items are duplicates of each other you can merge them. Open the page you want to merge into the other (i.e. the one you don't want to keep) and in the toolbar at the top click on "merge with ...". This should open the merge wizard for you which is fairly easy to go through, just list the other page and why you think they should be merged. That should then list all the various Wikipedia articles on the same Wikidata item. Nthep (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep:, thank you! Brought me in the right direction, I found https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Merge where it was stated that I should go to Preferences -> Gadgets to enable Merge. This made it possible for me to find the Merge button up top next to the search bar. And thus my problem was solved -- thanks for resolving this for me! Treetear (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

skip buttons

I need a button like the one some users have on their talk pages to skip you to the bottom of the page. Please? The garmine ^(talk) 03:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The garmine. I think you are looking for Template:stb. (I found this by going to a page that had it - WP:Help desk - and picking 'edit source'. In that case I had to go from there to a template WP:Help desk/header before I found it). --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks. The garmine ^(talk) 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

New edit

Hi friends just now I have receive a massage in the massage written "mr.jorj man you have a mistake you are invited tea house" whts mean. Jorjman (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That message was written in the wrong place, by an unregistered user, and gave no indication of what mistake he thought you had made. You should ignore it, and maybe delete it. Maproom (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)