Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

New Article Draft Review Request

Hi, I'd like to have someone review a draft article I've written that's currently in my sandbox. What is a good way to do this? Sampadaka (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sampadaka. Your question above is your only edit to the English Wikipedia with this account. Therefore, I cannot take a look at any draft. Did you create your draft using another account, or while logged out, or on another language Wikipedia? Please provide a link to the draft, or at the very least, its precise name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Repinging Sampadaka, since I messed up the first ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. It appears I hadn't saved it as I thought I had initially. I had the text saved elsewhere, and pasted it in. I'll need to add in the citations again, but the rest of the text is there. It's in my user sandbox. Sampadaka (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Sampadaka. Your sandbox draft is still unreferenced, although it contains numbers in square brackets for some reason. Unreferenced biographies of living people violate policy and cannot be accepted into the encyclopedia. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added the citations back in—the bracketed numbers were the items to be filled in, which I had initially included but which didn't save as intended in the draft. Thank you for looking this over, Cullen328. Please let me know how this looks now. Sampadaka (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sampadaka, I've made some minor improvements to your draft. But I personally don't believe that the draft is ready for submission yet. To mention some of the issues that I've come across: you've used terms such as "expert" and "prominent" to describe the subject, which are considered "peacock terms" that should be avoided generally; date of birth is missing; what's under Publication sound a bit promotional. But still, kudos for getting the inline-citations right. Feel free to ping me here, or on my talk page, if you need further help. -- ChamithN (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Article draft review request

I cannot figure out how to submit a draft for review.

It is posted at User:Betterworld887/sandbox/Eric Ly.

I clicked the button that says submit, but it's not clear what to do next.

Please help. Betterworld887 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Betterworld887. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a quick 'holding reply' to say that I see you've posted the identical question on the HelpDesk. I'm going to leave a comment there to suggest your question is ignored, and that we answer it here. It's not fair to ask two sets of helpers to work on an answer for you. I or others will then take a look at your page and see what help we can give you. I trust this is OK. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Betterworld887. Just click the "submit your draft for review" button in the box at the top of the page, then click save changes. If you can't figure it out I can do it for you. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

And don't forget to add the title you want to use! (Question to @Darylgolden:: This process shouldn't be affected by WP:ACTRIAL restrictions, would it? I note the user is very new here (3 days), but I didn't think the 4 days/10 edit limit applied to pages sent to WP:AFC in this way.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The user doesn't need to choose a title (the page already exists, it's just adding a submit template), and ACTRIAL does not affect AFC. Thanks, Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about submitting a question in two places. I'm new. After I placed question in Help Desk, I saw that it was better for newbies to go to the Teahouse and I couldn't unsubmit my help desk question. I now know better. Regarding the very helpful information "Just click the "submit your draft for review" button in the box at the top of the page, then click save changes," I tried this several times. When I click submit, the save changes button turns gray. Sometimes a submit template box comes up, but nothing tells me what to do. I would appreciate you submitting this for me but for the future, I would like to know how to do it myself as well. Thanks.Betterworld887 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, its because your clicking the submit button at the top, which is not actually a button. @Betterworld887: I've submitted it for you anyways. It's at Draft:Eric Ly now. Galobtter (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting the article, but where is the actual submit button then?Betterworld887 (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How do I revise my rejected draft article in a more neutral tone?

An article I recently requested for submission titled Draft:Elias Wondimu was rejected due to it seemingly being promotional and not written in a neutral tone. I've reviewed the What Wikipedia is not page and the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View page but am still finding a hard time applying the requirements to the article. Is anyone able to review it and suggest some specific edits that I should make to sound more neutral/not promotional? Also, are other wiki editors now able to view and edit the draft as well? Or do I need to move the draft to a sandbox? Malemseged (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Malemseged. Like every other page in Wikipedia, Draft:Elias Wondimu may be read by anybody in the world. I'm not sure I should call it "promotional", but it is certainly not either neutral or encyclopaedic in tone. Just looking at the beginning of the biography, "where he spent his childhood with his parents and five siblings" is something I would expect to see in a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia. More specifically, in the next sentence, "inspired" is problematic in two ways: first it is saying something about his mental processes: this is not acceptable. You could quote somebody who said (in a published source) that they were inspired to do something, but you must not say so in Wikipedia's voice. More seriously, it is a generally an evaluative word. (It is possible to say explicitly that somebody was inspired by something you rate negatively, but saying "inspired to do something" is always positive in tone). A Wikipedia article must never use an evaluative expression about a subject unless it is directly quoting a reliable published source independent of that subject. So, again, you could say that "in XYZ newspaper, ABC said that he was inspired to become a surgeon", with a citation; but otherwise, no.

Even more serious is the phrase in the next sentence "the injustices of the Ethiopian Government". Whatever your (or my) attitude towards the Ethiopian Government, this is blatantly non-neutral, and must not stand in a Wikipedia article.

I hope these notes will help you. --ColinFine (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you so much for your suggestions. These are incredibly helpful notes that I'll be sure to include in the revisions.

Welcome to the Teahouse, Malemseged. Here are two more quotes that read to me as promotional and non-neutral in Wikipedia's voice:

"discovered the pressing needs to offer a platform to a community of minority scholars, giving them a venue and circulating their scholarship among the general population. This inspired him to produce two academic journals"

"As a reporter and column editor, Elias ran probing investigative stories that questioned the policies of the corrupt system in power and the emerging divisive political organizations at the time."

Words and phrases like "pressing", "probing", "inspired him", "corrupt system" and "emerging divisive political organizations" are all examples non-neutral language that should never be used in Wikipedia's voice. Instead, attribute those assessments to independent reliable sources.

In addition, you consistently call him "Elias". Our Manual of Style says the we should give a person's full name at first mention and normally refer to them by their surname subsequently. We do not use a person's first name to refer to them unless they are widely known only by their first name, as in the case of Beyoncé.

You also have many external links in the body of the article. These should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Cullen328, I disagree about the name. Ethiopians do not normally have surnames, and are referred to by their given name, not their patronymic. Our policy (WP:PATRONYMIC) says we should normally do likewise. Malemseged, I suggest you add the template {{Patronymic name}} to the top of the article, to explain why it uses a convention which seems odd to most English speakers. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, ColinFine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for your notes! I see how this fails to sound neutral - I will certainly revise as noted. In regards to the external links in the body of the article, I now understand that I should remove those that link to outside of Wikipedia, but does this policy also extend to specific people, institutions, and organizations whose external links are to their respective Wikipedia page?

@ColinFine: Thank you for the clarification. I will be sure to include the {{Patronymic name}} template at the top of the article for explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malemseged (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

An external link is to something outside Wikipedia. A wikilink to another Wikipedia page is of course permitted if appropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you know? - How the singing Chipmunks are called?

Alvin and The Chipmunks! The Names, alvin simon and Theodore AdwenKnowItAll (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, mind telling us what exactly are you trying to explain? If you want that info to be posted in Alvin and The Chipmunks, it’s already there. SoaPuffball (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Do my pages deleted?

Yes, users deleted my pages. Do I think I really hate them AdwenKnowItAll (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The article "Alvin and the Chipmunks discography" lists their albums, and most of the albums are each articles. David notMD (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Inflation Template

I read alot of historical articles and they frequently have out of date UK currency amounts, so I learned how to use the inflation template. However, the template itself is 2 years out of date. I, and others, have requested an update at the appropriate places more than once to no avail. The reference the template uses can be found here. I tried updating it myself with no luck. Thank you for your time. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC) If this doesn't work I guess I'll have to try updating it again. As soon as I figure out what a praser is...

• If you know what you are doing, meaning that you won't break everything because of poor syntax and won't put a random value that does not match the previous methodology, the place to edit is Template:Inflation/UK/dataset, which gives the data used by each invokation of the template (for UK). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In 2000 I took a semester of C++ in my first year. I could probably do it, but embarrassingly, when I tried, I couldn't figure out how to get past the first page. I thought it might be a IP thing. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've tried editing it (it's trivial to add the figure for 2016, the last one available at that source), but the comment says to update {{Inflation-fn}} and {{Inflation year}} as well, and I find the latter is protected. I don't know what would be the consequence of editing the first without the third, so I have abandoned the attempt. --ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: maybe leave a {{Edit template-protected}} request at Inflation-year with the whole set of changes that are needed? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I made a request here. Thanks for trying anyway, and for the advice. I'll let you know what happens. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with disturbance at article after copy edit

Dear Tea House hosts, Kunhimangalamis a small Indian village. Its sections were blanked and quite nasty comments inserted. I have never dealt with this sort of thing before. I have reverted just once to the last stable version (happens to be mine). I may need some back up or advice on where to seek assistance. Many thanks, and kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The user who blanked the section has been blocked for 31h for vandalism, so there is not much to be done here. (You can know who it was by looking at the Page history.) If you ever encounter such issues before, the whole advice is at WP:RVAN; the short version is as such: if it is indeed vandalism (i.e. bad faith editing with the sole purpose of trashing the page), revert the offending content (just as you have done), warn the vandal (escalating the warnings as needed) if they did not yet receive a final warning, and if they did report them at WP:AIV. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tigraan for your helpful reply, and have a good day, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup Questions

Hello. I am a very new editor called LightPirate which wants to help with correcting mistakes, sourcing, spelling and grammar and Manual of Style corrections. What are easy ways to check if something is original research or is not written in NPOV? Also should all information be able to be sourced on Wikipedia? Thanks! LightPirate (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello LightPirate. Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not a host here but I may be able to help a little. I have a few suggestions. One would be to have some fun doing the The Wikipedia Adventure which has a number of games to get you up to speed. After that, perhaps have a read through the Manual of Style. It tells you what most editors do in many different circumstances. Then, join the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. That is a group of friendly funky (if detailed oriented) dudes who like to volunteer to do what you like to do, that is, "copyedit". The Guild has a tab at the top of the main page called "How to copy edit". You could read that too. Don't be afraid to have a little go because whatever you do can be reverted. I have found over the years that one of the most important things is to make sure the comment you leave when you make an edit is detailed enough for other people to see that what you are changing is being done in good faith. I hope that helps and enjoy! (Sorry for butting in kind Teahouse host) Myrtlegroggins (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I will also join in. If you are in fact very new, consider copying the suspect text and its citation(s) to your sandbox. Then, you can go to the refs to see if in fact the text is supported, change/delete text as needed, etc. Once you are happy with the way it looks in Sandboc, copy it back to the article, replacing the original. Lastly, at the bottom is Edit summary. Wise to leave a short explanation for what you did. You can click on View history at the top to see what explanations look like. David notMD (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Asking fo rhelp to revert my page NIdeas_Creations_and_Productions_Pvt_Ltd

Dear Sir Definitely I need your help to correct my NIdeas_Creations_and_Productions_Pvt_Ltd. I requested you several times don't delete this page. If you need any correction or alternation please do it. This is not an advertisement. May be I am a learner I don't know the proper rules to create a page. But you can definitely correct it as per your rules. I request you once again please help me. So that I can get back my page. Please... Regards Mita Pal

Welcome to the Teahouse, MITA PAL. I looked at the text of the deleted article and pretty much every sentence contained promotional language more appropriate to an advertisement than a neutral encyclopedia article. Therefore, it would not be proper to restore it. I am sorry but it is not your page. Once you saved it to Wikipedia, you gave up all control over it. Please read Your first article and also read about the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused....

This is probably a stupid question or the wrong place to ask it, but how do I know what to help with? Like, I want to help edit articles. Is there any special page I can go to that will show me all of the pages that are in need of editing help? Every link I follow about editing and helping out doesn't really answer my question.

Many thanks in advance! ~Beth 07:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessBeth (talk • contribs)

Hi, I believe the Wikipedia:Task Center would be a good place to look. Also check out the Wikipedia:Community portal where you will find articles that are categorised by the issues that need fixing (copyediting, adding refs, etc.). Hope this helps. Kosack (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, just pick an article where you know a lot about the topic, and see if there is stuff wrong. A tip though - look at Talk to learn what the debates and disagreements are about. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello there! I was wondering how to redirect my wikimedia userpage to my english wikipedia userpage. I have added a line of code, but that does not seem to be working... any clue on it? Thanks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess by "Wikimedia userpage" you mean meta:User:Adityavagarwal. meta:Soft redirect says you cannot make a hard interwiki redirect and gives some reasons, so I doubt you can improve on what you made so far (maybe you could template it with a meta-specific interwiki redirect template, but it will remain a soft redirect). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Tigraan Thanks a ton, for your help! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing, title

Hi all,

I've written an article in my sandbox and pressed the button to edit it.

I have two questions : 1/ How long it takes to display that contribution in Wikipedia? 2/ I am not sure to have put a title on top of my text. How can I check that ?

Thank you very much Monolook (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Monolook. To answer your questions quickly: (1) forever if you just keep it in your sandbox, once submitted for review through the Articles for Creation process it usually takes a few weeks; (2) the title of the page is handled by where it is located, do not worry too much about it (ultimately the article will be located at Bernard Aubertin).

I took the liberty of moving your draft article to Draft:Bernard Aubertin, and adding a banner so that once you think the article is ready, you just have to click the "submit your draft for review" button. However, I think there is still a bit of work to do before it can pass.

I suggest you take a look at our guide to referencing for beginners, especially the "same reference used more than once" section, since all four current refs are from the same work. You should also include other sources to prove the subject is "notable" (i.e. has been written about at length by multiple reliable sources) - the article on the French Wikipedia has some (I assume you can read French?).

Also: your sandbox (User:Monolook/sandbox) now redirects to the draft page; you can still edit the sandbox itself (for another article, for instance) by going to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Monolook/sandbox&redirect=no. (After following a redirect, clicking on the "redirected from..." will bring you the redirecting page.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tigraan,

Thanks a lot for the advices and your initiative. That's very helpful.Monolook (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong with this article.

Hi there, I'm new to wikipedia and article creating (especially for wikipedia). Currently I'm tasked to make my company page; a decade-old, well established company, Les' Copaque. I was told that our company page had been deleted at some point and have been tasked to recreate the company page.

None of my superiors know how to write a wiki page, and the task fell on to me to try and MAKE the company wikipedia page. I've been informed by admins/reviewers that my page is not of the right status to be deemed as a wikipedia page, but I'm not sure what I need to do to have my articles be considered notable to be published as a proper page. I've tried comparing my page to "Animonsta Studios" and noticed they hardly have outside references, yet are able to be an official wikipedia page.

Please help me understand how this whole thing works. What sort of references do I need? What's a good reference? How could I make a page on an animation series that has independent articles on it?

I'm really sorry for asking this many questions, I truly want to do a good job in editing my articles for the general public, but I'm lost and would like to find someone who can guide me through all this.NetizenNoWork (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@NetzienNoWork: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't yet fully reviewed your submission but I can tell you that if you have been directed to edit Wikipedia by your boss that you need to read and comply with WP:PAID, the paid editing policy, as soon as possible. That is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. You should also review WP:COI as well. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also say that the existence of other inappropriate pages does not mean yours can be permitted too. This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can. That means some stuff gets through that shouldn't. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I must admit "Les' Copaque" seems better sourced than the article it is compared to—Animonsta Studios. There are clearly problems with the "Les' Copaque" article. It seems to me to be overly exhaustive. It is more than just an overview of the company. And it is too subjective. We read stuff like "[t]hey each have unique characteristics and personalities, leading to very funny situations in their day to day lives together." That would seem to be the Wikipedia editor's opinion, and it is not supported by a source. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NetzienNoWork, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the fact that your company has tasked you with creating a page on Wikipedia indicates that, like many people, your company has a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what it is for. Whether Wikipedia has an article about your company, and what it may contain, are not at all under your control. If there is an article, you are discouraged (thought not forbidden) from editing it directly, and Wikipedia has little interest in what the company (or its associates) says about itself, and no interest at all in how it wishes to be portrayed. If you do choose to create an article, you will (once you have made the mandatory declaration for a paid editor) have to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with the company have chosen to write about it, and been published in reliable places; and then you will have to forget everything you know about the company, and write an article solely from what those independent sources have said about it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a quote from your draft, NetizenNoWork, which includes overtly promotional and obviously false information:

"stunning and successful animations. As a Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) status company, Les’ Copaque Production specializes in high quality 3D animations and is based locally in Shah Alam, Selangor. Currently, all of Les’ Copaque Productions’s IPs have won countless awards both locally and internationally."

You cannot call something "stunning and successful" in Wikipedia's voice. Any such evaluation needs to be cited to a reliable, independent source. As for "countless", are you really claiming that a person devoting all waking hours would be unable to count their awards in their lifetime? Hyperbole does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Please read and study the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response 331dot, Bus stop, ColinFine and Cullen for the feedback. I'm very grateful for the amount of responses on this matter. I'll definitely look into the things that you've mentioned.

Just one more question, is it alright if I interlink the english wikipedia articles to it's Bahasa Melayu counterparts? For example, is it alright to link the english page of Upin & Ipin to the established Bahasa Melayu page of Les' Copaque?

Also, really sorry if I'm asking in the wrong place, but I noticed it's easier to publish a article on the Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia. I just wanted to clarify is it because of difference in admins, or probably a different style of writings?

Again, very sorry for any trouble I'm causing. I genuinely want to do the right thing here on Wikipedia.NetizenNoWork (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@NetizenNoWork:| Different language versions of Wikipedia usually have different groups of users, and those different users may set different policies and guidelines, or interpret them differently. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How to get past the 'Edit summary and save' on the Adventure? 123Squiggles (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

How to get past the 'Edit summary and save' on the Adventure? 123Squiggles (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 123Squiggles, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. I'm really sorry you had to wait a while for a reply. (I'd not taken the Wikipedia Adventure Tour myself, so spent a fun hour or so yesterday working through it.) You look to have made some progress, as I see you have some new badges on your User Page. So are you still having problems? The "Edit summary" is the long, thin box at the bottom of every page you modify, and into which you're asked to add a few words describing what changes you've just made. The tour suggests what words you should type as a summary, but to be frank they're a bit wordy, and simply saying "add bold", "add content" or "add images" is OK. Just below the Edit Summary box on the lower left you should have seen a blue "Save Changes" box. Click that to save your work. I took the tour on an Android tablet, and sometimes found the white instruction popup obstructed what I wanted to do, and had to scroll right down the page sometimes to see the next prompt. Only after I struggled a bit did I spot these warnings at the start of the tour: You need JavaScript enabled for the tour to work properly. If you're using Internet Explorer, you need to be updated to IE 10. Unfortunately, this game is not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices. So, I wonder if this could be why you were having problems. Feel free to leave another message here if you need further help on anything (except space travel, of course!). If you're a bit unsure what to do next, try editing your User Page and add in a few lines about yourself and your interests in working on Wikipedia (but don't include any personal information, of course.) As a first step, see if you can put your Username in bold, as you did get that a little bit wrong on the Adventure (but I did too!). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sandbox draft?

Hi. I was using sandbox to build a new page (Ritu Sethi) thinking it was just a draft and I could continue to edit it in my next session. I had copied and pasted a lot of info to this draft which I had no intention of ultimately publishing, instead I intended to just leave in selected bits. When I returned it had been a speedy deletion for 'unambigous advertising' and I can understand why! But I can't seem to find any 'challenge deletion' button to explain this to the deleter? Jimigav (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jimigav: The page is at Draft:Ritu Sethi. It is not deleted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The time to challenge a speedy deletion, by the way, is before the article is deleted, not after it is deleted. However, as noted, it does still exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You will need to add more independent reliable sources in order to get it moved into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for that clarification Robert. I do get confused with all the links I'm afraid. I'll try what you suggest! Jimigav (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ps Actually I think that was one I submitted earlier than the one that was a 'speedy deleted' and I thought I had lost this one, so did it again with slightly different wording - which was the one that was 'speedy deleted'. Is it possible there is more than one in the system? I don't want it to look like I am just continuing to just submit articles in the hope that one will eventually be accepted? Jimigav (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jimigav, according to your Contribution log, Draft:Ritu Sethi is the only currently existing version. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ritu sethi (not a draft) is perhaps the (twice) deleted version to which the OP referred. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Roger and David. I'll give it another try.

I'm so disappointed with myself for not using this help facility earlier!! Jimigav (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Help requested to get article talk archiving working again

• Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talkpage was previously auto-archived by User:MiszaBot. Can someone switch it to a working bot without disrupting past archives? Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Ronz:, I don't see why the current configuration shouldn't work (see Help:Archiving regarding the "old" bot name, such an old configuration is still functional in this case). However, the page's oldest thread had a bit of odd formatting, which may have confused the archiving bot (sometimes malformatted threads are ignored). I cleaned up and manually archived this thread. Suggest you wait a few days for the bot to go through the page again - if the cleanup fixed the issue, the bot should archive the oldest 3 threads next time. GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It is working now. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Errors in references in Pregabalin

Hi, can anyone work out what's causing all the errors in the references section in Pregabalin? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Presumably some temporary glitch in the Wikipedia software. A purge cured it. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Why was my account deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.34.215 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Accounts cannot be deleted. Do you perhaps mean that your user page was deleted? Without knowing more about your situation it is difficult to help you. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Accounts are not deleted; they need to be retained for attribution purposes. Accounts can be blocked for violation of Wikipedia's rules. User pages may be deleted if they fail to meet Wikipedia's requirements. There are 3 deletion processes, and if you are referring to speedy deletion specifically the criteria are listed at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you link to the page in question, the deletion log will tell you which criterion was relevant in this case. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Create new page

Where do I go for help to create a new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathrynkm1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Creating a new article is difficult, and new editors are recommended to get experience in editing existing articles before trying to create a new article. When you are ready to create a new article, the advice is at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Is .ogg acceptable for sound files on Wikipedia?

I was thinking of uploading a sound clip to an article, and I just wanted to confirm whether or not .ogg is okay. The Verified Cactus 100% 00:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Audio Meters (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD close

question answered, no further action required John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

someone just closed an AfD that has been open less then a week? Can this be undone, I proposed it and I wanted to leave it open longer in case other editors wanted to comment. Seraphim System (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Hi Seraphim System. Which AfD? Based on your edits I assume you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan (2nd nomination). It was open for 6 days and 23 hours, and had no posts for the last 3 days. AfD's are normally open for at least 7 full days unless there is an explicit speedy close but appealing to have it reopened for another hour would be a silly waste of time. Please accept that consensus will sometimes be against you. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I don't really need the patronizing tripe about consensus, I'm not going to accept an unsourced opinion from someone who doesn't even know that the capital of Turkey is Ankara and not Istanbul, no matter how politely you ask me to, but I already spoke to the closer so it's not worth discussing at this point. I'm not going to accept sloppy unsourced opinions as consensus, asking me 100 times is not going to change that. Not today, not tomorrow, not 6 months from now, not 5 years from now. I no longer have enough respect for the consensus process to continue editing. I made this clear, but the admins declined to impose an indefinite block, thinking I can still make positive contributions. I can, but at this point I am no longer willing to discuss anything with the editors here. If I have time, I will come back and see if there has been improvement, but it won't be anytime soon. Seraphim System (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Looking at the log, you are not currently and never have been indef blocked under your username. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC) @331dot: That wasn't what they said. I think an indef block was requested but was not placed. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I doubt it would serve anyone, including the OP, to rehash the underlying dispute here, and I would suggest all sides to drop it or failing that to pursue it on more appropriate pages than the TH. Here goes the answer to the question asked: if you are unsatisfied with a close, take it with the closer first, and if the subsequent discussion changes neither the close nor your mind, take it to WP:DRV. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Unable to get my research linked

Dear Wiki Editors

I have been waiting to get my research linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Indian_inventions_and_discoveries#INDIAN_CONTRIBUTIONS_IN_LARGE_SCALE_COLLABORATIONS Please can you do something? 202.142.69.154 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not for posting your own original research. It is only for posting information depicted in independent reliable sources. If it is scientific research, it needs to be vetted and published by a third party. That is also what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, please read about that at WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How to create a page for the movie

How to do?Chennai Information Updater (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Chennai Information Updater: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. Users who are most successful at article creation got their start by first editing existing articles and working their way up to article creation, learning as they went. Users who dive right in to article creation often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings when something they worked on for hours and hours is deleted for reasons they might not fully understand, because they are so new.

I would suggest that you first take The Wikipedia Adventure, a tutorial structured like a game, to learn exactly what is done here and how to do it. Then, take some time to edit existing articles in areas that interest you, so you can get a feel for editing. Then, when you are ready, you can read Your First Article to learn what goes into creating an article. That will help you learn that all articles need independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable. In the case of a film, it will need to meet the guidelines at WP:NFILM. If you have further questions, please post them below. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Help correcting an error

Hello, I was correcting a couple of typos in the first paragraph on the page, "Ten Days in the Valley" (TV show), and something went very wrong. I don't know how it happened and I don't know how to correct it. If someone can fix the error, I would be very grateful. Thank you. Classicslover13 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Classicslover13. I corrected the formatting error in the article's infobox. I am not familiar with the TV show so you should check whether the typos are now gone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much, Cullen328, for making the correction and for getting to it so quickly. I was pretty freaked out that I accidentally messed up the page. Classicslover13 (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Help Please per WP:PROMO

To whom this may concern,

How are you? I'm very eager to create my own personally music wikipedia but i'm having a hard time. I recently submitted it but it got denied and this message "per WP:PROMO" was sent please help. User:XeryusG/sandbox/Xeryus Gittens thanks

Kind Regards,

Xeryus Gittens

Xeryus Gittens (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi XeryusG and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. Creating your own Wikipedia page is not permitted unless you have been written about in independent WP:Reliable sources to establish your notability in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion. It only reports what others unconnected with the subject have written. See WP:Autobiography. Sorry to disappoint you. Dbfirs 08:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove message template: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.

Hello, Last month I posted in the Tea Room regarding the message templates on a page I was editing about a photographer: Stuart Roy Clarke. It was my first edit on Wikipedia and I chose this subject as I'm a student of photography and had been doing a project on photography and football, where Clarke's work featured quite heavily. So, I felt that he was a good subject for my first edit as I felt I knew quite a lot about hm and his work. This was discussed with @David notMD and I hoped I clarified that I do not have a close connection with the subject. Can this message template now be removed?

I was a little disheartened after my first attempt at editing seemed to attract these message templates but am going to try again. I am going to address the citations issues on this page and hopefully the need for that message template too.

Best, Encyclopediadia (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the edit history is that it's nothing to do with your edits, but because of someone claiming to be Stuart Roy Clarke editing the article. - X201 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The tag on Stuart Roy Clarke was not specifically referring to your involvement. If you read WP:Articles for deletion/The Homes of Football you'll see that quite a number of accounts were under suspicion, including HomesOfFootball and StuartRoyClarke, so even if you have no connection with the subject it appears that other contributors do have, so the message template to which you refer seems justified. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting article through AfC

I also have a similar question.My article Draft:Xu Geyang is about a subjuct which is only about one year old.So there is relatively little reliable,useful information on the Internet and books.I can sure that WP:TOOSOON does not apply to my article because Xu Geyang is already well-known and widely reported.That means,Xu Geyang is already notable enough for Wikiledia.But I want to know how to show her notability better in my article,and what source should I look for.Please give me some advices. Omega68537 13:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega68537 (talk • contribs)

What Web search engine can I use/adapt to find reviews etc. that may be as much as 12 years old?

In the last 2 months I've been put through the wringer by other editors about the Retrospect (software) article, on which I did a major expansions starting about 13 months ago. The expanded article was considered much too long (10 screen pages) and not in an encyclopedic style. The other editors and I cut the article to 2 screen pages, but that was done in part by condensing the features sections into a single 12-screen-line "Small-group features" section. That degree of condensation was possible only because there are some other articles about what I will call the "pure IT requirements of backup", so that I could use a single-word term for a feature and provide the explanation via a link.

I ended up having to leave out 14 out of 34 major Retrospect features, and realized those 14 features were all added since 2005 and implement what I will call "sociological requirements of centralized backup". I also realized that—starting around 2005—developers of client-server backup software began to copy each other's features, so that I could write a separate article titled something like "Enterprise backup features" that would discuss such features from a cross-developer point of view.

Unfortunately there do not seem to be any Wikipedia articles covering "sociological requirements of centralized backup", so I would have to write longer explanations—such as I had in the un-cut-down version of the Retrospect (software) article—to explain the features. One problem is that the different developers have used different terms for the same feature. Another problem is many such features were developed prior to the last two years, so that Google Search tends to leave out reviews pertaining to them. So I need a way of either adapting Google Search or using another "less helpful" Web search engine to find these reviews, and also—failing reviews—developer documents that mention the features.

Any suggestions? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DovidBenAvraham and welcome to the Teahouse. I think your question is in two parts, and I can probably only answer half. You can easily do an "Advanced Search" with Google and specify a custom range to search From or To. Just look for the Settings>Advanced Search Options at the normal Google search page. Try this. You could also search on Google Scholar, which looks at more academic publications, or even JSTOR. Then there are Metasearch engines you could use, which eploy multiple search engines to help you, like Dogpile. Here's an article listing 23 other metasearch engines you could also try if youi really hit a brick wall.

As hinted at above, I'm probably not qualified to comment on the other part of your question, but I can see you have worked well and cooperatively with other editors to turn a quite long-winded article into a useful, encyclopaedic summary. This isn't always an easy thing to do, so well done on doing your best there. Sometimes, one's own enthusiasm and commitment for a topic can prevent one from seeing that "less-is-more". We always include references, not only to support the statements made about a subject, but also to help direct others to uncover further details if they are so minded. I'd suggest this is the way to go for additional, long-winded concepts. I can see you've already had the Wikipedia policies WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTESSAY mentioned a few times on the article's Talk Page. As I think you do appreciate, Wikipedia can only report and summarise topics if they are already notable and covered by reliable third-party sources, so I would question whether it would ever be appropriate to have a new article on "sociological requirements of centralized backup". However, you might like to consider expanding this section of the article on computer backup processes. I hope some of this reply is of relevance to you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. Where can I learn about all the operators after "search?" in the example you gave (although I think I've just figured out a fair amount of how you restricted the search to articles no later than 2008)?

I think creating a new section with sub-sections in the Backup article is a wonderful idea. I linked to a number of sections in that article in the "Small-group features" section of the "Retrospect (software)" article, and it helped tremendously for definitions of terms I used. In doing so, I noticed that the Backup article seems to be as much a summary of well-known facts and terminology as of highly-referenced sources. I hope to find as many third-party sources as possible, but maybe putting the new section in that existing article would earn me some temporary forbearance.

Perhaps I should have written something like "socio-legal requirements of enterprise centralized backup" above. My basic premise is that, starting around 2005, developments that had as much to do with social and legal changes as with the advent of cheap high-capacity HDDs forced new backup requirements upon enterprises. The social changes were the emergence of "backup administrators" who are considered part of office management rather than IT—and hence don't have access to the tightly-secured rooms where "backup server" computers operate, and the expansion of computer-dependent record-keeping within enterprises. The legal change was more-stringent requirements for enterprises to be able to retrieve their records no matter what (I was told by an insurance company executive 20 years ago "Our Midwestern subsidiary bought your apartment mortgage from the bank that issued it, but the mortgage records were stored in a basement that was flooded by the Mississippi river so they've been destroyed—but despite that we'll notify the official NYC property records office that your mortgage has been paid-off"; this would be legally unacceptable now—and I needn't even bother to mention the effect of the WannaCry malware on the operations of the British NHS). The resultant requirements for client-server backup of enterprises include: "console" apps for "backup administrators" that often feature a "high-level dashboard", automated transfers from disk to tape for safe off-site storage, user-initiated backups and restores to reduce the workload of the "backup administrator", "Instant Scan" technology and block-level incremental backup to fit more more client computers into the nightly "backup window", and automated "data grooming" to reduce the size of fast-retrieval on-site disk backup storage while meeting regulatory requirements. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have helped, DovidBenAvraham. For 'Advanced Search' operators, just try Googling: "Google search operators". Here is one useful page. This is another with an Infographic. I'm of the era where I had responsibility for backing up my own work data onto 40Mb [sic] tape drives each evening, and then again weekly, and putting them in my museum's fire-proof safe. I still worry a bit that you're itching to write an essay on the social changes of backup routines, rather than tracing down and condensing existing sources to summarise those changes. I like the idea that Wikipedia consists of well-known facts, with each one always supported with evidence that any user can comprehend. Maybe there's a fascinating blog post you could create and put some of those detailed ideas into, whilst just condensing down other published sources here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nick Moyes. The only purpose of my proposed new section in the Backup article is to briefly describe the features that all enterprise-level backup apps seem to have added since 2005. That way I can add to the Retrospect (software) article a new "Enterprise features" section containing the single sentence "Retrospect implements all of the features listed in this article section except for ...." JohnInDC will hardly be able to object to that. The "social and legal changes", which will probably be exactly (with references) the two sentences I wrote about them above, will be just a lead-in to explain why all enterprise-level backup apps seem to have added most of the features described in the new section. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How post first article with numerous references and several photos

I have written an extensive researched and referenced article and was hoping that getting it on Wikipedia would be easier. How or where do I find a simple outline on the steps needed to try and get this published? I have tried to figure this out but felt a bit overwhelmed. Many thanks for your help and guidance rgromanRgroman (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgroman and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several possible routes, but I'd recommend that you put your new article in WP:Draft space first, so that you can receive guidance before submitting it for review and publication in main space. If you haven't already read it, there is some good advice at WP:Your first article. Dbfirs 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For your photographs, please read Wikipedia:Uploading images. Dbfirs 07:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Are non-English language articles acceptable as references to En.wikipedia entries?

I'm very much a newbie here at Wikipedia. I submitted my first draft entry for review and it was - correctly - rejected because it lacked neutrality and more importantly had no independent, reliable and verifiable references. The 'notability' of the entry was also - correctly - questioned. I value and fully accept the reviewer's comments. They helped me learn how to contribute to Wikipedia (which I fully support).

I'm now taking more time to read Wikipedia's guidelines and edit my draft accordingly. The draft article is in English and it's about an international bi-annual event hosted in the Netherlands. There are a few English-language independent reference sources and also independent reference sources in Dutch-language national newspapers.

Although the independence/trustworthiness of the Dutch language newspapers are verifiable in English, the specific Dutch-language references to the international event are only verifiable to Dutch speakers.

So my general question is: do all references to an English language Wikipedia entry need to be in the same language? Or are other languages acceptable?

This question has perhaps been asked many times before but I've not been able to find the answer so far.

Thanks in advance,

Mike Mikemorrell49 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You'll find the answer at WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks David, exactly what I was looking for! Mikemorrell49 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft

Hello! I was looking at the AfC section and I found that there was and draft that already had a page (Draft:Rockstar (Post Malone song), there is already a page of Rockstar (Post Malone song)). Can anyone delete these pending AfC submissions? TPGfan ^{Let's have a nice cup of tea and a friendly chat} 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've notified the creator and redirected the draft to the existing article (because redirects are cheap). – Joe (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the non profit I work for eligible for a Wiki page?

Hello- I would like to know if the non profit organization I work for would be eligible for a Wiki page. The organization is OBON SOCIETY and we return WWll battlefield souvenirs back to families in Japan. We mainly return Good Luck flags. Wiki does have a "Good Luck Flag" page right now and OBON SOCIETY is referenced on that page. We would like to have our own page but I wasn't sure if that would fall under promoting a company. Thank you! Bethany Glenn Bethybaby007 (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bethybaby007: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown to be notable (click WP:N to review) in independent reliable sources. (click WP:RS to review) It is not social media for organizations to have pages that they exclusively control, to tell the world about what they do. If your organization is written about in independent reliable sources like the news, it may be possible to have an article about it, but it is strongly advised that you not write it yourself. You have what we call a conflict of interest (WP:COI) which means it would be difficult for you to write about your group objectively, as if you didn't work for them. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2017

My article

Two questions:

1) How do I take down an article I have submitted for review?

2) Can someone take a look at my article to let me know if they think it will be declined?

Nikfackler (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. As nobody else has contributed to Draft:Nik Fackler, you can (if you wish) tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-user}}, or you can remove the AFC submission if you want the page to remain but be removed from the submission queue. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of my article? Do you think it will pass inspection? Nikfackler (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikfackler. It's a good article—concise and well supported by references—so I've just accepted it for publication. However, your username raises one of two concerns. If you are Nik Fackler, I would advise you not to edit the page further, as Wikipedia very strongly discourages writing articles about oneself because it is a major conflict of interest. If you are not Nik Fackler, please pick a new username that doesn't imply that you are. – Joe (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up a Wikipedia entry as part of a small contract

Hello!

I'm a former freelance writer/editor (now in a new career) who has agreed (as my last editing job) to edit the Wikipedia page of a former colleague/artist (among other writing and editing tasks) – her page included some typos as well as incorrect information about her. She is paying me for this, though I have no financial interest in advancement of her career. I've made some edits to her page and have received a message saying I need to reveal my connection to my employer to avoid COI, which is fine.

But holy cow, I'm finding this a quagmire (absolutely no disrespect intended), and the small contract I have to do this edit for the artist is not sufficient to spend much more time trying to figure out how I can finish this work legitimately without jeopardizing her page. I see (I think) I need to create a user page to draft an article, but I am merely editing one that already exists, and this will be the only time I ever do any work on Wikipedia.

Do I need to create a user page? And if I do, what precisely is it that I'm putting in that box if I'm only editing the page?

Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated! And thank you in advance! FletcherJulie (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello FletcherJulie. You perhaps should have looked further into what Wikipedia is about before accepting this job. We are a volunteer-edited encyclopaedia. The consensus of the community of editors is that editing with a conflict of interest, especially editing for pay, is not compatible with that mission and is strongly discouraged. So first and foremost my advice would be that you should not be editing an article on somebody you know, and you certainly should not be editing an article in return for money.

However, if you insist on doing so, in order to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use, you must disclose which article you have been paid to edit and who is paying you to do so. You can do this by placing the {{paid}} template on your user page, as well as the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the talk page of the article. Furthermore, to comply with the community's conflict of interest policy, you should refrain from editing the article directly, and instead make use of the {{request edit}} template (placed on the article's talk page) to ask another editor to make the changes on your behalf. – Joe (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition, please bear in mind that every piece of information added to Wikipedia must be supported with a citation to a reliable source. I have edited Laura Taler and removed most of the content you recently added because it was not referenced. – Joe (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why so many people accept paid editing jobs while having no idea what is involved. I'm glad plumbers generally don't operate like that. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to a module

Hello. Is there any way to add a redirect to a module within the Module namespace?  — Jaspet, 01:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• You will probably have a better chance of getting an answer by asking this at WP:VPT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this draft page ready?

With many thanks to all who have commented so far! The draft is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Brierley

I'm now pretty sure that the notability is ok - the guy was a well-known singer-songwriter of the 60s, with many recordings and performances, book references etc - and I've stripped the text down to only that which is referenced properly. Having said that, I have left in a quote from a book about the 60s which might be a bit gushing. Very glad to have some comments on this page - and, once again, many thanks to all those who have contributed so far. Fenderstratuk1 (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Fenderstratuk1 Welcome back to the Teahouse. It's not looking at all bad, though you could strengthen your draft a little further before submitting it. At first glance it looks like it might meet WP:MUSICBIO, which is key. In terms of layout you should put his name in bold in the lead sentence; clarify birth name/stage name; put references after punctuation, not before, and it helps a lot if you cite your references with more detail. I've just changed one of them for you as a demo - both of our editing tools offer easy ways to quickly insert reference details (something I'd not realised existed for my first year of editing here!). The Dusted ref looks a good independent source, and you could also include details of his current life as a photographer. By giving a name to each reference you can use it again within the article without having to repeat it. (See WP:CITE for more details}. Finally, I note Brierley gets a brief mention in a list of many other notable musicians who sang about the state of the 1960s world on p 290 of "Electric Eden: Unearthing Britain's Visionary Music" (alongside Cat Stevens, Ralph McTell and Sandy Denny) which you might wish to consider. Hope this is of use. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Page rejected / Is a company winning a government department national award enough to make it notable?

Hi. I've submitted a very short page about my company, making two simple statements. One refers to a trademark we have just registered (hardly major news, but verifiable). The other refers to us being named national winners of an employer of the year award by the UK government Skills Funding Agency, complete with a link to the relevant page on the .gov.uk website.

Is that likely to be enough? If it is, rejection might just be a result of the very clumsy way I've entered the content (first ever Wiki page). If not, I'll stop wasting everyone's time!

All thoughts gratefully received.

MartelloTwo. MartelloTwo (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@MartelloTwo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that your draft has already been declined. Seeing it, I must agree with the reviewer that the sources given do not adequately indicate your company's notability. If you haven't already, please review WP:ORG, the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. In short, they call for sources that give in depth coverage of the company(not just mere mentions) in a range of independent reliable sources(not just one or two). If there was several news stories in reputable, mainstream media about your company, that would help immensely. Right now the page just tells us that your company exists and that it got a couple of (pardon my unfamiliarity) what seem to be minor awards.

You also list a Wikipedia page as one reference; this is not permitted as Wikipedia articles cannot be used to reference other Wikipedia articles. If you merely wanted to link to the article, that is done by placing the target article's title in double brackets like this: [[Page Name Here]]. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

331dot THANK YOU - most helpful. I shall take a look at the section you mention. You have raised my hopes a little in that, if I can find national press reports, we may yet get approved.

MartelloTwo (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding to what 331dot has just said, I think you may still struggle to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia's standards for an organisation on this encyclopaedia unless you receive in-depth coverage. That said, I do think the National Apprenticeship Awards themselves deserve a page, as there seems to be both UK government and significant media coverage to them over the years. (The fact that this is a 'red link' shows no page for them exist yet on Wikipedia). If it were to be created, then within that article it would be quite acceptable to list individual section winners on a year by year basis, but each still wouldn't merit a page until sufficient third party sources write about them. Other than that, I would recommend LinkedIn and other traditional routes to promote and raise awareness of your company. Hoping this helps, Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Gap in text caused by image

At New River (Kanawha River), how do I get "Few highways cross the gorge," to be continuous text? I don't like "Few" being separated from "highways". Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

For me there is no gap in the text. The positioning of images will vary according to what size of window you have chosen, and what size of text. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow—you are right. I adjusted the window's size and the gap in the text disappeared. Interesting. And thank you, David Biddulph! Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: The occasions when you might need to ensure a sentence doesn't break between lines is when you have measurements followed by the units that the numbers relate to. In that circumstance you can add a 'non-breaking space' (but definitely not to keep two ordinary words together, for the reasons David Biddulph explained). See Controlling line breaks for how to do this. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to "Controlling line breaks", or MOS:NBSP. That is certainly good to know, Nick Moyes. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Article on a New Topic

Hi there, I submitted a draft that was rejected on the topic of Manure Pumping. There is no pertinent information on the topic of spreading organic manure over fields, nor on the equipment used in the process. There are retail outlets to buy such items but no general information.

I added several sources on topics about the process... there is not a lot of information 'out there' yet. And people 'in the field' just have the knowledge. Tradesmen typically just do, but now we want our info online. I plan to rewrite in a more encyclopedic tone. Not sure if you have any other suggestions here... would be open to them!Webcopy (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Webcopy. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's fantastic that you're keen to share your knowledge and enthusiasm here. And I know from experience how frustrating it is to have an article turned down at Articles for Creation. But all is not lost, and you can easily work on it to make it more appropriate for re-submission. Have you read this helpful guide: Wikipedia:Your first article? I do think you may have tried to hit the ground running (no pun intended). Many people - me included - started off very slowly here, learning the basics of editing, often just making very small changes to existing articles at first, then sussing out how to insert good quality references to reliable sources, and how best to follow the style guide used across all pages. (Writing headings IN CAPITAL LETTERS is a big no, no here, for example) It's important to realise that Wikipedia isn't here as an instruction manual or a promotional website, but to summarise known facts that have been reported by reliable third party sources in a simple, clear way for everyday users to understand. So, how about first looking at related articles that you could improve upon - just making small changes at a time, or discussion ideas in an article's Talk page if you're not sure whether you're doing the right thing?. Take a look at Manure spreader (which you also arrive at if you type Muck spreader) or Reuse of excreta. If you start gently and improve your editing skills, in time it might be OK to branch out and create a whole new article on the actual processes. Could this be a useful way to go forward? Alternatively, stand back, look at what you've drafted and pretend to be a fussy, neutral observer. How does it compare with similar articles you've seen on Wikipedia, or how is it better/worse? Try stripping the contents back to the bare essentials and ensuring everything has a good, clear reference to support what you say. Blogs are not seen as good sources, whereas published agricultural manuals and government guidance would be far batter. Consider other issues to cover in a neutral manner such as levels of application and timings, pollution (eutrophication) of watercourses etc. Hoping this helps for starters. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Webcopy. The advice from Nick Moyes is excellent. I had a go at basic copyediting and formatting of Draft:Manure Pumping to bring it more in line with Wikipedia style and formatting guidelines and to make further editing easier. One problem was that much of it was written in "telegraphic" or "recipe" style rather than complete sentences. It still remains a little confusing to the general reader and assumes too much background knowledge. You'll need to work on that. One BIG problem is that I had to delete all the definitions in the "Equipment used in liquid manure pumping" section. They were copied verbatim from the source used as a reference. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will leave some further guidance on this at Draft talk:Manure Pumping. Make sure you read it carefully, including the blue-linked pages. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflicts enquiry - adding references

Hello. I am working with an entrepreneur who has an existing Wikipedia page (not set up by him), and he has noticed that it has a lot of facts that are not currently referenced (it has a banner at the top about needing citations). He asked me to look into it to help get the banner removed. I am new to Wikipedia, but have been reading through a lot of the policy pages about conflicts of interest, which seem to apply to me here. I understand I will need to add a note on my user page, and also that it would be better for me not to directly edit the article. I have been researching to find secondary sources to verify the facts in the article, but was wondering how it would be most convenient to suggest these - should I just insert a note and list of the references in the talk page and use the 'request edit' tag? Thanks for your advice Stephkatep (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Stephkatep. Welcome to the Teahouse. That sounds like the best way to approach any perceived conflict of interest. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

badges

when I've completed 7 missions where can I find my badges Niamhlangton (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Submit the draft for review.

Please advise as how can I submit the draft of Professor Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Syed_Hasan_Askari) for review by wiki team so it can be published. Thanks in advance. (Syedahmerraza (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)