Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235

This seems a little backwards, doesn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_school The article for public schools is called 'state schools', a term which, evidenced in the lead section, is only used in England and Wales. I feel the article should be moved to 'Public school'. Thoughts?

TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's not so easy. The term "public school" is overloaded, so that page is a disambiguation page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could make State school a disambiguation page too, but then we would have to find a new title for this article. Maybe Schools funded from taxes? We could then cut out some of the convoluted explanations. Dbfirs 15:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus that State school is the primary topic for public school and should be moved there, then the disambiguation page can be moved to public school (disambiguation) (which currently exists and redirects to public school).MB 18:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to place categories above all other texts

Hi there,

is there an easy way to place categories above all other texts on wikipedia-pages, like on Commons, via Preferences#Interface etc. ? I would be happy to know that. Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dick Bos, welcome to the Teahouse. The Commons feature is enabled with "Place categories above all other content" at commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. commons:Special:Gadgets shows it uses commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js. The English Wikipedia has no such gadget but you can load the Commons version with this in your common JavaScript:

mw.loader.load('//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-CategoryAboveAll.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

PrimeHunter (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, User:PrimeHunter! That easy, and it's working! Thanks. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is a national newspaper a good reference?

I wrote an article and it was declined. It is called Nikhiya Shamsher who a living person. I referenced with an article by the Times of India. Was it a good reference? I also know this girl and we go to the same high school. She has been honored with a Diana Legacy Award and a presidential medal Sitaphul (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sitaphul. You seem to have forgotten to cite this reference in Draft:Nikhiya Shamsher, which is part of the reason it was declined. If you don't know how to cite the source, see Help:Referencing for beginners. While a national newspaper article is a pretty good source, please note that establishing notability requires multiple in-depth sources, so one is not enough. See WP:GNG for further explanation of what is expected. Since you know the person you are writing about, you should also read WP:COI and declare your relationship with the subject before resubmitting the draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Sitaphul:, welcome to the Teahouse! Draft:Nikhiya Shamsher has no references that are visible in the article, but when looking at the article source I saw this reference. A city edition of Times of India can be used as one of the sources in the article (as long as it is formatted so that it shows up), but on its own it is not enough, because it counts as local/regional coverage, not national. The Diana Award may or may not be enough to make her notable, but there has to be more coverage of Nikhiya Shamsher in reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea One source may not be enough, but just to be clear to the submitter, there is no difference between regional and national sources when it comes to reliability.Many Wikipedia articles are of local interest and use local sources exclusively. Egaoblai (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability was of course not the issue under discussion so your post is a bit of a non-sequitur, but that is actually another problem with the local editions of Times of India. See the discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link, I will read it over now. I just sometimes feel the need to defend local publications as I sometimes see a bias here against them with some users tarnishing them all as "rags". But I'm still confused why you said that "on its own it is not enough, because it counts as local/regional coverage, not national". If local sources are reliable, the surely it is not because it is "local" that is the problem, but because at the current time, there is only one source? There is no rule on Wikipedia against having articles made up of only local sources, as sometimes notable things are only talked about in local sources.Egaoblai (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WPCleaner

Why am I always getting the Class not registered error when I open WPCleaner. Do you know what is wrong with opening this application and is other editors who are having problems opening it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I managed to load it up but it is working very slowly. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This query appears to have been answered on the questioner's own Talk Page.Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Children in emergencies and conflicts

I'm feeling baffled, and hoping that some people might want to cast an eye on Children in emergencies and conflicts and share their impressions. I just stumbled on that as one of the oldest articles still stuck in the Unreviewed list, which I suppose indicates that other people didn't quite know what to make of it either (abortive PROD earlier this year). Marked it as reviewed for now, but it still strikes me as Not Quite A Suitable Article, and I don't quite know which aspect to pin it on. It seems to consist entirely of slightly adapted text from a UNESCO report [1] - which is correctly licensed, so no problem in itself. But still... is this an essay? Too broad a topic for an article, particularly when the selection of content and sources has been lifted wholesale from another aggregator? Is it just that it needs another title? A couple experienced opinions would be welcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A group of editors, who I think all work for UNESCO, have been creating these articles based very closed on UNESCO publications. I have come across a lot of them about science and technology subjects. In my opinion, the articles are a breach of WP:NPOV since they only present UNESCO's view on the subjects concerned. I did try to raise this issue on a noticeboard somewhere. I'll try to find that post now. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 137#Does/should WP:NOFULLTEXT apply to more than just primary sources?. I think that this issue needs to be investigated further and should be raised at WP:NPOVN or WP:COIN. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Francis Schonken, who had thoughts on this issue when I raised it at the village pump. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved a slight modification of the first paragraph of the article (with its references) and the "see also"s to Child#Children in emergencies and conflicts, and redirected the article to there. Without prejudice to make it an article in its own right again, but indeed, then not as a knock-off of a single organisation's sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems like a reasonable solution. Bit of a shame to lose so much well-referenced content, but the single-source POV would be troubling. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, Elmidae, I see missing page numbers. Also, for medical material like posttraumatic stress disorder, we typically do not use such old sources. See WP:MEDRS. Pinging Doc James and Jytdog for their thoughts on this addition. It can be included, but it needs cleanup and a reduction of the WP:Citation overkill for the final sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As seen at the article, Doc James and Jytdog had a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added several tags to an article I created

I created an article last month, and yesterday someone added several tags to it. That person claims that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (what the hell?) and that it "reads like an advertisement". All of the text that's on the article is backed up by sources. So I have no idea how that person yesterday came to the conclusion that article needed all those tags. When the article was created, it was reviewed like any other new article, and the person who reviewed it didn't see any issues with it. So my question here is, can I just go ahead and remove all those tags? Lupine453 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information; this seems to refer to Huda Kattan. More in a moment 331dot (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lupine453: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would start by saying that one review by one editor does not mean that the article you created is 100% proper and needs no changes ever again. It is subject to review and editing as long as it exists. Different editors may be looking for different things and may see different things that others do not. Before simply removing the tags, you may wish to contact the user who put them there and request clarification, either by asking them on their user talk page or on the article talk page. At a cursory glance I don't see how it is blatantly promotional, and I'm not sure on what basis the user thinks you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually quite good for such a new article, but I think they were adding the tags on such phrases as "which were even famously worn by Kim Kardashian". I could see how someone would see the world "even" and think it was promotional. I removed that one, but I suggest more things like that, and keeping it down to 2 or 3 references for each statement, but other than that it's fine. I don't think the tags are warranted, and so I've deleted them and added a different, more generic one. A lad insane talk 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was deleted some months ago. These problems may persist and a new deletion discussion might be in order. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit my newly made page?

I just made a Wikipedia page, and I can't find a way to access them and edit them. Uniifyyy (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Uniifyyy and welcome to Wikipedia/the Teahouse! This guide has helpful instruction on how to edit pages. Essentially, you click the "edit" button on the top right of the page (just above and to the right of the page title) (the button may appear as "edit source"), from there you make your edits and then write an edit summary in this box below the content of the page you are editing and click "save changes". Most pages allow for what is called the Visual Editor, it is a much nicer way to edit Wikipedia and is a lot more user-friendly (I find it to be at least) than editing the page source code. If you would like help on creating an article, a good place to start would be Help:Your first article. If you have any questions or would like me to explain further, please do feel free to let me know. You can click here to edit this section and leave a message (if you wish of course), I will be watching this page and should see if you write anything on here and, if you do, will get back to you as soon as possible. If there is something that you are unsure how to do and would like a hand doing, I would also be more than happy to assist with that if possible (I just obviously need to know what you would like help with). I know that Wikipedia can potentially be daunting when you first start out, but it does get easier as you gain experience and practice. A good place to practice would be your sandbox. I hope you like your time on Wikipedia and stick around. --All the best, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the good advice given above, I notice that you have created links to the article that you are intending to create. You don't seem to have put any text on the page yet. I would advise that you create your article in draft space (Draft:Egyptian Armed Forces (Roblox Clan)) so that you have time to get it right before submitting it for review. We already have an article on Egyptian Armed Forces, and if you have only a small amount of information then you might like to add a section there, but if you can find good references for your proposed article, then go ahead and create a draft, and ask again here if you need further help. Dbfirs 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I broke my editor

I recently made some simple edits of the sort I've done many times before without a problem but this time with embarrassingly disastrous effect: Using the old fashioned editor, which has no search and replace facility or anything like it, I did a search for minus sign, and wherever ndash was more appropriate manually and individually replaced each one. A fellow-editor noticed I had somehow deleted wads of text wherever there was a minus sign.

I wonder whether this has anything to do with a recent attempt to install AutoWikiBrowser, which I failed at the first hurdle then decided I could do without. Now the Move facility's drop-down selector (Article, User etc) is discontinuous and will not let me select (Article) in the usual way.

Do you have a fix for me? Doug butler (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse Doug butler, I assume that you are talking of issues with AutoWikiBrowser, but just want to double check that it is not on the site itself (via a web browser). Is it indeed while using AutoWikiBrowser that you cannot select etc? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TSD. No, I started installation but never succeeded and the need has passed (another Editor did the job for me), so the only item on the "More" dropdown is "Move". Doug butler (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: Do you have Twinkle enabled? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just the bog-standard editor. Doug butler (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: Just logged onto my bot's account for a second so I could take a look at the standard editor (that account doesn't have any scripts etc on it), if you do not have Twinkle enabled, only having "move" under the more tab is normal. If you enable Twinkle in the gadgets section of your preferences (top right of page), then it will add more options under that drop down (some of which are very useful and I would recommend investigating it, if you want of course). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe later. For now I'm just worried about being an inadvertent vandal. I just mentioned the damaged drop-down options list and AWB as a possible symptom and cause.Doug butler (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Wikipedia typically works on a model of assuming good faith, so long as your account does not repeatedly remove content, you should be fine. As the guideline states "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."

@Doug butler: It just comes down to being careful in your editing - sort of a measure twice, cut once approach. Another tip in the regular editor would be to click "show changes" before saving an edit, that way it will display to you what has been added and/or removed (added being on the right hand side in blue with a 'plus' sign, removed being on the left highlighted in a different yellow than the background with a subtraction sign). People make mistakes all of the time, if you aren't trying to be a vandal and are careful (i.e. reverting your own edits if you notice a mistake, double checking with "show preview" or "show changes") then you are probably okay. If you have any questions or would like something explained further, please do let me know. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: I just found a page that might be useful to read over this and this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submission as a stub or standard article?

There is a Wikipedia Stub article about a Scottish seascape painter John Wilson. As his son John James Wilson was also a well known Victorian landscape and marine painter, I thought it would be useful to submit an article (stub? )for consideration as well.A draft is in my sandbox. How do I submit it for consideration either as a stub or standard articl? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To submit your draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BFP1. Having submitted it for review, you can still continue editing it. You should consider adding categories to help the page be found by others, and I think a qiick check your punctuation wold be useful. There are a few full stops missing, and a few commas which don't have spaces after them. There is quite a large backlog in the review process, though I submitted a draft to AFC yesterday and was amazed it had been approved just a few hours later. Regards from the UK.Nick Moyes (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teachers, BFP1. A stub "is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". Perhaps stubs were useful in the early days of Wikipedia, but in my opinion, no editor should set out to write a stub 17 years into this project. Please write new articles that reach start status at least. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. I assume that I have submitted as I see the 'Review waitng' box. I presume that the 'Reviewer tools' section is not relevant to me. I will try to improve the article during the waitng period.BFP1BFP1 (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One response to the advice from Nick Moyes. You can link to categories into which it will be appropriate for the article to be placed when publish, but while a draft it should not be placed into article categories; see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, good advice from David; not so good from me (and something I will remember in future even if I'm confident the draft will get approved). Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk)

Thanks David. I was going to ask how to enter categories! BFP1BFP1 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Marar

BaniYas (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)My article (Al Marar) has been denied because i did give reliable sources , but i do have reliable sources, because im from the Al Marar Tribe and my father told me these information and his father told him these information, so why did my article get denied?BaniYas (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BaniYas. I'm afraid Wikipedia only accepts published sources. This is sometimes frustrating to people who have direct information about a subject, but is for good reason: because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit, everything in it is in a way unreliable - a reader next week or next month or next year, has no way of knowing who you are, whether your father was correct, or whether somebody has come in since you wrote the article and changed the information. The only thing that makes the information of value is citing a source which a reader can in principle check, and that means a published source. Please read about verification for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a referenced Wikipedia article Bani Yas, which includes mention of Al Marar as a branch tribe within. This can be a model for what you want to write, and some of the references may be useful for you to use. David notMD (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery text

i found several items at the bottom of external links which are old and mostly 404 links. I don't see them in edit mode. How do I delete or edit them? Thanks Chas MartinChas martin (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To which page are you referring? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about conflict of interest

Hello! I've never edited a Wikipedia article before and am still unsure about some things after reading the conflict of interest entry. I am a contractor for a major North American company and have been tasked with figuring out how to get updated company information on its Wikipedia entry. Part of what I'm unsure about is whether I'll be able to make any of these limited updates myself after full disclosure of my COI. Another concern is that the best sources for much of this information are public disclosures hosted on the company's own website. Here's a quick rundown of the information I'd like to update: - Customer count; this information is currently significantly OVERstated. The source I have for this is my client's own public disclosure. - Employee count; this information is not currently included in the entry. - Markets served; my client serves all 50 states, but the current entry says it serves 46 states and lists them individually. Updating this would significantly shorten it. - Brands owned; some, but not all, of the brands and companies owned by my client are listed. We could make this information comprehensive with a single sentence that lists the remaining brands. Many of these are well-known brands, but it's less well-known that they're subsidiaries of my client, so I think there's an argument that inclusion of this information serves the public interest. I'm especially concerned about the citation for this, because the best single source for this information is a page on my client's website that lists their brands. - Charitable partnership; the current entry has a "community investment" section that describes company policies and programs related to charity and volunteerism. I'd like to add mention of one multi-million dollar partnership with a major national charity. Partnership details are on the charity's website and can be used as the citation. Since I'm a n00b, any warnings/insights about what I'm trying to accomplish would be a huge help. Thanks! Joshcrank (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joshcrank. From what you say, you fall under the (more stringent) category of "paid editors". See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure: your current COI disclosure is not enough because it does not mention your client/employer, in contradiction with the terms of service. Please correct this before making any edits.

You are strongly encouraged not to perform the edits yourself. Instead, please use the talk page of the article (for instance, the talk page of Direct Energy is located at Talk:Direct Energy) to make an edit request. Make a new section on that talk page, add the "Help:template" (code) {{edit request}} at the top of the section (not in the title), and describe your edits in a "change X to Y" format, giving the references (not just "it's on the company page", give at least the link, and even better format it according to WP:REFB). This will put your request in a category patrolled by experienced editors to review whether they should be included or not in the article.

I realize this is quite a lot to read; if things are still unclear do not hesitate to come back and ask for clarification. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple COI request provides useful instructions on how to make an edit request. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First question!

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is 2,952÷36? Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kubuś z Gimnazjum: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia, and is not for general questions. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Cześć, @Kubuś z Gimnazjum:. IMHO it's osiemdziesiąt kilka, but this is not a chat room for discussing trivial arithmetics. Please see the note at the top of the page.
It says this is

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

(emphasis mine). Shall you have any questions regarding Wikipedia editing, rules or policies, you're more than welcome to ask them here. --CiaPan (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In addition to what 311dot said, use of a calculator to solve that ~~equation~~ expression would be easier and less time consuming than posting here (or just googling it). If you have any Wikipedia related questions, we would be more than happy to help you with those. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Please note the given expression is not an 'equation', as there is no 'equals sign' in it. Consequently, there is nothing to 'solve' in it, also because as a not-equation it contains no unknown. It's a simple arithmetic expression, which needs just calculation to determine its value. --CiaPan (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan: Struck out and corrected. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot NG has reverted my helpful edit as vandalism. Can you help? Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Kubuś z Gimnazjum and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking of this edit. I understand what you were attempting to do with that, however, other examples (second and third paragraphs in the article) do exist on the page and more are not really needed in the form you put them in. With that said, I would not necessarily consider them vandalism in nature. If you wish to incorporate your examples into the form seen in other examples already in the article, I do not see any issues with that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on email reply from Ambarish Banerjee re Hillier Parker May & Rowden

Dear WP,

I am posting this here on behalf of my friend Harold Couch. He has written in by email to enquire why our article about HPM&R was rejected. Here is the reply received.

Dear Harold Couch,

Your submission is way too too too detailed. I'm stating this with zero exaggeration.

And, that along with the scarce non-trivial mentions in reliable sources looks to have been the main contributing factor behind the decline. WP is an encyclopedia, not a company-booklet that tends to sing unchecked praises and glorify it's past. Thus, each and every contribution/construction and/or project-locations do not deserve to be mentioned.

Also, the People section is too trivial to be encyclopedic.And, the History section looks more-or-less good! So, please drastically cut-out the trivial promotional stuff. Once, you've done so, re-submit and our team will re-review.

Thank you!

Yours sincerely, Ambarish Banerjee

Of course we will be happy with a much shorter version, rather than nothing at all.

But we think what is so wrong with precise information linked to a published source offered in good faith is hard to see.

For example, to my mind the fact that HPM&R was "gave advice to the then Nuclear Electric Plc in the early 1990s to facilitate the change of use of Bankside Power Station to the Tate Modern art gallery" is really quite striking and illustrates how HPM&R has played a part in the building of the United Kingdom as it stands today.

WP's own article about itself contains 368 references and WP has only been around since 2001. The HPM&R article we submitted only 53 references and HPM&R has been around since 1896.

So WP gives itself 21 references about itself per year of operation. At that rate, you might think that HPM&R ought to be entitled to 2142 references in its article.

WP's article about itself includes arcane technical details such as whether it uses MySQL or Lucene for searching. Yet Banerjee implies that the fact that 99 Bishopsgate was managed on behalf of Hammerson is less interesting than that; but if you happened to have been involved somehow with 99 Bishopsgate or Hammerson at the time then it's quite possibly very interesting indeed.

Philjones573 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the benefit of anyone who hasn't checked the archives, some previous Teahouse questions and answers about this topic:

Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to accept that not every company gets a page on Wikipedia. It has gone through a deletion process and was voted to be deleted. Comparing it to other articles isn't a way to get your article published. You started another draft which is great, but also as mention before, it doesn't matter how many references they need to be significant coverage (not just mere mentions). So instead of asking here constantly why it isn't getting accepted, focus on improving your draft instead to see if you can overturn the lack of notability. NZFC^(talk) 21:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the article it does appear that there is some notable information there, for example

"It was commissioned to value the properties of John Lewis (department store);[12] Brooklands motor track; [13] and London Air Park. [14] It advertised the freehold site of Devonshire House, Picadilly, in 1922 [15]. It auctioned Gamages Department Store of Oxford Street in 1931. [16]" and "The purchase of Burlington Arcade by Prudential Assurance Company in 1954 was negotiated through HPM&R.[18] The Barton Arcade in Manchester was sold by HPM&R in 1957. [19]

"From 1960, HPM&R gave advice to over 100 local authorities and New Town Corporations on development schemes for town centre shopping. ::"For example, in 1974, HPM&R was appointed planning consultant, project manager and letting agent on behalf of Banbury Borough Council for the Castle Centre in Banbury Town Centre (now named Castle Quay Shopping Centre).[20] [21] Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was advised throughout the development of Royal Victoria Place, opened in 1992. [22][23] HPM&R advised the 1970 development of the town centre for Hartlepool, County Durham"

This makes the company seem pretty notable to me and not a run-of-the-mill estate firm. Working with other notable firms and with over 100 local authorities, seems to be an indicator or notability to me, would any disagree with that?Egaoblai (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A company might well be worthy of note in the sense you use notable, but if it has not been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources, then it is not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia simply looks to see whether a subject has been written about. It doesn't make any judgements about notability in the everyday sense. Dbfirs 08:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but many discussions come down to what is notable, a subject may have lots written about but it might not be notable and vice versa.

The questions in this discussion is "Is this organisation notable? and "What makes an estate company notable" and it appears they might be given their role in working with local authorities on such a large scale. If we accept If this information can be proved by independent written sources then it follows that the topic would be acceptable. Does notability always come from being the subject of an article? I mean to give an absurd example. Let's say there was a organization that had been employed by the royal family of the UK for 400 years and this was verified references, but none of the references were articles that were specifically about the organisation, but mere "passing mentions" or official records, would that organisation fail an AFD? Egaoblai (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Egaoblai: In your fictitious case of a very old organization serving prestigious customers but that has attracted no significant coverage, yes, it would indeed fail an AfD. The trick is that in Wikipedia's meaning of the term, "notable" does not mean peculiar or worthy of interest, but has been the subject of published interest, because while the former is quite subjective and disputable, the latter is not (or much less so). If something has appeared on the front page of the New York Times, the Economist, El Pais and La Repubblica with extensive analysis in the inner pages, it is notable, even if it is a random person going about their average day in an average city. Presumably, if a subject has been deemed worthy of interest by reliable independent sources, some of our readers may deem it worthy of interest as well, but otherwise, it is only speculation. An reverse example is the discussion about whether an independent article about Donald Trump's hair should be kept, where many experienced editors argued to keep the article on the grounds that the guidelines require it, and some other experienced editors argued to delete it with an argument of "screw the guideline in this particular instance, that is stupid and does not belong here" (thus admitting the notability threshold was met). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is 0.5 odd or even?

This user has been blocked indefinitely. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think odd, since 0.5 (insert modulo sign here) 2 = 0.5, which (insert NOT sign here)= 0. Kubuś z Gimnazjum (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Kubuś z Gimnazjum. Googling an answer to that question would most likely be less time consuming than asking here. As stated by CiaPan in an above topic: "This is not a chat room for discussing trivial arithmetics. Please see the note at the top of the page.
It says this is

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

(emphasis mine). Shall you have any questions regarding Wikipedia editing, rules or policies, you're more than welcome to ask them here." --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K very talented to go from first edit to being blocked in about one hour. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, that's like asking whether a dog is evergreen or deciduous. The answer is "neither", because those categories don't describe that subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

How to edit semi protected article

Hi, I'm newbie in wikipedia i wanna know how to edit semi protected article since i have reference..Orangdepok 1 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangdepok1 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hello Orangdepok1 and welcome to the Teahouse.

You're not such a newbie! Your account is autoconfirmed and you should be able to edit a semi-protected article. If you don't want to add the reference yourself, you could post a message on the talk page of the article in question with a link to your reference and explain how you think the reference should be added to the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow editing a draft by others

Hi can you tell me how I can allow friends to edit my draft? Thank you. Sbenegal (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Sbenegal and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where most pages can be edited by anyone. Additionally, no one owns a particular page. Your friend is free to edit it as they see fit (so long as it is constructive in nature and abides by the five pillars - this is also a good page to read/skim - just keep in mind that account creation is not a "rule" and that that page is not a policy or guideline, just a potentially helpful resource). To enjoy the Wikipedia experience to its fullest, I would recommend that they create an account (although it is not necessary) as having an account has numerous benefits. If you have any questions or would like me to explain further, please do let me know. I hope that you and your friend enjoy your time on Wikipedia and decide to stay. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do they find an article that is in "draft" phase? --Sbenegal (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbenegal: You're welcome. Do you know what the draft is called? Is it Draft:The Mansfield Rule or another one? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Mansfield Rule. Thank you. --Sbenegal (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbenegal: In that case, you can send them this URL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Mansfield_Rule) - that will take them to the draft. Hopefully that helps! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page by Wiki-Neophite

Hello,

I've never created a page before and stumbled upon what I believe is important history. Rod Pack was the first skydiver without a parachute (by design). It was planned by Rod, Wolper Productions, and TIME magazine. Many photographs were taken, newspapers buzzed with excitement, but for some reason, his accomplishments have not been adequately memorialized.

I'm writing this in hopes there may be someone who can help me or take over the entire page and give the Pack family an indelible, accurate, and proper representation of his achievements. thanks, JayJfgottman (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If the subject has received significant coverage in published reliable sources, you need to add those sources as references in your draft to demonstrate his notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, any Wiki people have access to time.com archives? I'm a fan of what Mr. Pack has done and am willing to spend a little time on writing, but I'm not going to spend any money on it.Jfgottman (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfgottman: Ask at the Resource Request project RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RudolfJfgottman (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jfgottman:, I can't help with the Time article, but you might find the {{find sources}} template useful; for example, I found the following:

"LIFE". books.google.com. Time Inc. 15 January 1965. Down He Goes — without a Chute
"Stunt Man Dons Suit After Jump". Lawrence Journal-World. news.google.com. AP. January 2, 1965.
Meyer, Jan. "Rod Pack's Chuteless Jump". www.parachutehistory.com. Reprint from Skydiver, January 1965.
"A Year in TV Guide: March 13th, 1965". Television Obscurities. 13 March 2015.
Newell, Bob. "The Arving Good Guys - Part 1". starcrestawards.com. Star Crest Skydiving Awards.

I hope this helps. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does! I have a paucity of research skills... This will keep me busy for a while. Thanks!Jfgottman (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! =) —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:831:EE2:9FFB:76D0 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Teahouse?

Meaning? Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse, or a teahouse? Literally, metaphorically, ontologically, empirically, or existentially? The only one I can answer for certain is the second: teahouse. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Optimistic Wikipedian. Since I am a simple fellow, I will give you a simple answer: The Teahouse is a place for new or less experienced editors to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, and for experienced editors to offer friendly, informative answers. Feel free to ask questions in good faith here at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the link at the top of the page: Learn more about the Teahouse - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive URL contains only the title of the cited article

I was checking some edits made by the InternetArchiveBot for the Robin Williams article. For one of them, in the Further reading section, Archive.org (WayBackMachine) had captured the correct web page from ABC-Nightline, but for some reason only the title for the article appears on the archived URL page. I am thinking that I should leave it as is, but I wanted to check with the experts to make sure that is the best thing to do. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markworthen and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Sometimes the efforts by the Wayback Machine to archive a page are defeated by things the original site does. That looks like it may be the case here. The archive robot saved something, but not being an AI, it was unable to realize that what it saved was not going to be particularly helpful for the future.

So what's the right thing to do here? If it were an actual reference cited in the article, you would leave it, perhaps adding a {{failed verification}} template to warn readers that there's no longer useful content to be found by following the link. The useless cite would remain until someone comes along to rewrite that section using still extant sources. We'd be assuming the original cite did verify the information, but until there's reason to challenge the validity or a corroborating source can be found, the former link is left as a placeholder.

But in this case, the link is just in the Further reading section. As the link is no longer useful, it would be perfectly justifiable to remove it. Nothing in the content of the article depends on it and we are not doing readers any favors by pointing them to documents that either don't exist any longer or have been replaced by something useless.

I did some checking to see if perhaps there was an earlier capture or if there was some link elsewhere to the same content. I don't know if this is actually the same segment, but there's an ABC.go segment which has a video transcript available, even if you're not a subscriber. That transcript might be a useful thing to capture, even if there doesn't seem to be a way to generate a URL to point to it. (Isn't is such a pity that websites are designed for their purposes, not for ours.) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under international rights agreements, the original page could only be viewed by people within the United States anyway, so no much use to everyone else. It would be interesting to know if that was the reason why the archived capture only shows the title. CV9933 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Yes, I am a return questioner ;o) I removed the link as you (jmcgnh) suggested. There is still a link to another ABC special so I think we're good. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section version of template "better source"

Hi, In an article I am looking at all the sources in the entire section are poor in quality (blog posts and primary literature only). I would like to label the entire section as needing better sources. Though I know of the "Refimprove" template, the description says this is to be used when additional references are required. There are enough references, they are just poor choices. What template should I use? Many thanks EvilxFish (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, EvilxFish. There's a list at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Verifiability and sources, and if you click on the links to individual templates, you'll see that many have a section setting that is activated by adding |section to the template code (for example, Template:Unreliable sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know that list existed, thanks for the help! Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to change a title

Hello, I would like to change the title of the DxO OpticsPro's page, but I can't see where I can do it in the english version. Can you help me ?

For the information, DxO OpticsPro renammed to DxO PhotoLab, that is why I want to edit the title. It worked in the French version but not in English

Many thanks

Diana T (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diana T: Hi look at the top banner (not in editing mode) next to the star for watch a page you will see a tab called "more", expand this and you will see "move" click that and then a menu will pop up. The rest should be intuitive however if you have any more issues with renaming the page please let us know. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diana T:, welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what EvilxFish says, in order to move a page a user account must be autoconfirmed, and it doesn't look like your account is, yet. You can either wait until you have made a few more edits (ten edits are required, and it looks like you have made eight) or you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves to post a request to have it moved. (Or perhaps somebody who reads the request here will make it - I don't have the time to read up on the background and update the article, or I'd do so. It looks like a perfectly uncontroversial move, but it'll take a little time to do the necessary revision of the article text.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User prefers no image on his wikipedia page

I left a message on the user's talk page after he reverted my edit. He confirmed via email that LHK is indeed Lodge Kerrigan and that he "prefers not to post an image"

What is the policy around these kind of requests? sikander (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siqbal: Per WP:OWN, nobody has any right of ownership or editorial control over an article, not even the subject of the article. He can discuss with other editors to find WP:CONSENSUS about an image, but he cannot insist that the page remain at a version that he prefers. Per WP:AUTOPROB, he can follow the dispute resolution process by first engaging other editors on the talk page. If he's still not satisfied, then WP:BLPN would be the next logical step. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Paid editing" tag on the article's page

Hi,

An article I wrote has recently been accepted to Wikipedia. Today, I have noticed that there is now a rather big banner on top of the article page with a dollar sign and the following text "This article has been edited in return for disclosed payments. View disclosure."

I am a COI editor and I have disclosed this on the draft talk page before the article was written.

My question is, is this banner obligatory or necessary? I couldn't find any information on that, nor do I understand why this tag was added later and not at the time when the article was moved from Articles for creation. I understand that my COI has to be disclosed on the talk page, but I find the banner disruptive and would like to have it removed, if at all possible.

Many thanks for your replies.

NindriIndri (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that Template:Disclosed paid is a new template, less than a week old, and that there is discussion about it at Template talk:Disclosed paid. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I'll try arguing my case there.

NindriIndri (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NindriIndri, you are not a COI editor, you are a PAID editor. There's a difference. You are being compensated by the subject of the article to create the article. Don't you understand that the vast majority of articles are NOT created that way? Please explain to us what is disruptive about informing our readers that the article you were paid to write was created by someone for pay? When assessing a source of information, it is vital to know how the information was gathered. For example, would you trust the voracity of a study on the effects of smoking on the human body that was commissioned by a tobacco company? Why should the article you wrote be different? In my eye, by accepting payment from the subject of the article to create it, you have forever called into doubt the content of the article and IMO that tag should remain until neutral editors have rewritten every word that you wrote. The discussion David Biddulph references above is a discussion of the meta issues behind the existence of the tag. It is not the place to discuss the placement of the tag on the particular article you got paid to write. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, if you do decide to contribute to the discussion David mentioned, it's required that you disclose your status as a paid editor there. Also you are required by paid to list on your user page or your user talk page every article you've accepted compensation to write and who paid you. You have not done that. John from Idegon (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per what David Biddulph said, the template in question is very new. I created it less than a week ago, and in the meantime have been preparing an official proposal at the village pump. I have added the tag to a number of articles to show its veracity, and have removed it if contested by any editor, including those who have edited articles for pay.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John from IdegonThank you for your comment. I did not know that I had to disclose the information regarding paid articles on my talk page, I thought it should be disclosed on the article's talk page (and no one has brought this up so far). I will do so immediately, I just have to figure out how.

Regarding the topic: to go back to your example, I presume such a tobacco company study or it's results would not have been accepted to Wikipedia. My article has been properly tagged as paid, reviewed and then accepted; thus I believe my article has met WP standards for inclusion: neutral tone, notability, references etc., the same as any other article ever accepted on WP (paid or not) and I don't see a reason why the reader should then be blasted with a huge dollar sign that makes it look like an advertisement and may make them not trust the article (the info is available on the talk page, after all, for those curious about the author or circumstances).

I understand that there may have been many cases of abuse of WP and that long-time editors may see red when they see a paid editor, but I (or the client) had no intentions of bypassing any rules or doing anything prohibited or sketchy. I have tried to the best of my abilities to abide by the WP rules and outside of my connection to the client (painter), I am an art historian and so I know the topic I wrote about and as a scholar, I understand the need for objectivity. Wouldn't it be a huge waste of time to rewrite an article that has already been accepted and meets the standards? Just out of spite or paranoia? Contrary to your opinion, I see nothing wrong with people being paid to write articles for WP (actually, I think it would be nice if everyone was paid), as long as this is disclosed and the information is accurate and reviewed. I'm sure there are hundreds of articles on WP written by paid contributors who chose to hide their connection to the client and I don't think it's particularly helpful to use such a negatively-charged tone when communicating with the few of us that did and treat us like lepers.

Please understand that from the perspective of a new editor, Wikipedia is a huge place and not the easiest to navigate or write an article for, not to mention the numerous rules and opinions of different editors that one meets along the way. This is precisely the reason why I have not contributed more - since I've joined WP, I feel like everyone's "out to get me".

Additionally, as far as I can see, this template has not been generally accepted and I don't know why the article I wrote should be tagged when other articles are not (yet).

I have disclosed my status of paid editor on the template talk page and I do not argue the appropriateness of this template for my article only but in general. I can also remove that if you feel it's out of place. I would like to stress again that I am not trying to obfuscate anything and I don't have any hidden agendas. I just really don't see any need to differentiate in such an obvious manner articles which, in terms of general guidelines, have all been accepted as worthy of inclusion in WP - and I mean all of them, not just in my case.

Kind regards,

NindriIndri (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the rules for disclosing PAID and as far as I can see, I have obliged:

Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.

NindriIndri (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not disclose it on your user page? What possible reason can there be not to do that, when you are a paid editor? I am trying to understand here. --bonadea contributions talk 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COIDISCLOSEPAY is clear than it is not required. I would support forcing notices to go both on the userpage and on either each edit summary or the talk page of every PAID-edited article; but that is not the current state of things, so I do not think they need to answer your question by anything else than "because I do not want to". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paid editor is (obviously) under no obligation to disclose on the article page. But it does not mean that such disclosure is prohibited. It was added, some find it useful, some believe it is required by European law, and some think it is unnecessary. A consensus is yet to be formed on this matter. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have disclosed it since I have been notified of this recommendation. I have previously not done so because I presumed from the wording that it was necessary to disclose my status on the article talk page and it was optional to add it to my own. I didn't try to hide anything, I just focused on the article and not the unnecessary "bureaucracy". I find the way Wikipedia works (with all the codes and templates etc.) quite overwhelming so I try to fiddle as little as possible with it. The way John from Idegon phrased his reply made it seem like disclosing all articles on the user page is a hard rule I had intentionally disobeyed and was therefore a "bad" paid editor, when in fact it is a recommendation ("advise" is the verb used) and the way I marked the article has not raised any concerns with previous Wiki editors.

Kindly,

NindriIndri (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for approved article creation

Hello, sir. Iam love to created an article and editing article please allow me for creating articles. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolphin (Dolphin) (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dolphin (Dolphin), and welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor can create an article; but very new editors cannot do so directly, but have to use the article wizard and create a draft. This is because creating an article that is acceptable is difficult, and it is very unlikely that a new editor will be able to do so at the first attempt. I would actually advise almost any editor to use wizard (or equivalent) and create a draft rather than going straight to creating the article. Dolphin, I suggest you study your first article, and follow the advice there - in particular, about editing existing articles for a while before you try creating a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the warm welcome! willkimon Duet1234 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a list of WP Improvement projects (specifcally UI design)

I'm back to the Teahouse because I have not yet found a good answer to this question on either Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Maybe it's too soon.

'Knowledge as a service' is an explicit strategy in the Wikimedia Stragegic Direction 2017-2030. Implicitly, this strategy covers how content from Wikiprojects is accessed by - and is presented to - readers. I understand that any long-term improvement program is complex and takes time. I would expect some kind of 'Road Map' but this may well be something for 2018.

I think that the way in which WP content is currently presented to readers could be improved. But I've been unable to find any WP or WM projects that address this in 2017-2018. The WP projects page seems to be exclusively focused on content and languages. UI is not a priority in the WM plans. It seems that there is no 'talk page' (either on WM or WP) where I can add suggestions on 'Presentation of content to readers'.

Any ideas? Thanks for any help,

Mike [Categorie: finding my way around] Mikemorrell49 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikemorrell49. Have you looked at WP:VPP? It's about proposals rather than WMF's decisions, but it's probably the closest there is to what you're looking for. --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, [User:ColinFine|Colin], I hadn't thought of the VP but it's definately the place for proposals about WP that are not already covered by projects.Mikemorrell49 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea Mikemorrell49. I'll put my thinking cap on and see if I can find info related to your query, but in the meantime I wanted to give you a cyber thumbs up. ;0) - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the 'thumbs up', Mark>! Mikemorrell49 (talk)

Announcement: "Save changes" has been renamed "Publish changes"

Image of "Publish changes" button (formerly "Save changes") as seen in Visual Editor. This button appears at the top right of the editing screen.

A small name change has just been made to the blue "Save changes" button in everyone's editing tool. It is now labelled "Publish changes", but its function has not altered. As before, it simply saves the recent edits that have been typed in, whether they've been made in the main encyclopaedia, in a user page or to a draft article. It does not make any difference to how Draft articles, or content in user sandboxes, are actually published (i.e. made to go live) on Wikipedia proper. See Wikipedia:Your first article

New editors need to be aware that our various help pages, (here, here and here) for example, may remain a little out of date for a while until new graphics and explanatory text are provided. This also affects users learning about editing by taking The Wikipedia Adventure. Hopefully, this won't cause too much confusion.

(I learnt of this scheduled wikipedia-wide change as a result of a post from David Biddulph and others, pointing us to this and this announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation.) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Fox merger

To prepare for the inevitable Disney-Fox deal, should we start putting parentheses for the deal impending, should we put a fate tab abouve the founding tab for the fox properties, should we put a defunct tab? what should we do?Vinnylospo (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinnylospo. I'm not sure what you're asking in respect of Wikipedia. If the deal has been reported in reliable sources, then information about it may be added to the articles affected. Once a deal has gone through and been reported in reliable sources, then articles about subjects affected by the deal should be updated (whether it's names, logos, ownership etc). In some cases, articles may need to be revised, as some existing information may become historical (which doesn't necessarily mean that it should be removed). Every article needs to be considered individually: if you're interested in helping with that task, that would be useful. I haven't a clue what you mean by "put a fate tab abouve the founding tab for the fox properties, should we put a defunct tab". --ColinFine (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to choose a correct template for flora expositions

I translated a page 2018 Taichung World Flora Exposition, but used the wrong template Template:Infobox World's Fair. Which one should I use? I have not found a better one.March happy (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's target audience

I thought the target audience for Wikipedia was anyone who could use a search engine. I have run into an editor that thinks a specific article should use data in metric units because that is the "industry standard" for the discipline that article is in. The article is about a specific rocket engine which is an "aerospace" topic.User-duck (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC) What is the "target audience"?User-duck (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is stated here. Metric units should be used. Maproom (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom Metric units are the primary unit. And the reference resolves some of my ton vs. tonne questions.

But my question was not answered: "What is the "target audience"?User-duck (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion only: anyone in the world who can read English. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref https://en.wikipedia.org/…/King's_College,_Auckland

This concerns the Alumni section.My father attended King's College. As a commander of a RAF bomber squadron in the last war,he was awarded a DSO and 2 DFC's and I wager deserves an inclusion in this Alumni section of King's. An obituary was written in The Daily Telegraph,so most of the relevant information on his career is cited in this obituary.His full name is Wing Commander Douglas Rivers Bagnall. Can you guide me please how to incorporate this information into the King's Alumni. 217.43.201.162 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is about Category:People educated at King's College, Auckland. That is a list of all people with Wikipedia articles about them who were educated at the college. I can't find a Wikipedia article about Douglas Rivers Bagnall. While there's no such article, he can't be added to the category: that's not a matter of policy, it's a consequence of how categories work, an article is added to a category by a tag at the end of the article, so if there's no article there's nowhere to put the tag. Maproom (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on an article about your father Douglas Rivers Bagnall if you wish to make any suggestions on the article's talk page you are welcome, but as you have a conflict of interest it is best not to edit the article directly. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QARABAĞ FK

Qarabağ FK Azərbaycanı^[1]n ən yaxşı komandasıdır.Ən güclu komandadır.Qarabağ 2017-ci ildə UEFA-ya çıxır. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.190.127 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

References

^ {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

This is the English Wikipedia, and questions here should be asked in English. A list of other language Wikipedias is available. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be looking for az:? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia fund requests

Hi - when W started asking for funds some years ago in order to maintain its independence I set up a DD for the sum requested. Almost every time I open a wikipedia page I get asked for a contribution. I appreciate this is necessary but is there anyway to link my ip address, or something like that, to the fact I contribute every month?2A00:23C5:5505:C00:BDC8:635F:7C4D:EE27 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions! I don't think there's a way to opt-out using just your IP address, but if you create an account there is a preference to turn off the fundraising ads whilst you are logged in. – Joe (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no means to prevent your IP from getting the notices(which are done by the Foundation and not Wikipedia itself). The only way to stop them is to register a username. 331dot (talk)•

How to write an article about a fashion designer?

I want to write an article about a fashion designer. The name of the article is Lili Miro.

I followed the below mentioned page as reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manish_Malhotra

I started writing as... Lili Miro, Founder & CEO of the premium luxury personal shopping and luxury request management brand Lili Miro, is one of the most respected fashion advisors in the Middle East and a celebrated personal buyer for rich and famous.

It is similar to Manish Malhotra is an Indian fashion designer[2][3] who often works with Hindi cinema actresses. He launched his label in 2005.

However, my article is tagged for speedy deletion...

Please adviceLilimiro (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilimiro: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you confused your username with that of an article title, and then created the page on your userpage which is meant to discuss your personal Wikipedia editing. This made it seem like you were promoting yourself, which is not permitted. You should also change your username so it is not that of the person you are writing about. I will place a link on your talk page to do that.

Also, the language you use above is very promotional as well. Encyclopedia articles should not have embellishments like "celebrated" in them. Note that each article is judged on it's own merits; other similar articles existing doesn't mean yours can be permitted too. See WP:OSE for more information. You should read Your First Article before doing anything else. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thanks for the clarification and guidance.Lilimiro (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

minimum standard for inline citations.

Hi Teahouse,

I need to make sure my article has the minimum standard for inline citations. Would someone be able to show or share an example with me so I'll be able to action? Appreciate any help sent my way

Cheers, JPimbo

JPimbo (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPimbo. The minimum standard for inline citations is that any statement that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" is directly supported by an inline citations. However, Wikipedians' expectations for referencing have become stricter over time and there is now no reason why anyone should be contributing new content that is not directly supported by a reference. Looking at your draft, Draft:Michael Spencer Jones, the problem is obvious: you have no inline citations at all. There is a list of references at the end, but it is hard for readers to verify which statement comes from which reference. As it is a short article it should not be too hard for you to add inline citations to each statement, and that will greatly increase the chance your draft will be accepted. If you don't know how, see referencing for beginners. Lesley J. Gordon would be an example of a biography about the same length of yours that is referenced in this way. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who reviews submitted drafts?

I recently submitted a new page for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gilson_(company)

Who edits these drafts? Is there a select group of editors with permission to accept new page submissions, or can anyone do it?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglife.bmarcus (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cglife.bmarcus: I think that any registered editor may review the drafts by following the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions RudolfRed (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not correct, RudolfRed. See my response below and WP:WPAFC/P. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cglife.bmarcus. Because a central tenet of Wikipedia is that no rule should stand in the way of improving the encyclopaedia, anybody with the technical ability to move a page can "accept" a draft by moving it from the "Draft:" namespace to the main article namespace. However, there is a consensus amongst the Wikipedia community that only experienced editors who have demonstrated a familiarity with our policies and guidelines should be reviewing drafts on a regular basis. The formal minimum criteria can be found at WP:WPAFC/P. Editors who are not approved reviewers that accept a draft will often find that the draft is either moved back to draftspace, or nominated for deletion.

If you are asking about yourself, there are some additional restrictions because you have been paid for your contributions to Wikipedia. In order to comply with the paid editing policy and conflict of interest policy you must not accept any of your own drafts, or any other drafts on a connected topic. Many editors also feel that paid editors cannot be trusted to review any drafts at all, and you would likely meet strong scrutiny and resistance if you tried to do so. – Joe (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"How can I address the issue of one who persistently erases appropriate material we have submitted?"

We post pertinent material on your "Rapture" article page BUT someone keeps erasing our submissions (2). Do you have any counsel as to how we can retain our appropriate posts?99.197.186.77 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the note on your talk page that another editor is trying to work with you on this. You should continue the discussion there or on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

linguistic technical question

The article Minimalist_program confusingly uses two similar abbreviations, vP and VP, for apparently different things, verb phrase and verb phase. And what does the unexplained abbreviation CP in the article Minimalist_program refer to? It says "see X-bar theory", but that doesn't even mention CP. According to CP and complementizer, CP means complementizer phrase, but the section Minimalist_program#Phases confusingly talks only about phases.

And how do i turn off the visual editor? I thought i'd done that in the preferences, but it doesn't seem to affect the "Ask a question" button here. I thought i'd asked that somewhere, but i can't find my question. Clicking on words at the beginning of lines in this textbox makes the textbox disappear on Firefox on my laptop and on Chrome on my Galaxy Tab S2! --Espoo (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espoo. Your comment on minimalist program is best directed to the talk page of that article (Talk:Minimalist program). That is where editors discuss improvements to specific articles. Or if you can fix the problem yourself, please do so.

The "ask a question" function of the Teahouse doesn't use the Visual Editor, it's a custom interface for the Teahouse. However, you don't have to use it. You can simply edit this page like any other on Wikipedia, and ask a question by clicking "add section" in the tab bar at the top of this page. – Joe (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Please get the UI fixed. It will upset many new users so much to see their unfinished message disappear that they may not try to click on the button again, which makes the unfinished message reappear. According to the principle of least surprise, there should be a start-a-new-section button hidden behind the plus sign like on all talk pages (which is a very bad UI solution but familiar to regular editors), and the "ask a question" button should produce the same result. --Espoo (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFauna question

Can I be more than one type of WikiFauna? (e.g. WikiCat/WikiEagle/WikiKnight)? German Gamer 77 18:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GermanGamer77 and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Since WikiFauna are often only loosely described, you may find several descriptions that seem to aptly apply to yourself. You could be a WikiFauna hybrid or chimera and it won't affect what you can do as an editor. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing user warnings

If I post on a user talk page a warning template at the same time as a bot (for example, Cluebot NG) posts one, is it considered good practice to remove or undo the one I added? Radioactivated (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Radioactivated: If it's for the same incidence of vandalism, then yes. It's not really fair to warn a user twice for the same mistake. – Joe (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical referencing editnotice at Allele age

I added the parenthetical referencing editnotice template to Allele age but it is appearing when I read the article. I was expecting it only to appear when editing the article. Where did I go wrong? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curb Safe Charmer. A Wikipedia:Editnotice for Allele age would belong in Template:Editnotices/Page/Allele age. Then it's automatically displayed above the edit area when editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Editnotices can only be placed or modified by admins. I'd do it for you, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case. We retain Harvard referencing when it's firmly established in an article, but allele age is a brand new article by a new user and should probably be shifted over to the standard footnote referencing. – Joe (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit of My Neighbor Totoro page

Hello, I recently added an edit to the page for the film My Neighbor Totoro and this was my first contribution to Wikipedia. I did this for a class project but i really tried to add something that I thought might stay up so I'm just wondering why it was taken down? I would really like to know what about it was unsuitable- if it was simply not the right page to add the info to or if there was something within the edit itself that made it unsuitable. I would love to discuss what I can do in future to contribute meaningful information to Wikipedia. Thank you, H.Frances H.F.M. (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi H.F.M., your edit was reverted here because WP:FRINGE, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RS. Please read those pages to better understand the content the article is looking for. NZFC^(talk) 01:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, H.Frances. You added a fringe theory advanced by certain fans to the article My Neighbor Totoro. In my opinion, this material does not belong in the article, because it gives undue weight to a crank theory lacking evidence. The other editor also thought that your addition was inappropriate, and reverted you. That editor explained their reasoning quite clearly in their edit summary. If you still believe that this content belongs in the article, then the proper place to make your case is Talk: My Neighbor Totoro. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting References

I have written the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alexsokolov/sandbox&action=edit I have read Referencing for beginners, but I realised the problem is with formatting references properly, but it is beyond me - I am too old and have a hard time figuring it out. Would anyone else please format it as it should be. Thank you Alexsokolov (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexsokolov welcome to our teahouse. As one old guy to another - you have my sympathy! I think I'd been editing for over 6 months here before I realised I didn't have to add references by hand. It doesn't matter which of the two editing tools you use here, because both have a drop down window labelled "Cite" where you simply add the relevant details of your reference wherever you have placed your cursor (i.e. the end of the sentence containing the fact you want to support.) I choose to use use the editing tool which shows you all the codes and symbols (wikimarkup), and once I hit the "Cite" button, the line beneath it changes to offer a drop down box labelled "template". From that, I simply select the most appropriate template to insert a reference from either a book, website, or a scientific journal. You then get offered a range of fields into which you add author, publisher, date, ISBN number etc. You even get to a chance to preview it before inserting into the page.

Shown above is a shot of the other editor (called Visual Editor), and you can clearly see the "cite" button. Clicking that will get you a pop-up window where you can choose to manually add the date for author, title, publisher etc. But, wonderfully, if you have an ISBN number of a book, or a url of a website, you can simply paste that in at the "automatic" tab and the tool will do its best to add the reference for you. I'll pop over to your sandbox draft and add an example reference for you, too. (I should add that I am finding it hard to immediately appreciate how Armalinsky meets our notability guidelines. Basing the article on sources that write about him and his work (whether banned or not) is more useful than a long list of works he's published. (For details, see WP:GNG and WP:NBIO), and you could focus on this a bit more, too, before submitting it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello Alexsokolov and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a stab earlier at making your sandbox look a little more like a Wikipedia article, but you've definitely done the references in a way that will take a while to fix. I've been known to occasionally provide this service, but I'm not making any promises. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internal link not working!

When I try to link to another page, like Page the link will be red. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A link to an article that exists, like book, will work and be blue. A link to an article that does not exist, like zarg, will not work and will be red. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CoolSkittle, welcome to the Teahouse. Adding to Maproom's advice, I suspect your query relates to this message you left on the Talk page of another user. First, there was nothing wrong with the link you gave the user, mentioning a different user called Armascout. That link is red simply because they've not yet created themselves a user page (not everybody does) so it's red, like Maproom said. However, your link to Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Getaway was red because you typed it by hand, and did not use the correct lower and upper cases in the title. (Page titles are case sensitive). Once again, it's red because that page with that use of capitalisation doesn't exist. But Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Getaway, does. The best way to ensure a correct link is to copy/paste the text from the title of the page itself. Hoping this makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

who is sitaphul?Sophiekkk (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

is a national newspaper a good reference? sectionSophiekkk (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiekkk (talk • contribs) 09:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sophiekkk -welcome to Wikipedia and welcome to the Teahouse, where we aim to help people with problems whilst editing Wikipedia. Most national newspapers (except opinion pieces and letters within it) would normally be regarded as what we call a "reliable source" (See WP:RS, and especially this section within that page). But there is a caveat: Some national papers have been known to make up false stories (so-called fake news), usually to meet political ends. Other national newspapers aren't really newspapers at all. So the (true) fact that my photograph once appeared on the front cover of the Sunday Sport with a story about my activities as an alien buying works of art from earth-based museums inside it wouldn't be regarded as reliable, even though it was genuinely in print in a nationally-circulated paper. As for the title of your question, I don't recognise the word sitaphul, so am unable to answer that. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiekkk, you seem to be asking about the user who posted the question here. He or she is another Wikipedia editor, just like you or me. Some editors post a little information about themselves on their user page, but not everybody does that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)

[1]

@@ Line 446: / Line 446: @@
 :: Thanks, [User:ColinFine|Colin], I hadn't thought of the VP but it's definately the place for proposals about WP that are not already covered by projects.[[User:Mikemorrell49|Mikemorrell49]] ([[User talk:Mikemorrell49|talk]]) 10:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 ::I think it's a great idea {{U|Mikemorrell49}}. I'll put my thinking cap on and see if I can find info related to your query, but in the meantime I wanted to give you a ''cyber thumbs up''. ;0) [[User:Markworthen|<span style="color:#539; font-family:copperplate gothic">&nbsp; - Mark D Worthen PsyD</span>]] [[User talk:Markworthen|<span style="color:#64B; font-family:times new roman">(talk)</span>]] 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
-::Many thanks for the 'thumbs up', [[User:Markworthen|Mark>]! [[User:Mikemorrell49|Mikemorrell49]] ([[User talk:Mikemorrell49|talk]])
+::Many thanks for the 'thumbs up', [[User:Markworthen|Mark>]]! [[User:Mikemorrell49|Mikemorrell49]] ([[User talk:Mikemorrell49|talk]])
 ==Announcement: "Save changes" has been renamed "Publish changes"==