Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

David Biddulph, 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

Article not sufficiant notable - confused

Hi,

I have a question. We write an article about a new project delivery methodology which is trademarked in Europe, US and Switzerland and used by the re-insurance market leader to manage a project of more than 200 millions. And we get the feedback that this article is not suffician notable.

on the other hand I see articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagile_software_development which describes the same methodology in a complete wrong way, in fact just a sentence by a person.

So, I am confused about what "not sufficiant notable" means. Does it mean that I need to personally know a person in the Wiki team to publish something?

I get more than 50.000 hits in goolge when searching for "Wagile"... Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegando (talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Andreas, Collegando and welcome to the Teahouse.

The article you were seeking a comparison with, Wagile software development is currently under discussion for deletion. The trend in that discussion is heading towards a conclusion that "Wagile" is not a notable software development methodology. You could participate there if you want to affect that conclusion. The outcome of that discussion will likely be taken to apply to your draft as well.

Other objections to your draft could have been brought up. It is very highly promotional, full of buzzwords and praise for how effective this approach has been. The diagrams you have incorporated would be questioned for whether they are copyrighted - for instance, the first diagram also appears in this copyrighted PDF.

Creating this draft appears to be the very first thing you have done towards editing on Wikipedia. The nature of the draft indicates you have not spent much time learning the policies and house style that need to be followed here. I'm not sure this is welcome advice, but you need to go over the instructions at your first article and NSOFT to see where you may have taken an unfortunate turn in your participation at Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, your mention that the methodology is trademarked in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland makes me think that the purpose of a trademark is to protect a market share, and that makes me think that your page may be promotional. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote a product or a methodology, and promotional pages can be deleted as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Andreas / Collegando. While I agree with everything my fellow editors have said above, I would like to address a particular aspect of your question – "what "not sufficiant [sic] notable" means" , because "notable" is a piece of Wikipedia jargon that doesn't have the everyday meaning you might have assumed.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, "notable" does not mean "important" or "widely-known." It means "sufficiently documented at length in material published by reliable sources completely independent of the subject." See Wikipedia:Notability for a much fuller discussion of this.

By reliable sources we mean such things as reputable newspapers, magazines or scientific journals (So for example: New York Times yes, Weekly World News no; Nature yes, Psychic News no).

By "independent" we mean not based on what the subject itself has said. This excludes all self-published material (such as on the subject's own website, in its own publications etc.), but also anything based on interviews with its representatives or press releases from it, even if these are published in the aforementioned reliable sources.

By "at length" we mean at least two (but preferably more) passages of at least several paragraphs entirely or largely about the subject, not passing mentions or entries in a list, however many of those there might be: those latter may be suitable as citations to corroborate specific facts about the subject, but not to support its notability.

It may be that there is not yet sufficient published material fulfilling these criteria on which to base a Wikipedia article (and unpublished material, including your (or my, or anybody's) own knowledge does not qualify). That is what those considering the article's deletion are attempting to determine. However, this may be merely a question of Wikipedia:Too soon, so an article may be possible some time in the future if the subject is successful in the real world and consequently is written about more by disinterested parties.

If you think the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term, you need to demonstrate this by citing the sort of acceptable material I have described above and basing the article on it alone, not on what you personally know. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.212.15.178|90.212.15.178] (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ALSO, you started with "We." Editors are required to be individuals. If you are a you, don't write "We." AND, the "We" suggests that you individually or as a group are associated with the company you are writing about. See WP:COI and WP:PAID David notMD (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you very much for your feedback.

I tried to write this article as precise as possible with as many facts as possible - like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development) - and I obviously spend some considerable time for this. I used graphs from the standard model as otherwise it would be my own interpretation, like the Scrum article does as well. It is now considered as being promotional, fair enough.

The discussion about hybrid project delivery strategies is not new though, there is many books and references about this topic. I unfortunately do not have a complete overview of all the different tendencies is this area, that is why I focused on only one methodology I know as the company I work for decided to apply this methodology. My motivation of writing this article was, that when I first heard about this methodology and was searching on Wiki, I only found this Wagile development article.

Please don't take it as a critic and don't get emotional, I just still did not fully understand how this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagile_software_development), which refers to a single blog of a single person is accepted and not considered as promotional, with the only working reference to a page saying in the title: "Jason Gorman's Software People Inspiring - Follow me on Twitter". Your argument that this article is under discussion to get deleted is not an argument why it initially has been accepted. It is even strange to me that you need to discuss so long about the deletion of an article which is obviously against your policies.

Anyway, I understood there is nothing I can do to publish anything around this topic as "there is not yet sufficient published material fulfilling these criteria", I will therefore not invest more time.

I honestly thank you for your time to explain everything to me. Many greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.26.20 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The existence of an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it has necessarily been "accepted" by anybody, ever. Nowadays, there are editors watching new pages and checking on their quality and suitability; but in earlier times many substandard articles were created. Often, a discussion like this brings such an article to people's notice, and it either gets improved (or at leaast, flagged for improvement) or deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A question regarding an article that doesn't exist, and it’s creation is being blocked in error

There is no article for the term Expletive, and I think there needs to be. There are articles for Syntactic expletive and Dummy pronoun which are fine, but they are different — they both refer to a particular kind of expletive, and not the most common. If you search Wikipedia for Expletive it sends you to a disambiguation page. And Wikipedia will not allow an article on Expletive, because it says there already is an article — which there isn't. I wanted to write an article on the term, so I'm interested in a suggestion on how I might proceed. Thank you. Cottonwalyer (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cottonwalyer, welcome to the Teahouse. Would the new article also be different from the topics covered by Profanity and Expletive attributive? (That last one isn't currently mentioned on the disambiguation page, but perhaps should be) › Mortee _talk 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Cottonwalyer, you can start writing the article at Draft:Expletive, and when it's ready for mainspace then made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. It will then be moved to mainspace for you. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(I was wrong above; the attributive is linked to on the dab, I didn't just find it that way). › Mortee _talk 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Cottonwalyer, Ammarpad, and Mortee: This is now at WP:RM/TR. There is already a disambiguation page at Expletive. It is possible if desired to move the existing page to Expletive (disambiguation) and replace it with this draft. Please indicate if that is what is wanted here. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• @Frayae: If that would allow the draft to become an article I believe that would be a good solution. Cottonwalyer (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(I thought I had posted this comment a while earlier today.) To respond first to Mortee, yes, an article on "Expletive" differs from those two highly limited articles. "Expletive" is the bigger, older, all inclusive, umbrella term. And those other articles are recent and highly limited to particular smaller things, that perhaps could be said to derive from "Expletive". And Ammarpad and Mortee, thank you very for your responses.Cottonwalyer (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cottonwalyer, that's great. It sounds like a very useful article to have written. It also sounds like it's intended to cover all the topics currently being disambiguated between, except perhaps profanity, with links out to the other articles for more detail. If that's right, it might be simplest to overwrite Expletive (disambiguation)Expletive, rather than keeping a separate disambiguation page. Maybe add a hatnote to Profanity for readers who had that specifically in mind. Just a thought, anyway. › Mortee _talk 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 20:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC))

I added a one-sentence subheading to cover "profanity". It's an improvement. (I only had to add the heading). Thanks, Mortee. Cottonwalyer (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see that you'd mentioned it already, just not linked to the page. My thought was that if this article replaces Expletive (not Expletive (disambiguation) as I wrongly wrote above), you could replace {{Other uses}} at the top with {{See also|Profanity}}, as a quick redirect for readers who have found themselves in the wrong place. A brief section like the one you've started that covers the use of expletives in forming profanity, with either a simple wikilink or with a {{main article}}, is another perfectly sound approach. Thank you for writing the draft. › Mortee _talk 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. I replaced Expletive with the draft article. It seems to have worked. Thank you very much. Cottonwalyer (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, Cottonwalyer, Mortee, Ammarpad, and Frayae: The way the current content at Expletive was added is, I think, a problem. This edit completely replaced the older content. But as a result the redirect Expletive (disambiguation) is no longer pointing to a disambiguation page. Moving the older content there would constitute a cut-and-paste move, which breaks article history and is therefore to be avoided.

It also looks like there was something at Draft:Expletive, but it was deleted as CSD-G7 on 5 September 2018. I don't know whether that might also have been a problematic cut-and-paste. Perhaps an administrator could perform the necessary Wikipedia:REFUNDs and history merges? Alternately, if this seems to require more discussion, that should take place at the proper venue. I'm not certain where that would be, but this thread is probably not sufficient. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cnilep, the draft was created yesterday by one editor in about three edits, so the cut and paste move didn't lose any significant information and histmerge isn't necessary. Now it's deleted I can't double check this, but an admin could, if you're still concerned. Expletive (disambiguation) only has one page linking to it, which is easily changed, and the new Expletive to which it still redirects has links to the various topics that were being disambiguated between, so it functions equally well as a disambiguation page, to my mind. I should have been clearer in my reply that I meant it as a proposal to see what others thought, but I don't think the way the new page was created has caused any problems. If you're seeing issues I'm not, do let me know (perhaps on the article talk page?) and I'll help to resolve them if I can. › Mortee _talk 06:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's the situation: There was quite a decent draft article at Draft:Expletive, written by Cottonwalyer. It was the same as the current content of the article. Cottonwalyer was the only one to edit the draft page. On 9/5 they blanked it and tagged it G7. I deleted it. Cottonwalyer then pasted that content into Expletive, covering up the DAB. Ideally we 1) should restore that DAB material (the version last edited by Cnilip on 1/14/16) which would keep the history, 2) move the page to Expletive (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect, 3) restore Draft:Expletive, and 4) move it to Expletive which would retain the draft's history. Does this make sense? Should I or someone do it? And while we are at it let’s explain to Cottonwalyer about using Move instead of copy-paste. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the situation. That is basically what I assumed had happened. Also, your proposed actions are pretty much exactly what I had in mind. Unless anyone else objects, I think that would be a fine thing to do. FWIW, I left a message on User talk:Cottonwalyer pointing to this discussion. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. There may be some cleaning up to do, including adding "Expletive" to the DAB page, and the appropriate hatnote to the new article, but I'll leave that to the rest of you. If I messed anything up let me know. BTW I am amazed that we managed to get through this whole discussion without ever saying (Expletive deleted). (There, I said it!) --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Cnilep I got the message regarding "Move", and thanks to everyone for all the thought and help. Hugely appreciated. Best, Cottonwalyer (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Improvements

The article I've written on Jon Jashni has been tagged for cleanup to address neutrality and notability. I've disclosed my COI as I am associated with the company he runs but would like to request a review of the article. Based on what I have learned on Wikipedia:Notability (people) for creative professionals I feel the article cites numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in addition to citing the significant role he played in his body of work. And the membership he holds with AMPAS, AFI, and PGA certainly denotes he is an important figure in his professional field. The user who added the tags has not yet responded to my request for help, so I'm hoping to get some help here. I'm fairly new to editing, so looking for some guidance. Please let me know how I might improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxx7291 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that the article fails to provide evidence that Jashni is notable. You say "I feel the article cites numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; can you list a few sources that do that while including significant discussion of him? There are 27 references in the article, and I'm not going to check them all. But the first five all fail. 1 is based on an interview with him, and so is not independent. 2, 3 and 5 list his name, with no discussion at all. 4 does not even mention him. Maproom (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I can add sources to what is already cited. Are there any additional improvements I can make? And how might I request a review of the article so that those improvements might get seen and the tags removed?--Xxxx7291 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Xxxx7291

Don't reference bomb (excessive referencing). Winnow out all but high quality refs. David notMD (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

David notMD is right, I should have been clearer. When experienced editors say "the references aren't good enough", they're not asking you to add even more worthless references, they're asking to replace all the worthless references by a few better ones. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the COI template from the top of the article, as Xxxx7291 now properly declared as PAID contributor on the Talk page. Also removed a few of the non-suitable refs, but more winnowing needed. With proper referencing, my opinion is that Jashni is sufficiently notable in the Wikipedia sense to warrant this article, but I will leave that decision on the remaining template to editors more knowledgeable about the film industry. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Permission to Use Wikipedia info in New Book

Hello -- I realize Wikipedia is free, and volunteer driven, but my attorney still suggested I write asking permission to use a few quotations from your Cannabis section, which will be used in a new book coming out this holiday season, "No More Weed In Our House," By Justin Daniels.

Please advise if I need anything further, other than to make a donation? Thank you, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5700:2F80:454C:50E:1E9:E92B (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You already have that permission. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Anyone can re-use Wikipedia's text for any purpose, provided that you give proper attribution and re-release the content under the same or compatible license.

Donations are entirely voluntary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem more clued up than your attorney. Maybe you should be charging them for your advice. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Feedback please

HI, I am a very new contributor of Wikipedia, and I have made my debut by editing the article about Puhoi village in New Zealand several weeks ago. I have not heard anything from Wikipidia since, and the content I added does not look as it has been deleted in the "TALK" box. I would really appreciate if someone from Wikipedia team could get back to me either via Wikipedia Thank you in advance :) Warmest Regards, Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria Kirichuk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

At Puhoi, clicking on View history, I see three edits by you. The first was reversed by an editor as a copyright violation. The second used a flawed reference format, so it is invisible. The third appears as a reference, although it had to be fixed by another editor. David notMD (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Victoria Kirichuk. Generally, editors are not given feedback on the edits they make unless they really do something they shouldn't have done. Most of the time the good edits we make are simply built upon by others and any mistakes we make are simply corrected by others. If you're looking for personalized feedback, then you're probably going to have to ask for it here at the Teahouse or on the relevant article's talk page. You could also simply add the articles you edit to your watchlist and monitor their respective page histories for changes. If someone WP:REVERTS one of your edits or revises content you added, check to see if an edit sum was left explaining why or ask for clarification on the other editor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Person Information

I Don't understand what's My Wikipedia page, Isaac Morales. Not the baseball Player. just myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imorales914 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Imorales914. I'm not exactlly sure what you mean by "My Wikipedia page", but perhaps you mean your user page. Each Wikipedia account has a user page and a user talk page. A user page is bascially where you can let the rest of the Wikipedia community know a little bit a more about yourself and your Wikipedia activities, while your user talk page is where other editors will post when they want discuss Wikipedia matters with you. It's important to understand that a user page is not like a Facebook account where you pretty much can post whatever you like; rather, you will be expected to adhere to relevant user page guidelines and other editors may edit your page in cases when you don't. For reference, your userpage is User:Imorales914

On the other hand, a page like Isaac Morales is a Wikipedia article and there's quite a bit of difference between an article and a user page; so, if you're question is about writing an article about yourself, then you probably should read Wikipedia:Autobiography because trying to do such a thing is highly discouraged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How many drafts before a submission is ready for approval?

Following the helpful feedback of the Teahouse editors, I've amended several draft articles to reflect the recommendations of editors and hopefully they now meet Wikipedia standards. However, how many edits and feedback is typical before an article is approved? I'm quite keen to get this online after the previous amends that have been made but understand that it can be a process. Are there instances for example where in which an article can be approved with recommendations for continued improvements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAL123 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi DAL123. There are really no deadlines when it comes to a draft and you can submit it as many times as it takes until it's approved. As long as you don't just keep submitting the same declined version over and over again, you should be fine. Drafts only tend to get deleted when they haven't been worked on for quite a bit of time per (see WP:G13) or they have other serious problems which mean they can never be accepted as an article (see WP:GCSD); otherwise, they are usually left alone so that their creators can continue to work on them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How to move my article from the Sandbox while there is no button with move in my account

Hi goodmorning, I would like to publish my first article but I don't know very well how I can do that. I did already write a page in my Sandbox. I have some questions about it: first of all I get this message when I click on my name: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:M.C.J.Hoelscher. If in doubt, please verify that "M.C.J.Hoelscher" exists. Further I do know that I have to move my article from the Sandbox to the real but there is no button more or move in my account. Should I start all over again? (I don't hope so...) Please can you help me? Many thanks! Rieteke — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.C.J.Hoelscher (talk • contribs) 07:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi M.C.J.Hoelscher. If you want to move the article yourself, you can do so by following the instructions in WP:MOVE; however, after looking at your sandbox, I would not suggest that you do this right now since such an article is likely to be tagged for deletion rather quickly since none of the content is supported by citations to reliable sources and it's not clear whether the subject is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written. Instead, it might be better for you to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners and continue to work on the draft so that it has a better chance of being accepted as an article. Then, when you think it's ready to go, you should submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

FWIW, writing a proper Wikipedia article can be a pretty hard thing to do especially when you're a new editor who's not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; so, it might be better to learn more about what a Wikipedia article is intended to be by trying to improve existing articles and then apply what you've learned to your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Writing an autobiography

I need to write an article about myself and my accomplishments. I need to either find a writer, willing to assist me with this or write it myself. I need help crafting this article within the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayayron joans (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ayayron joans, welcome to the Teahouse. If you "need to write an article about [your]self", I advise you to create a website where you can promote yourself to your hearts content, and use it to further your acting career. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. We only care about you if, at this moment in time, you meet out WP:Notability criteria.  Draft:Aaron Jones (actor) fails in that regard, and you've had helpful feedback explaining why. Maybe it's simply WP:TOOSOON, and later on when you're walking up to collect your Oscar, you can wave two fingers at Wikipedia, and to me. But then you will have met the notability criteria for actors (set out in WP:NACTOR), and we'd love to have someone write an article about you. Whilst it's appreciated that you've declared your Conflict of Interest, I'm really not seeing anything yet to suggest an article is merited right now. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to realise why we strongly discourage people trying to write about themselves here. Sorry to disappoint. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Need a good place to get started.

Hello. I am wondering if there is a place that I could get started with editing articles, like a recent changes patrol tool or a spell checker tool like in WikiHow.I am wanting to be part of the Wikipedia community just like I am in the WikiHow community.

Thanks, --TheHeckLord (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Community portal, which has a LOT of options for contributing, especially in fixing up articles tagged for various issues, such as grammar or categorization or the like. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 13:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Templates

Hi There!

I need to remove templates on the page below. I am in desperate need of help doing this. All of my updates are getting deleted.

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

Thank you kindly,

Kelly --Thehappyworkaholic (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You asked this question, and recieved replies, yesterday on the Helpdesk. Please do not shop around for answers. You have been asked to post your proposed changes on the article talk page and told to read WP:BRD and WP:DR. That is what you need to do. - X201 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thehappyworkaholic has declared on own Talk an on this article Talk a PAID relationship. Someone more experienced than me should decide if that is sufficient to remove the COI template from the article. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The user has been repeatedly asked to post proposed changes on the article talk page, but has not, and instead has edited the article directly, so I have re-added the coi template. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I am getting warned : Page blanking by the creator and only substantive contributor to a page and CSD:G7:

I am writing an artist page and keep getting the warning above. I think I may have accidentally deleted a tag or something, because I am not trying to blank or remove anything, I am just trying to create a page. Here is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nancy_Kelly_(jazz_singer)

I started with an artist template from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artist_biography_article_template and then made modifications

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks.

Jeff Berezin — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBerezin (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello JeffBerezin. You absolutely did nothing wrong. What you're seeing is just an edit notice informing your of something that may be helpful to you. Continue your editing and do not bother about it. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@JeffBerezin: for what it's worth, I'm fairly experienced now and edit drafts sometimes as a reviewer at WP:AfC; that edit notice freaks me out every single time. › Mortee _talk 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick responses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBerezin (talk • contribs)

Good, @JeffBerezin: and when you post at discussion pages, don't forget to sign your comments by appending for tildes (~~~~) at the end. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, got it! Thanks.JeffBerezin (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

JeffBerezin nicely done. (I too forgot to sign posts early on). Best of luck with Draft:Nancy Kelly (jazz singer) › Mortee _talk 20:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The editnotice is confusing and not helpful. I have started a discussion requesting that it be changed at Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Draft#message_freaks_out_new_and_experienced_editors_editors --Vexations (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird

I was trying to warn a user with Twinkle but when I did that instead of my name it showed Favonian and Drmies' usernames . After that it is fine . Can you say how that happened ? [1] and [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk • contribs)

@Kpgjhpjm:, there is a problem with {{REVISIONUSER}} magic word. Being worked on in T203583. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

language links

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T203750

I use Wikipedia in multiple languages. Until recently the language links on the left hand side was a complete list, but apparently it was decided to reduce this to a short list with a box "other" you could click on, revealing the complete list classified by continentMountparnassus (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC). This was annoying but I could live with it.

But now clicking on the box "others" has no effect whatsoever.

How do I find the same article in other languages now ?

Huh, Firefox does not collapse the list, but I just tried Chrome and I also see that the box does not work. Chris857 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's a difference of being logged in vs logged out. In your preferneces Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-languages, uncheck "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you.". However, the button definitely has a problem. Chris857 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Same issue here with Firefox. I have created a Phabricator task for this issue (see above - feel free to add additional relevant details). Thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Chris857. I didn't realise it was in my preferences.Mountparnassus (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Permission Error.

Yesterday I successfully added an image to a page ....Driving simulator...Today I tried to add another image to the Driving simulator page and this time it was was not inserted because of a Permission Error. Can anyone explain why and what I can do about it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriverSafety (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi DriverSafety, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not exactly clear what error you encountered, but it looks like you tried to invoke an image on the page that hadn't yet been fully uploaded to Commons. Once an image is uploaded there, you can put it in the article using e.g. [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|right|caption text|alt=description for those who can't see the image]]. If you keep having problems, please do ask again and be as specific as you can about what you've tried and what errors you've seen. › Mortee _talk 17:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Question - are editors allowed to share personal info (such as real names)?

Hi everyone, quick question - A user asked for my full real name on my talk page, I reverted that edit since that was nonsense, but is asking for one's full real name allowed on Wikipedia?

The diff is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IanDBeacon&oldid=858305716

Thanks so much, --IanDBeacon (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi IanDBeacon, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know a rule against asking a user for their own name. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information does not mention it. But the post was clearly not about you. The user reverted an edit by you two minutes earlier [3] and mentioned the full name of a source in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, I was confused, didn't know if he was asking me for my name or not. Thanks so much again. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi IanDBeacon, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia editors are free to reveal as much or as little personal information as they like, and most choose to reveal very little indeed. Any attempt to find out more is distinctly against etiquette, and any attempt to reveal more than an editor has revealed themselves is WP:Outing, and is taken very seriously. The way the other editor phrased their message isn't at all clear, but I think they were trying to ask you about this edit of yours, which they reverted, because part of that change moved the full name "Edward C. O'Dowd" into the |last= field of a {{cite book}}, whereas "Edward" is of course the |first= name. In fact you reverted an IP editor seven times in the same way. You should probably read WP:3RR. › Mortee _talk 17:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have indeed read WP:3RR before, Mortee. I was trying to get the IP to stop doing so already before it got out of hand. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I haven't tried to read the full detail, but seven reverts in a row naturally doesn't look great. Anyway, I hope the message you asked about makes sense now. All the best, › Mortee _talk 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested Article...

How long should I wait after requesting an article be written by another editor, to just write it myself?

If I write it myself, can I then request other editor's help in editing it? If so, how can I do that?

Thanks in advance!

DevinAlmond (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Devin

Hello, DevinAlmond. There is no particular time that you can expect a Requested article to be picked up: many sit there for months or years. Anybody is welcome to create a new article, but be warned that creating an article is hard, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works and improving existing articles before they launch themselves into it. In any case, please start by reading your first article. I see you have made a declaration of your status as a paid editor, so I assume you have already read COI and WP:PAID. You are not forbidden from writing an article where you have a COI, but it is likely to be harder for you to be suitably neutral, and you can expect your draft to be closely reviewed.

Please note that the sources you mention in your entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine/People in medicine do not any of them appear to be a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything said, done, or published, by the subject of an article, or anything said about them by their friends, relatives, or associates, except insofar as those sayings or activities have been written about by people unconnected with the subject. This excludes anything based on an interview or press release.

In order to write an article, you would need to start by finding several places where people who have no connection whatever with Mueller have written about her, in some depth, in reliably published sources. (It would be worth your looking for these anyway, to add them to your RA posting: without them, anybody who considers taking on the article would need to go looking for these themselves). Be sure not to omit sources critical of her, if there are some of these. Then forget absolutely everything you know about her and what she has done, and write an article based only on what these sources say. Afterwards you can add in a small amount uncontroversial factual information (such as places and dates) from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What Should I do With This Message?

I tried publishing an article 3 times and I got this message: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." What should I do? Add more citations or make them better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearsome876 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Fearsome876 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you've also asked the same question at the AfC Help Desk. Please confine yourself to one question-answering forum at a time. Only if you don't get a response after a couple of days should you conclude that you need to ask elsewhere.

If you've read the guidelines on notability for musicians, you'd begin to see the sort of references needed to establish notability. We don't simply need to establish that the artist and their works exist. We need independent, in-depth coverage of the artist published in reliable sources. There's quite a long list of things that don't help in establishing notability and until you understand the difference between, say, reliable references, and notability references, this is going to seem mysterious to you.

Give the response from the reviewers, it means that you don't have notability references amongst the citations already in the draft. In many cases, the best approach is to start over!! Find the references that establish notability according to NMUSIC and summarize a very short stub of an article based only on what's present in those notability references. If these references do establish notability, your draft should be accepted. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

5 Leaf Clovers?

Should there be a page on 5 leafed clovers? I know there is one on 4 leafed clovers, but should there be one on 5 leafed ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B125:17A2:3ADE:ADFF:FEAB:946A (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

2600:1012:B125:17A2:3ADE:ADFF:FEAB:946A, four-leaf clover#Multi-leaved cultivars currently covers 5 leafed clovers, and unless it can be expanded to the point of making the main article unwieldy, it's probably more useful to add whatever information needed there, and make redirects to it if necessary. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does copyediting need to be reviewed?

As a new editor, an article about a Gujarati book was suggested to me -- Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta. There was a lot in the Synopsis that was unclear, so I hope my edits made things clearer, rather than changing any meanings. Is it important to document what changes I made in an article and why I made them? I see that other editors' comments are cryptic. Do the edits get referred back to an editor knowledgeable on the topic, or to the original writer? What if I have questions about something that isn't clear? There was a word that I had never seen before, Dilectual, and I couldn't deduce whether it was a misspelling of something else. I see that a later editor removed the term. I wondered if I should remove the copyediting alert, but others found a few more items to fix, so perhaps it was best to leave it. I was also surprised about the article itself. It didn't seem to meet the notable standard; but in India, perhaps it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamMusic (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello PamMusic. No, copyediting does not need review by anyone. If you have questions about something that's not clear in the page, then you should ask at the page's talk page, in this case Talk:Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta. On your third question, yes, you can remove that notice once you're reasonably sure that the problem is addressed see Help:Maintenance template removal for more information on this. Articles that doesn't meet the requirement for inclusion are deleted daily through several means, you can read Wikipedia:Deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process to learn about that.–Ammarpad (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@PamMusic: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can find help for copy editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to. There are higher expectations for copy editing good and featured articles, but for start-class articles like Kavilok and Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta just try to make sure they're comprehensible. (You can find the class rating on the article's talk page.) Your copy edits look good, BTW! Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Removed

Hello, curious as to why edits get removed and what I can do to reinstate the information? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Blake5813 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello J.Blake5813 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Most of the time, when an edit is removed, the reason for the removal is given in the edit summary. When there is nothing in the edit summary, you may ask the performer (if it isn't a bot) to explain why the edit was removed. In some cases, usually when it is overwhelmingly obvious that the removed edit was vandalism, the edit summary might be omitted on purpose.

In my experience, aside from vandalism, the most common reason for an edit to be reversed is because it introduced new material without citing a source, followed by unexplained removals of sourced material. When these two things happen, the editor is expected to provide at least some indication about why, but the edit summary may sometimes be brief to the point of being cryptic.

But in looking at your edits, I see that you tried to add people to a list that is supposed to contain "notable" people who meet the criteria for inclusion on the list. The "notable" part means that we expect the person to meet WP's notability standards and have their own article on WP. See WP:LISTBIO for a bit more information. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, J.Blake5813. It appears that you added James Blake and Katherine Blake to List of transgender people back in July. Those listings were removed because neither person has a Wikipedia biography. The other people on that list have biographies. So, you could add those people if you wrote acceptable, well-referenced biographies of them first. There is a possible problem, though. Your username indicates that you may possibly have a conflict of interest regarding these people named Blake. If so, please proceed cautiously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Help Learning to Edit

Hi,

Is there someone who can walk to through how to edit on Wikipedia? I'm inexperienced at this format, and I learn best by doing.

Thanks!VictoriaConoan (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @VictoriaConoan: Try The Wikipedia Adventure. I also added some links on your talkpage that will help you. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking for help on my first edit of a page

Umatilla Rock

Hi,

I'm excited to make my first edit! I'll be adding a new section to Sun Lakes-Dry Falls State Park about Umatilla Rock. I don't have much information on the rock, but it is a major part of the park. I recently hiked the area and I feel it's worthy of inclusion on the page. I also have one photo that I would like to add as the main photo for the section.

So, my questions are...

1. Does the rock deserve its own section on the page?
2. All detailed information I gathered about the rock is from Google Maps. This includes location of the rock and its approximate length and width. I couldn't find anything else from the State Parks, or anywhere. Is this ok for a source? As far as the length of the trail, I gathered that from my own GPS app as I hiked it. However, there is a Washington Trails Association entry on the trail, so maybe use that as a source instead (although all entries on that site are still just crowd-sourced by people like myself)?
3. The entire text only consists of three very small paragraphs. Is this enough for a new section?

Thanks in advance for your help! Where should I upload my prepared text for you to take a look at? The Talk page I'm guessing?

KrakenSeas (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• @KrakenSeas: As a matter of principle, everything that you would write needs to be referenced to a reliable source. However, "reliable" depends on context, so for instance this WTA source seems enough to support "Umatilla Rock stands in the Monument Coulee", barring information to the contrary. Getting the length of the trail from your GPS data, or the rock dimensions from Google Maps, constitutes original research and should be avoided; however, the wta link I just gave seems to be a curated guide, not a user-generated content, so that would be enough for "5 miles" as length of trail, I think.

Whether the rock "deserves" a section, or a mention at all, depends entirely of the sourcing, so as not to give it undue weight. If sourcing is here, the sectioning does not really depend on the size of the text you intend to use; sections are about the logical organization of content, some may be longer than others.

Do not upload your text to the talk page, but be bold and edit the article directly. If there is something wrong with your edit, it will be reverted (hopefully with an explanation); do not take it personally, try to understand the reason and discuss if needed (that is called the bold-revert-discuss cycle). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KrakenSeas. I did a Google search and found some promising sources about this geological formation that may justify a section (or at least a mention). It is up to you to study the sources to see if they qualify as reliable sources. You can use mapping software as a source for the exact location of something. But you cannot draw any conclusions or make any evaluations from what you observe on Google Maps. That would be original research, which we do not allow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, KrakenSeas. It's a great sense of empowerment, isn't there, when you've made your first edit to improve the worlds greatest encyclopaedia? You are welcome to upload your own photo to Wikimedia Commons and then insert it into the article. You might like to check out this 'Category' of images already there, in case they're of use, too. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Umatilla_Rock. Good luck and best wishes at the start of your own personal Wikipedia Adventure. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your responses! Let's see if I know how to tag each of you... User:Tigraan, User:Cullen, User:Nick Moyes

This is all a lot of information to take in, and the user interface is quite difficult to understand. But I'll work away at including the content in the coming days. I'll also upload a personal photo of Umatilla Rock to Commons and use that one on the page.

Why are some of your usernames green while others are blue? And why isn't everyone's signature automatically added after each published change they make? It's hard to tell if the first three paragraphs are all from a single user or from three users but two of them have no signature.

Thanks again! KrakenSeas (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, KrakenSeas. Good question about the colour of user signatures. By default, these are always blue hyperlinks unless an editor (like Tigraan) has specifically chosen to use a fancy font colour, changed their signature font, or used a background colour. This is done via the Special:Preferences link at the top of the page, but I suggest you've a lot more important things to learn about first! The apparent lack of a signature in answers is simply the result of an editor choosing to separate their comments into paragraphs - so generally assume that two blocks of text with a signature after just the second one are actually from the one person (if that makes sense). We use indenting to help distinguish one person's reply from the previous comment. We do this by typing one or more colon characters at the start of the first sentence in each paragraph. Each colon used indents the paragraph a further bit.

But sometimes you'll see a block of text from a new editor who has asked a question here but, rather annoyingly for us, hasn't signed it. Then, some while later, an automatic 'bot' will come along and add their signature for them. This bot action is really useful as otherwise we don't know who is asking the question, or how to reply. To find out who said what in that case, we have to go to the 'View History' tab of that page and look at each comment that has been left by one editor or another to work out who it's from. (There you'll see a radio button against each historical edit - this allows you to compare selected revisions to see exactly what was added, and by whom. Good luck with uploading your photograph, and do pop back if ever you don't understand anything. The volunteer hosts here are always keen to help any new editor... and sometimes the not-so-new, too! I'm still learning a lot from seeing responses to questions that I couldn't answer myself. Yes, it is a steep learning curve, and you're bound to make a few mistakes at first and, of course, learn from them along the way. The one thing I'll tell you which I didn't know for the first 6 months of my editing life is that you don't have to manually code every reference - both of our two editing tools (Source Editor and the Visual Editor) each have drop-down templates via a 'Cite' button which you simply fill in with the relevant details (author, title, date of publication, url, etc). I really wish I'd known that from the start, as it took me hours to get them right by hand! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  

profile

Hello,

I am Doctor and I created my profile. kindly guide me to make it like. I have published on wikipedia but still its not searchable,

Regards,

Dr Satish Aggarwal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggarwalpaedsurg (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwalpaedsurg: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I tagged your user page with CSD criteria U5. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion and your user page should not contain too much personal information that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 07:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also note that user pages are not indexed for search engines like articles are. Please see Wikipedia:User pages for an explanation of what user pages are for. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If my profile has personal content. Can is suggest my team to put brief details of work and achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggarwalpaedsurg (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aggarwalpaedsurg: I moved your new post from its separate section into this existing section - please don't start new sections unless you have a new question that's unrelated to the previous discussion. Wikipedia user pages are not "profiles", and I'm afraid the answer is no - you cannot use it as such. Please have a look at the information in the links provided by the editors who replied to your first question. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Your User page and the Sandbox content now deleted as being promotional. Editors of Wikipedia join to work on Wikipedia, not promote themselves. Editors do not have 'profiles.' Any 'personal' content should be limited to credentials that elaborate on your expertise as a Wikipedia editor. Mine for example, states PhD Nutritional Biochemistry, but no details about my career.

"My team" is another red flag. Users are supposed to be individuals. If you have staff you have instructed to create an article about you, they should each have their own User page and must adhere to WP:PAID requirements for disclosure. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhuvan Bam

Hi, at this AFD I posted a keep vote but when it was published the nominator had withdrawn the nomination a minute earlier, then I closed it as speedy keep but then had second thoughts as I had participated in the discussion and reverted the close. Can someone please advise and close the AFD as nomination withdrawn, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with AfD, but I don't think it's a problem to close one if it's been withdrawn by the nominator so quickly, even if you technically participated in the discussion. I've closed it now. rchard2scout (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Atlantic306: Withdrawn nominations are exempt from the usual "uninvolved editor should close rule", since usually it's the nominator who closes it. Even if it is technically out-of-process, surely WP:NOTBURO applies here - the nominator wanted to withdraw the nom (as shown by their initial close), and your comment was extremely unlikely to change their mind. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Profiles

Hello,

Kindly guide me to create basic profiles of doctors doing excellent jobs in their respective field.

Regards,

Vikram Gaur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramgkaushik (talk • contribs) 11:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Vikramgkaushik! Welcome to the Teahouse. The shortest answer about creating personal profiles at Wikipedia is: you don't.

Wikipedia is not for promotion and it does not contain 'profiles' (please kindly see WP:PROMO and WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA for more detailed explanation). You might be also interested in the whole page explaining Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I talked about the profiles like

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

I want to create such profiles for doctors doing excellent work in their field.

Regards,

Vikram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikramgkaushik (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not a "profile"; it is an article about a subject who is notable in Wikipedia's terms. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

But if you know of such doctors/subjects, there is guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

adding a link to another wiki?

This is my maiden voyage into the behind the scenes world of Wiki and I could use a hand. I recently added info to a wiki page and I'd like to link it to another wiki page. How do I do this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_Hunt_(actress,_born_1917) to be linked to the residents section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Oaks,_Los_Angeles

thanks in advance for the help

Bobby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkin2468 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Links are made by the process described at WP:wikilinks. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SECTIONLINKS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt whether MOS:SECTIONLINKS is relevant, because I think the OP is trying to link from Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles#Residents to Marsha Hunt (actress, born 1917). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I may have read that wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I just did it for you. Put two opening brackets [ [ in front of the name and two closing brackets ] ] after it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

That led to a WP:Disambiguation page. I fixed that, too. Look at the fix I made by clicking on "Edit" over there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Glossary within an article.

Hi Fellow Wikipedians! Would it be normal to put a glossary within an article. I specifically asking about it in regards Funkabwehr. I could put explanations inline, which I guess would be the normal, but it has its own terms which are in world sort of thing. One of the entries in the glossary, would G-V-games or G-V Games, another would 2-Ic or 2 Ic (still have a question at the Humanities reference desk to determine what it exactly exactly. I suspect there wouldn't be that many, although there is several document references with and several book references with associated content, to be woven in different sections in the article, possible with their own sections, so there additional entries, maybe about a twelve entries. It seems reasonable, but I've never see any article with glossary within, so far, so wide of the mark. What do you think? Thanks.scope_creep (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Found the glossary guide, in the Style guide. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I create multiple spaces?

There is one space character between each word in this sentence. How do I create multiple space characters between words?

Like  this (2 spaces)

or

like     this (5 spaces)?

If I put multiple spaces between words in normal text, it will always show up as only one space. Is there a template I can use? Thanks Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Koopatrev, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer might depend on what the situation is. I don't think it's usual to add multiple spaces in ordinary prose. There are some templates for code snippets, others for block quotations, there's {{nbsp}} to prevent lines breaking at certain points and {{spaces}} to generalise that, etc. We can probably help better given a little more detail about what you're trying to achieve. › Mortee _talk 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi mortee, I actually just need a long space between words, and I was thinking maybe multiple spaces could achieve that. I want something like a longer space between the number and the item in a numbered list, eg

1. Item

Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Koopatrev, you could use an en-space or em-space, as I've tested here. You can do this by using the HTML entities   or   directly in the source wikitext. Apparently {{spaces}} can also insert these, by using {{spaces}} or {{spaces}} (where N is the amount of spaces you want). See that template's documentation for more info. rchard2scout (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Koopatrev you can use multiple non-breaking spaces (  ) or a combination of regular and non-breaking spaces for a multiple-width space. This is okay for your user space but I wouldn't recommend it for an article. If you're trying to get multiple rows of text to line up, use a table. If you want to give some text extra emphasis, then there are other style recommendations for that. I could try to give you a specific Manual of Style link but I'm not sure of the specifics and the effect you're going for. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem editing reference section of Keith A. Schooley

Help someone, I am attempting to update the reference section of Keith A.Schooley: 1. Removing two defunct links and replacing with one PDF and 2. replacing one no longer viable link with a viable link. But when I go to edit references, it does not show anything written although it all appears on public page... Do you know how to accomplish these tasks? Many thanks, Hillary Chase PS I haven't done this for awhile so not sure how to know if I have a reply from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillary Chase (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hillary Chase: The references themselves are not in the references section but in the body of the article (ideally after where they are first cited).

Replacing one link with a PDF might be a problem, make sure the PDF is not a copyright violation. Also, make sure that the defunct links cannot be found on the Wayback Machine. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Ian, I think I'm having technical editing issues with my tweaks. I attempted to link the defunct reference link directly with the pdf online so that it's the same information as before without using the pdf file itself #1 & #10). And I replaced an Amazon link with Keith's own website link to the original Amazon reviews (#13). If I send you the link to my edited page showing errors would you be able to correct my errors? I would greatly appreciate your experienced assistance. ~HC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_A._Schooley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillary Chase (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Amazon is problematic because it is a sales site and not a Reliable source. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

PS on Problem editing reference section of Keith A. Schooley

Actually, I think the reply will show as an alert up at top of page as I recall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillary Chase (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hillary Chase: You can edit an existing section to leave a message there instead of starting a new section (breaking up the discussion and leaving others confused). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll try to remedy the situation. Hopefully I won't be asking for more help. ~HC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillary Chase (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

How to - revert vandalism with intermediate bot edit

Hello all, many thanks for answering my past questions :). I want to revert an edit on Gastrointestinal wall but frustratingly there has been a bot edit directly afterwards. Is there an easy way to revert to a past edit in this circumstance, short of copying and pasting the entire old article back to status quo? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Just look at the article history and click the undo link for the bad edit. RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed, this usually holds but you can't undo if there are intermediate edits. Any other ideas? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You could make a copy of the intermediate edit, paste it to a word processor, revert to your preferred version, then, once the electrons have settled down, you could make the same change that you just deleted. But there may be an easier way. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT) I see you've sorted this out, but for future reference: if you're happy to undo the bot's edit at the same time you could 1) open the old version of the page that you prefer, click to edit that, then save; or 2) in the article history use the radio buttons to select the old version you like and the new version, click 'compare selected revisions', then click 'undo'. If you want to keep the bot's edit, then you just have to edit it the current article to be the way you want it, then save that. Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 13:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Typing in caps

Why will happen if I type in all caps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.145.202 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Some people will tell you that you are SHOUTING. Others will ignore it. It serves no purpose anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTING —AE (talk • contributions) 04:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion in biographies

I've noticed some bios stating that So and So was "born into a Jewish family," or another given religion, and I wonder what the criteria is for that sort of detail. Seems to me it would be important only if Reliable sources had made it important. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't found a policy which addresses this specifically, BeenAroundAWhile. If it is not mentioned in some reliable source then it certainly shouldn't appear in the article; but if it is (even in a non-independent one), then I don't see why it shouldn't appear. WP:Categorization#General says that articles on people can be categorized by ethnic origin as long as that is in a reliable source (and doesn't mention any test of importance); a fortiori, it can be mentioned in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Visual Editor

How can I switch to the visual editor when it is edit source?

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you are in the source edit mode, you should see a pen at the right hand side of the source edit box. Click that pen and it will open a drop down menu. Choose visual edit mode. —AE (talk • contributions) 04:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Show me video or picture how to change to visual editor when its edit source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.145.202 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Here you are. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that we don't all see that pen icon. I don't. Perhaps it is dependent on some preference setting? --David Biddulph (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that is only shown in articles? I don't see it when editing project or talk pages. That is in visual edit mode not source edit mode. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That seems to be it. Thanks for the info. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No subject

How to i create an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kau34 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

On your user talk page there are a number of useful links. Please read them all, including WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you allowed to create a fictional/semi-fictional page on Wikipedia or not?

I would like to ask you if, since I'm into writing fictional stuff for fun, i'm allowed to create a fictional or semi-fictional page on Wikipedia or not. I'm asking this because firstly i'm asking what are the rules for what to do and not to do on Wikipedia and also to check if i'm allowed to write a fictional page on here or not. I wouldn't do it to be harmful at all, but if it was semi-fictional then I would add real facts or information to the fictional page, so it wouldn't be completely false material.

I'm not at all trying to ruin Wikipedia in anyway at all, I just want to ask this also because does Wikipedia have to be factual or could there be a section of Wikipedia here that means you can create fictional material here. But if you advise me not to, then that's fine, I completely understand your point of view.

@Ilikemusic67: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles must be about an actual subject, and be supported with independent reliable sources that indicate how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. It isn't a place for posting works of fiction, nor is there a designated area for this to occur. You can make test edits in the general Sandbox or your personal Sandbox, but those are testing areas only and not meant to have permanent content. The fundamental principles of Wikipedia are called the Five Pillars, which you can read about at WP:5P. You may also find using this tutorial helpful in learning what Wikipedia is and how it operates. If you just want a place to post fiction, you may find an appropriate one at one of the websites listed here. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

To add to what 331dot said, Ilikemusic67: Wikipedia does have articles about fictional subjects (eg certain characters in fiction); but only if those subjects are notable in Wikipedia's special sense: people other than the creator (eg critics) have chosen to write at some length about the fictional subject. If your fiction becomes the subject of reliably published critical works, then Wikipedia could have articles about it, based on what those critics said. Otherwise, no, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

school transport

i need help getting a free bus for my daughter who has just started llanishen high school, the council have said we live 2.88 miles away so she not entitled to a free pass, but goggle says it 3.1 miles away ive even walked their myself and its 3.1 miles not a very safe way for her to walk (ie woods you walk through and a underpass i felt nervous) i need some one to help me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeann v71 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Leeann v71: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we cannot help you with your question; this page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia only. I can only suggest that you use whatever processes are available in your local government or school district to address this concern. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Google may apply distance by travel route rather than "as the bird flies". You may want to consult your state government district representative for assistance. You may also want to consult police accident records for the route involved as there may be a particularly dangerous location/experience that might help you "convince" a better opinion for your cause.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

How to suggest an edit to Tags?

I don’t see a ‘Talk’ link on that page. (I’d like to suggest an improvement to the lede.) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: the text itself is from MediaWiki:Tags-intro. You could propose changes on MediaWiki talk:Tags-intro, but few people are likely to see it. You'd probably have better luck proposing changes at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Unilateral revertings based soley on "not an improvement" especially wheh WP plot size is eceeded?

Why is it that all someone has to do is unilateraly revert when it comes to meetings the guidelines for film plot size and basically add absolutely nothing to the discussion as to why it is not an improvement?2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are in a content dispute with another editor, you should engage them in discussion on the relevant article talk page to discuss the matter, and give you each a chance to explain your positions and come to a consensus as to what should be done. If you have guidelines or policies to support your position, you can explain how those guidelines do so to the other editor/editors involved(who may likely do the same to you). 331dot (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously you have not had an experience with OldJacobite. At one point to make the issue in another instance "disappear" he literally made it disappear by erasing the text from the talk page but of course was unable to erase the activities log notations.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I can only tell you the proper way to work through a content dispute. There are dispute resolution procedures available to you if needed, but they generally ask that you attempt talk page discussion first. If the issue is behavior, you can go to WP:ANI, but be aware that your own conduct will also be examined should you go that route. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I love it when as part of a process you are warned that your own actions are up for discussion in the ANI process. Especially in this instance there seems to be a tendency one the part of WP administrators to call attention to the amount of edits they have on record as a ,means of justifying their actions yet the "quality" of content of those edits can be anything as insignificant as a punctuation mark verses contribution of article content. And then there are the awarding of badges? as if a self revolving cadre of fans. This is not a negative observation but merely an observation especially as administrators and anyone else going up the WP ladder of heirarchy is based on internal approval rather than by the entire WP community.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

2605.., the process for granting administrator rights is open to participation from the entire community, and when an editor runs at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, the quality of their contributions is subject to considerable scrutiny. As for badges, I've never really taken much notice of those, and I've never seen evidence that they are taken seriously when it comes to editor rights. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Come on Larry, reviews of requests to become an administrator seem to be overwhelmingly filled with comments by those that have become administrators and ANI and other board reviews overwhelmingly filled by comments from administrators. And it seems that the weight of reputation is based on you being an administrator, with many many many many edits regardless of content or action. This is not a negative comment but merely stating the facts. In fact there are some portions of WP that seem to be accessible only to administrators. That is not an open network.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, AN/I is an administrators' noticeboard after all, so that is hardly surprising. If you feel that discussion at RfA is dominated by existing admins, then the answer would be to contribute there yourself and to encourage other non-admins to do so. If you have any ideas about how non-admins could be encouraged to contribute, please do share them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it has been commented at times by some more influential administrators that WP is not a place of innovation. It continues to take effort to remind some participants at WP that those of use that use out IP addresses as our identifiers should be a accorded the same respect as those that use registered user identifications especially as WP does endorse use of IP's as user identifiers. All people should be welcomed at WP especially those of us in the US as WP is supported by tax deductible contributions that if were not made that money would be paid to government if tax deductions are not taken. Limited just who is entitled to upper echelons of WP makes it inherently a close network. I seriously doubt that someone who is found to discuss problems of WP would be found to be a very agreeable person to promote within the organization especially when it seems that those found to be disagreeable tend to be flagged as not followers of the spirit of WP--"cooperative" and deferential to more "senior levels of WP. Again, not a negative comment but what seems to be prevalent. It is a natural progress within a closed network for those in authority to close ranks even if only on an unorganized basis.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this image usable?

Hi - I'm creating an article for Clara Cynthia Benson and found this picture of her: http://heritage.utoronto.ca/fedora/repository/default%3A21747

It's dated 1899, so is it now in the public domain and usable for the page?

Thanks! Biochemlife (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright is a tricky issue because mere possession of something does not give the holder copyright. What does hr source of your copy say about ownership?2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the information I see:

Under the description it says "This photo was taken from a composite of the University of Toronto graduating class of 1899 when Clara Benson received her BA."

Relation: University of Toronto. Department of Graduate Records.

Contributor: University of Toronto Archives

Source: B1965-1150

Collection: U of T Archives Image Bank Biochemlife (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I found this: "Copyright and terms of use: The University Archives may not be the copyright holder of images or documents in its collection. For this reason, responsibility for infringement of copyright or other rights is assumed by the user, who is fully responsible for obtaining permission for use from the copyright holder.  The University of Toronto Archives must be credited for any images used in publication, exhibition, film, video or TV broadcast, or on any cd or website. Proper citation must accompany credit." which would make it seem un-usable, but don't things enter public domain after a certain number of years? Thanks Biochemlife (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The No. 1 rule is that possession is not an automatic indication of copyright. Some types of images are generally treated as if no one owns a copyright but that is the problem--"generally" because no one may have raised a fuss. But deep pockets can motivate someone to embark on a definitive answer protected by law. Someone can photograph something. There is a copyright. Then someone can publish that photograph, that is a copyright. Then someone can publish revised editions and that is a copyright. That is a fundamental problem with newspaper morgues. Just because a family allows you to use in an obituary their photo does not man copyright has been conveyed to the newspaper. Merely handing over a photograph to a public institution does not convey copyright. In this insatnce you are dealing with a Canadian institution. What is Canadian law?2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Biochemlife. See c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Canada. All photographs taken in Canada before January, 1 1949 are public domain. GMG^talk 15:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks User:GreenMeansGo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biochemlife (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird Exclusion of Material in Revision Draft

Hello, I've been working on expanding the article on the film Begotten via a seperate "revision draft" for a while now and I seem to get the same issue over and over again. I added a quote box to the "writing" sub-section of the draft, but for some reason it only shows up in the code and not in the actual draft. Not only does it exclude the quotebox oce I've published the edits but it excludes the entire sub-section of the article! I've tried to find out what the issue is but have been unable to find out what the problem is. Please Help!--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Where in the context of the article is the box to be?2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Paleface Jack, the problem is that you haven't closed the reference just above: <ref name=merhigeint> should be <ref name=merhigeint />. At the moment, the whole section is being treated as part of the definition of the reference. Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 18:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I get rollback?

I wonder how I can get rollback to revert vandalism. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi HorsesAreNice. The answer to your question is easily found at Wikipedia:Rollback. You're unlikely to be granted advanced permissions like rollback if you don't fully read the relevant guidelines. – Joe (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit comments

I just did an edit and forgot to add “see Talk” in the reason box. Can it be done now... or too late? MBG02 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MBG02, welcome to the Teahouse. Too late, but sometimes people will make a very small change to an article (maybe delete an extra space or something) and write an editor summary like "(null edit) I meant to say...". › Mortee _talk 19:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

More precisely, a dummy edit. – Joe (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't appreciated the distinction before. Thanks Joe. › Mortee _talk 23:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to a different language's Wikipedia page

Hi,

This never used to be an issue for me when I used to link pages of different languages, who are talking about the same thing, together but recently it seems like the process has changed, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do it now.

Previously, I would've just clicked on "edit links" on the left hand side, and then a dialog box would pop up and ask me which language and what page in that language I'm trying to link to - and it would work, with the language appearing on the side. But now when I click "edit links", it takes me to the Wikidata site and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do from there. I can see that in the right hand column of the main page has an option to fill out which language, like I would have done in a dialog box, but when I had tried to add a page to the list, it told me there was an error and I needed to delete the other existing Q listing in order to link them together (? or something of the like).
For context, I had tried to link the two pages, Kong Ja-young and the respectively Korean page, 공자영, together but it brought me the Wikidata page, and I didn't know what to do from there. In the end, I went on the Korean page and linked it to the English page in that way, since it's still the same as what I used to do in the Korean Wikipedia.

Is there a guide out there to help me learn to do this from the English Wikipedia, or if anyone could explain what I should do? I'm not even sure I'm making sense when I described my issue!

Thank you! Best, JHY0 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace Wiki edit-a-thon volunteers seeked

Hi Wiki editors, I'm co-organising a Wiki Edit-A-Thon in Bletchley Park (Bletchley, UK) on Ada Lovelace Day to improve thegender-balance of biographies in Wikipedia. I'm a total newb here. Are there any Wikipedia editors in Bletchley who would like to join us on 9 October to guide a group of volunteers to edit Wikipedia pages? Many thanks! --Vbenguiat girlscode (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Vbenguiat girlscode, welcome to the Teahouse. Although the Teahouse isn't really the appropriate place to advertise events (including editathons), yours does sound like a really great initiative. Not knowing how experienced your fellow organiser is, have you thought to alert the Women in Red Wikiproject, and also add your event to the main WP:EDITATHON diary? There's a calendar right at the bottom of the page, after some really great practical advice on event planning. You could consider contacting nearby editors who have declared themselves in Category:Wikipedians in Buckinghamshire. Hope this helps, and that the event goes well. (Don't forget to capture the usernames of all who attend - this helps you not only monitor all contributions, both on the day, and later, but also to follow up and contact new editors with words of encouragement to keep their interest up and show your appreciation of their attendance. I prepared this handout to give attendees before they leave an event. You'd be very welcome to take anything from it that might be at all useful to you). Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you edit

In Ijeoma Olou, please correct CRITIQING in paragraph 3 to CRITIQUING.

Thank you.

barbfranz

(I can't find the EDIT button.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbfranz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Barbfranz: This has been fixed. Actually it's very easy to edit. You can watch this short editing guide video or read the basic editing pages Help:Editing and Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing. to learn more –Ammarpad (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the amount of information on a screen can make the situation confusion especially if you are use to sing something at a particular position but maybe your type size has changed and maybe it is just further off the sides or top and bottom and a little scrolling is needed.2605:E000:1301:4462:3C91:3A45:8DC6:FC7A (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

it's September 8, and we still don't have Hurricane Florence of 2018 as its own article

Why don't we have Hurricane Florence as its own article, even though the storm is about five, six days away from making landfall? Angela Maureen (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It actually exists -as a redirect to 2018 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Florence. That means usually no enough content for the page (yet). If you believe you've enough content and sources, follow this link and edit the page. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

question about new article

Can I write a new article about tuberculosis in Pakistan with references from publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.124.134.189 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. My Google search shows that tuberculosis in Pakistan is a major problem that has been covered in detail by many reliable sources. I believe that Pakistan is #5 worldwide in tuberculosis cases, and that antibiotic resistant TB is a significant challenge there. So, the answer is "yes". I suggest that you register a Wikipedia account since that will make it easier for you to collaborate with others and establish a track record. Writing a new article on a medical topic is not easy. Start by reading Your first article, and familiarize yourself with our strict standards for reliable sources about medical topics. You may find some useful references in this Google Scholar search. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, anonymous IP editor. Thank you for your Teahouse question. The answer, in theory, is "yes, of course you can!" There is already an article on Tuberculosis in India and Tuberculosis in China, a well as others. One on Pakistan might well be a very welcome addition. Of course, no article can be based on an editors' opinion or their personal knowledge, so my advice would be to either draft an article in your sandbox, or use the Articles for Creation to begin an article. It will be essential that you only include factual statement based upon Reliable Sources. If you do prepare a draft article, and want feedback upon it, feel free to come back and ask us to look at it for you. You asked this question as an anonymous IP editor, with no other edits linked to that address. It is always best to register for a free account and username, but either way I should mention that creating a brand new article on Wikipedia is undoubtedly the hardest task to achieve successfully, especially if you have no prior experience with editing this encyclopaedia. May I suggest you read Wikipedia:Your first article and do The Wikipedia Adventure? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Contributor 188.124.134.189 (saying people that use an IP address as their identifier is not anonymous although a segment of WP takes on that attitude.) -- Have you reviewed just what presently exists in WP? There may be bits and pieces in various WP articles that can be brought together for what you see needed. That will give WP a chance to have its sources qualified as to suitability and redundant or dead information eliminated. You can then add what the most recently available appropriate sources report.In this way the whole of WP can be brought to state of current. Sometimes the way things work out coordination of subject coverage seems to be lacking although WP is at base a volunteer situation. Just as use to tell people when it came to academic papers or business reports--get it down on paper and cut and paste can follow. Computer technology works wonders in composition.2605:E000:1301:4462:A1B2:F3A7:801F:B3AB (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Lennon, ACTOR

You have Thomas Lennon, actor and Thomas Lennon, screenwriter, all mixed up! Tried to find out about the actor-- and shows him as dead in 1963! Sorry but the actor is very much alive! Is there any way those two could have separate bios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8038:4DF0:D1D8:FED4:4653:1496 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I see no such problem in Thomas Lennon (actor, born 1970) or Thomas Lennon (screenwriter, born 1896). They already have separate bios.

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, anonymous IP editor. Welcome, and thank you for raising your concerns to the Teahouse. At first glance, I'm not quite sure what those concerns actually are. They do appear to have completely separate bios. So, we have a page for Thomas Lennon the actor, stating he was born in 1970. We also have one on Thomas Lennon (screenwriter, born 1896), with his birth date in the title. Are there lesser details which have been confused within these two articles? If so, the best way for you to get this sorted is to leave your concerns on one or other of the Talk Pages for those two articles. Does this make sense, or am I missing something obvious here? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

User 2602:306:8038:4DF0:D1D8:FED4:4653:1496 -- when you ind something confusing on the internet it is best to copy the addresses so that if there are questions about that material what you have seen and question can be examined? Anyone who has used the internet as an info source will find, MANY sites use WP text as their source, sometimes without crediting WP; and the only way to know that what is used is WP is because it is the exact same text. If you can find what drew you to the original conclusion and forward that here then a more reliable base can be found as to what is going on. Otherwise people may be spinning their wheels. Whenever i do a search on something and things start to look crazy i create a running cheat list through my email address so that i can redirect back to the site in question. I can always go back and forth cut n paste along the way etc and doing what needs to be done.It is not as easy a task as say text correcting a protect article and supplying what needs to be done and being able to isolate what that is by string search as most spelling or punc corrections come in 1's rather than multiples and a string search can tell you just how many times a potential correction may appear in an article. Is there a chance that someone combined the two ion site that you may have reviewed? Is it possible to review =in your computer history what you reviewed?2605:E000:1301:4462:A1B2:F3A7:801F:B3AB (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It was probably a Google search as I said. We get many such posts and made Template:HD/GKG as a stock answer. I did the search Thomas Lennon before my first post and Google does indeed confuse the two people with the same Google box saying born 1970 and died 1963. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not alive, how can I change this?

I made an account, and it instantly asked me to edit a page here:

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

It says on the page that he is a "living person". However that is wrong. What is to be done? Clingvogue (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clingvogue. I removed the erroneous tag regarding a "biography of a living person" because this painter died 120 years ago. Thanks for noticing the problem. I added another tag that more accurately describes an obvious problem with the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, I will check your edit for the method. Clingvogue (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I added some links on your talkpage @Clingvogue: Read them. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Using New Books and Newspaper information

Hello ! I just wanted to know, whether we can use Books and Newspaper for more information or detailing a topic? If yes, Where can I put the citation or reference or link regarding it? And,what if the book is not on internet,but if its a local book or newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saee Patil (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saee Patil. Yes, you can use books and newspapers as long as they qualify as reliable sources. Some books and some newspapers are garbage. Others are excellent. You have to evaluate the reputation of the publisher. Sources do not need to be online but you should provide complete bibliographic detail for paper sources. Please read Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to format references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing sources

HEY,

DAVID MORENO72 RECOMMENDED ME TO THIS PAGE, IM CURRENTLY WRITING AN ARTICLE AND WOULD LOVE TO GET SOME HELP ON THIS ONE ITS ALMOST COMPLETE JUST MINOR ADJUSTMENTS ARE REQUIRED AND IM LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO MAY BE ABLE TO HELP WITH THIS— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppie19911 (talk • contribs)

Provide a link to you by adding the four little marks that end your message and a link to your draft!2605:E000:1301:4462:A1B2:F3A7:801F:B3AB (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please also do not write in all capital letters; that is generally considered to be yelling. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Rejected twice because so much of the content has no references. Unreferenced content must be referenced or deleted (even if it is true). David notMD (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

That is not the point that needs to come across. They are asking for help and need to learn how to provide access to what they want help on. You do not say to an illiterate person coming to you to learn about the meaning of a word and tell them to look it up in the dictionary by spelling it. If someone asks for assistance they need to understand that we are not mind readers--provide a link. The mere having to come here to ask may show that there is already a problem otherwise they would probably never come here but to just shut the door is being irresponsible as a guide to WP. Some people may even consider the action rude. And to basically say to the WP community they have a problem does not do anyone a service. If you ask for help provide an understanding such as a link. Looking up a link is not a waste of time as we are suppose to be a community and i hope helpful. Not saying you are not because sometimes we may not know how we appear by what we do. From what i saw during a brief review, it is not unsourced but with sources that are not according to WP standards. The world does not revolve around WP and those that expect it to may get a jolt. Not a negative comment but just how things can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I will try again: Hoppie19911 - So much of what you have written does not have references and is very unlikely to ever have references. For one example "At the age of Six, IAGO began performing at retirement homes his great grandmother Elsie would visit." I am suggesting you look at articles about other performers to get ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia article and what not. Secondly, you appear to have a deep knowledge about IAGO and this draft is the only article you have worked on; is this because you are a friend or perhaps work for him? You need to understand conflict-of-interest. David notMD (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

About the page Hello Haldwani Community Radio

I created this page Hello Haldwani This is a community radio in lower Himalayan region of India, I have filled all required material in this page and also solved the inline citation problem as per as my knowledge. After completion my editing in this page according to Wikipedia parameters some editors paste a box of page deletion notice. Please help me for survival of this page and kindly guide me. Regards Krishna Kumar Mishra (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Kumar Mishra: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order for this community radio station to merit an article on Wikipedia, there must be extensive coverage of it in independent reliable sources that indicate how is is notable as Wikipedia defines it. In the case of a radio station, the notability guidelines are written at WP:BROADCAST. Please review that page. The sources you currently provided seem to be basic announcements and press releases, which are both primary sources that do not establish notability. I regret to say that I must agree with the proposal to change the page you wrote into a redirect, unless you have additional sources with indepth coverage. Please understand that successfully writing a Wikipedia article is probably the hardest thing to do here, and it's easy to be discouraged. If you haven't already, you should review Your First Article to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I need help

There's an existing page that I need to edit and update. I already have the revised materials ready to paste. I did that, but a user reverted all changes. What should I do next? It's a company page and we need to update it with new and reliable resources and citations. Please help. !helper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferando927 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ferando927: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. From your statement, I gather that you work for the company you attempted to edit about. If you do, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. It is mandatory for you to comply with the paid editing policy if you are a company representative. If you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the article about your company directly, instead you should make an edit request on the article talk page.

The content was removed because it was blatant promotion, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.(see WP:PROMO) As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, such as a company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself. If you are just here to tell the world about your company, you should do so on its own website, or on a more appropriate forum. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How to move a page to mainspace

Hi I am working on a couple of Wikipedia entries and am trying to learn how to move a page out of draft mode. A page for the musician Piotr Pakhomkin has been in draft mode for a while and I’m trying to get it into the main space so I can link it to some other pages like Strathmore (Maryland). I want to do Gia for a couple of artists but want to make sure I’m doing this right first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringsgtar (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you loking for reviewers then post links.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted Draft:Piotr Pakhomkin for review. To do so, add {{subst|submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Finding wordy or excessively long film plots

Is there a way of identifying film plots that exceed the WP guidelines without having to bring up each article? String and word search is not effective and not every =plot that has been identified as excessive has a publicly viewible advisory.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles that have been tagged with {{plot}} are categorized in Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. Articles that haven't been tagged with the template can sometimes be found in Special:LongPages, but this is completely uncategorized. Usually, I just find them randomly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Utsarjam

Hello, I've just logged in to find an answer to my question, which I don't seem to find anywhere else.

I really like the subject History, and I explore sites like Wikipedia, Britannica, etc. to find out more interesting facts about history, especially mythology. I like to study deeply about certain believes like how it came into existence and why was it started and so on. Recently, being an Indian, my mom told me that we don't do any good work (like investing in shares or starting construction of house) in the month of Paush. I asked her why but she herself didn't knew, so I googled about it and found out the answer. But, I came across the word 'Utsarjam', that is, an ancient ritual for Vedadhyana (learning the vedas) is performed. This ritual is completely forgotten by people so I got interested in it. I googled about 'Utsarjam', but there were no great results, so I searched about it on Wikipedia and I still couldn't find any answer. So I have a request to please do a bit of research on 'Utsarjam' and upload the information as soon as possible.

So my question is: What is 'Utsarjam'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaetae (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kaetae: Welcome to the Teahouse! This page is intended for questions about how to edit Wikipedia, and your question is not within the scope of the Teahouse. However, if you head over to the Reference Desk, you can ask there, and hopefully somebody will have an answer for you. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of the situations with the English WP is that many subjects of quality in other cultures are not well represented because English WP users tend to read predominately in English an are not able to consult so readily non-English sources especially non-western languages content thus there is a lack of subject matter in the English WP of subjects that do not have a significant amount of sources in English or other western languages. The Indian culture(s) are a very complex situation for its intricacies an outlooks on life. I only wish that there was greater content in the English WP of subjects that did not have a source base that comes from languages other than western world. Are you near a university that you could call on their department of Indian or Asian studies to get some form of publication or website to consult. That might be the most really available guidance to provide. Before the great movement to standardize the quality of Indian-based articles in the English WP it was always interesting to read how the subject matters were expressed by those that might not have as their primary communication language English. I wish i could get a better hold on the strategies of spelling the various deity names and place names to better understand what i have come to appreciate of Indian and its history. I hope that helps you in the start of your quest.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)