Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

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

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

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

Disagreement of what an article should be called

Hi. I recently moved an article (Chequers Agreement), from it's official long title ("The future relationship ..."), to simply "Chequers plan". Recently, another user moved it to "Chequers Agreement". I think "plan" is a more appropriate than "agreement" of several reasons (more common name, part of ongoing negotiations, etc.), but don't know how I should go about it. Also, the user who moved it is much more experienced than me.

I am considering just moving it back, and notify said user, as per WP:BOLD, but think it might be too aggressive, since he also used BOLD to move it. I can also make a move request, but don't knowhow to do that, or what the procedure it, or how much I will set in motion. Or I can just make a talk-page-comment, saying I think the other name is better, but it might very well just be ignored.

What should I do? Heb the best (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heb the best. The third step in the BOLD cycle, after Bold and Revert, is "Discuss". When somebody reverts an edit you make, you choices are to accept the reversion, or to open a discussion. From your description, this isn't technically a reversion, but the same applies. (Because it is not a reversion, it is within the rules for you to revert their change, but I wouldn't advise that). Open a dicussion on the talk page, and ping the other user - see if the two of you (and anybody else who chooses to participate) can reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heb the best: You've now done the right thing by starting a discussion at Talk:Chequers Agreement. Thank you. I have just added my own observations on the matter there, and I agree with your plan to re-title the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to ask if Heb the best can use the consensus mechanism at this point. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your help. Heb the best (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to get wiki markup code from a really old edit

Hi,

I was checking the 2015 BWF Para-Badminton World Championships page and I realized someone has messed up the page. I tried to undo the edits but it was from 2 years ago so it is impossible to undo. I currently have no time for manual-editing, so I want to ask whether we can get (for example) the first wiki markup code when the page is created? Thanks in advance. Griff88 (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Griff88. Click the "View history" tab, then a time stamp of an old edit, and then the "Edit" tab when you view the old version. If you view an old diff then you can also click an edit link next to the timestamp of one of the two versions. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Griff88: The other thing you could do, if your time is short, is to simply leave an explanatory note on the article's Talk Page, saying what you assess to be incorrect. Then at least another editor may be encouraged to fix it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much PrimeHunter and Nick Moyes! Griff88 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Jenny Koller/Jenny Thomann-Koller

I have moved the article to Sandbox and made changes on September 29, but have not had any response. The article is complete, but I do not know how to coordinate the References with the text. By the way, the same article appears on de.Wikipedia, which means that I do not need help with writing but with the Wikipedia tools. I would appreciate help! --Htewarso (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Htewarso. Cassiopea advised you on 22 august to read Referencing for beginners. Have you done so? The references go in the text where they are cited, between <ref> and </ref> tags: the software will collect them at the end, and add the numbering and links.

So, to take your first reference: at the point in the text of the article where it is to be cited (I can't identify where that is) you put

<ref>Verzeichnis der Schülerinnen des Lehrerinnenseminars. Sig. V.H. c.98:2.6.1.2. Stadt Zürich Stadtarchiv.</ref>

and the article will show it like this: Here is the text support by the citation.^[1] (you should find it below)

A couple of other points I notice:

first, if you have translated the text from elsewhere in a Wikipedia, you must give an appropriate attribution (either on its talk page, or in your edit summary) or you are violating the licence under which almost all the material in Wikipedia is released. Please see WP:Translation.
Secondly, I notice that there are references to unpublished material (your footnote 8): English Wikipedia does not accept unpublished materials as sources. You need either to find a published source for whatever material that citation is supporting, or remove it from the article.
Thirdly, the draft is currently raw text, with no WikiMarkup at all. This is not acceptable. You should at the very least turn your headers into Wikipedia headers. Use a balanced number of = signs before and after, for a header at a particular depth; so ===Life=== displays as

Life

(I put it at level 3, so as not to create a new top-level header on this Teahouse page. You would probably use level 2 in the article).

Finally, you have no Wikilinks. The whole point of a hypertext encyclopaedia is that you can direct the reader to other places. So, for example, if you change "took her to see Dr. Marie Heim-Vögtlin" to say "took her to see Dr [[Marie Heim-Vögtlin]]", it will appear as "took her to see Dr. Marie Heim-Vögtlin". Once your draft has been accepted and moved into the main article space, it should also have Wikilinks pointing to it from other articles, but not while it is still in draft.

Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also just a small point, I would like to suggest that you maintain a level of detachment and avoid using descriptions such as "forward-looking," "very successful," "quite timid" etc. unless they are attributed to sources. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Verzeichnis der Schülerinnen des Lehrerinnenseminars. Sig. V.H. c.98:2.6.1.2. Stadt Zürich Stadtarchiv.

offensive talk page?

I am aware of a user who has a very prominent banner at the top of their talk page containing offensive language and a potentially offensive link, the top of said user's talk page also contains a reference to a well-publicized mass murder, for no clear reason. This user has been on wikipedia for like 10 times as long as I have, so i'm a bit uncomfortable confronting them about content in there userspace, but think they need to adjust their talk page, do I just post on there talk page? report at ANI? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tornado chaser: I'd suggest asking them about it on their talk page - just be aware that while some things are frowned upon on user pages, its rather rare to see any meaningful action unless it's blatantly something on this list - TNT ^💖 19:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That list didn't look like it covers what I am talking about, and I don't want to make a big deal out of something that is considered acceptable, but the fact that this symbol at this size

is at the very top of the talk page along with the word "Attention" followed by multiple obscenities in moderately large font seems like an unacceptable turnoff to new editors attempting to talk to this user, what do you think? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I know who you're talking. My advice: just drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Tornado chaser (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If in effect a person has a NO TRESSPASSING sign on their Talk page, pause before adding a comment or New section. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a no trespassing sign or request for people not to post, it looks more like an odd sense of humour. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be the one I'm thinking about, from your description. I think it is probably a warning that not thinking before posting on that talk page will be given short shrift. I also doubt it is actually offensive. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tredwell Onderdonk edit

Hello, I don't have the time right now to do the edit, but my ancestor Bishop Onderdonk's name is Tredwell Onderdonk, not Treadwell. No 'a', if anyone can please correct the misspelling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.209.21 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. It does seem like there is some inconsistency between sources in how his middle name is spelled: [1] uses Treadwell, while [2] uses Tredwell. I realize they are probably hard to find, but are there any other sources that can point to how his middle name is actually spelled? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I might be of help regarding sources supporting the Tredwell spelling. The Bishop Pike Affair by Stringfellow and Towne (ISBN: 9781556353260) used the spelling in a section detailing his 1844 trial (p. 185). Other sources that used this spelling include Shattuck and Hein's The Episcopalians (ISBN: 9780898694970), p. 267); and, the American National Biography: Supplement (ISBN: 9780195222029) where his name was listed in p. 768). I found that there are fewer books that use Treadwell. - Darwin Naz (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock question

How long the unblock ticket request system takes? - 114.124.172.216 (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer to this, but made it into its own question, as it appears unrelated to Onderdonk. See next entry. David notMD (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

My talk page is revoked and unblock ticket request system takes a very long time. How can I get unblocked now? - 114.124.172.89 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: You can't. Posting here is block evasion, and your only other edit was vandalism. If you can't make a convincing argument at UTRS you stay blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long the UTRS to take process? 114.124.172.216 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about adding a category

Greetings. I have a quick question about categories. I am interested in creating a subcategory in Category:Historic house museums in Pennsylvania. This category would be something like Category: Historic house museums in Pennsylvania listed by county.

So my two questions are:

1. What is the most appropriate name for this category? For example, is the category name I suggested here, just now, an appropriate name, or would you suggest a name that better suits this subject?

2. In which category is it most appropriate to create this subcategory? I see that each state in the U.S. has its own category for the historic house museums in that state, such as Category:Historic house museums in Pennsylvania, but none of the states has a subcategory listing the house museums by county. Typically, each state category for this subject has only one or two subcategories, such as Category:Open-air museums in Pennsylvania, but I do not see anywhere a category which further divides a state into county subcategories. So, thanks for any advice. Lee Jay Stoltzfus (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LeeJayStoltzfus. "Listed by xxx" doesn't make sense for a category: the contents of a category are simply the articles which use the category, and there is no concept of organising them. I suspect that what you mean is that you would like a subcategory Category:Historic house museums of xxx County, Pennsylvania, for each county. (It is possible to create what you have suggested as a 'metacategory' - see WP:DIFFUSE - but I don't see any point in doing so: it would be an unnecessary extra level in the subcategory hierarchy).

Technically, it is straightforward to do this, though ideally you should create a category for every county which has historic houses, and move all the houses into the subcategories. I'm not sure whether it is best practice, though: I suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Categories. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hello, is it possible to add a picture/image to a Wikipedia article, when the editing option is open ? For example, monuments that are described but with no pictures. And what are the definitions for the standard picture/image ? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfifaria (talk • contribs) 2018-10-01T09:11:59 (UTC)

Hello, Lfifaria, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's an interesting question. In one sense I could say that the only way that's possible is when in editing mode. But I think you want to both edit and upload new photos at one and the same time, right? The picture I've added here was previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so, having found the one there that I wanted, I copied its filename and pasted it in to the dialogue box that comes up whilst I was editing this reply to you. (in the editing toolbar you'll see a little picture of a mountain with the mouse-over caption of 'Embedded file') Click the embed file icon and an 'insert file' dialogue appears for you to add that filename and a caption. But you'll note that that dialogue window also has an 'Upload' link. I've never uploaded by that route myself, but you can do it easily from there. Personally, I prefer to upload my images as a separate task, especially multiple images where some metadata is consistent across the images, as this can easily be duplicated during upload to Commons. I am assuming these are images that you own the copyright to, and are willing to freely licence for anyone else to use for any other purpose i.e. under a CC-BY-SA creative commons licence. I am not quite sure what you were alluding to when you ask about 'definitions for the standard picture', but you will find a lot of helpful links at Wikipedia:Images. In essence, only upload an image if a) you own it b) are willing to allow others to use it for any purpose, including commercial, and c) if it adds encyclopaedic value and interest to an article - see the other image I've just embedded. Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Lififaria, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is already a suitable image in WP:Commons, then the answer is an emphatic yes: it is straightforward to add a link to it (though the positioning can sometimes be a bit tricky). If there is not already an image in Commons, there are extra steps, the main one of which is to upload an image to Commons first. However, before doing that it is important to sort out the copyright status of the image: if you took the picture yourself, you normally own the copyright, and have the power to license it in a suitable way when you upload it; in any of the case, it can be difficult. Please see Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just in case any other editor is interested in the answered part of this question (which I've just replied to on my talk page), here's some further information:

Whilst I'm no expert on Wikimedia Commons images, there's no size limit you need be worried about. But I see no point in supplying a massive 10Mb file of a tiny stamp! A 700x 1000 pixel image should be fine. What I ~~don't,~~. didn't know is anything about copyright of a country's stamp images - that could be a question you'd have to ask at Wikimedia Commons, or look for similar images of Romanian stamps and see how others have dealt with licencing. Hold on - I've just found the answer for you. Visit C:Category:Stamps of Romania and you'll see a notice saying they're all public domain there. So that's good news! I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New here and got hit by a bot that did wholesale revisions to my edits

I just got hit by the following: User:XLinkBot to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black and I really feel this "bot" just went and changed all my edits for no reason. I was trying to make the page better. I added internal links under the heading "see also" and relevant links to articles under the heading "further reading". My first urge was to make complaints, but I guess I should post here before I occupy the admins time and see if, maybe, I just don't understand Wikipedia's culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfoley01 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sdfoley01 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits are reverted because you tried to cite a wordpress website as a source. Wordpress is a blog, which should be normally avoided when adding external links (see WP:ELNO). That's why the bot stated that it attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The bot probably blacklisted wordpress. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abelmoschus Esculentus and thank you for the reply. I just checked and see my last edit was a link for a document hosted on Wordpress. I thought it was an important document, but I can remove the link, if needed. What I didn't understand was why all my edits were reverted. I had spent several hours sourcing documents and formating citations that I felt added to the page and, you can understand, was pretty disheartened when they were all gone. Overall, I would like to contribute to pages on Wikipedia involving current issues and think it is important that people using this site for research have access to solid academic references, but it makes me uneasy to spend so much time on something that can just disappear like that. On the plus side, I did undo the changes and they haven't been changed back again. Sdfoley01

@Sdfoley01: You've complained at several pages, so I will reply only here. The wholesale removal is a matter of choice. Both reverting the sole edit that added the link, and reverting all edits of the user who added (in one of the edits) the link have been tried as options. While arguably 'a bit more bitey' than the 'bitey' option of reverting only one edit, it was rather consistently found that this results in less damaged pages left over in case there are multiple edits to try and insert a 'correctly working link' ánd less edit-conflicting (where material that needs to be removed could not be removed due to consequtive edits by the same editor), and in case none of the edits are actually bad the editor, as per the message left by the bot on the talkpage of the editor, has to revert the bots' edit anyway.

Wordpress is indeed a blog, generally not useful as a reference nor external link. Specific documents may pass the bar, though even here I would argue that it is overdone, the article has 68 references and 8 further reading links, are more non-content/non-references really needed to expand with material that is not yet covered in that (and that goes to a certain extend to the other external links as well)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, @Beetstra:. I removed the link to the document hosted on Wordpress. I also removed the oldest journal article I added under "Further Reading"...so I only added three to that section. If you think it would be better, and since I'm the new person here, I'll remove one or all the others. I left the internal links under "See also" alone. I can understand your concern about having too many links on a page and that, really, content should be integrated into the text of the article. It was just a shock to me, after a lot of effort on my part, to see everything I did on the page removed at once. Sdfoley01

Media coverage links for a company

How many minimum references or media coverage a company need before making a company page on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vids312 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vids312. Welcome to the Teahouse. (If you don't mind sharing a cup, you're welcome to drink some of the tea provided a couple of posts above this one!) But, in all seriousness, the answer to your question can be found in WP:CORPDEPTH, which is just one section in the article on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which I invite you to read. There is no simple numerical answer. It comes down to quality of independent, in-depth reliable sources that have written about that company, not how many insider business websites have regurgitated copies of a company's press releases. I hope you find this helpful. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vids312. In addition to Nick Moyes' answer, I would like to suggest that you reframe your thoughts from "a company page" to "an article about the company". This may seem picky, but I believe that it will help to avoid a lot of frustration later. A Wikipedia article should be based on what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a company (or any other person or entity) wishes to say about themselves. This implies that, as Nick indicated, sources connected with the company or its associates will play a very small role in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does user notification work when username is mentioned

I'm doing TWA and it says, "Notify Will that you replied by typing his name somewhere in your reply like User:WillKomen. If you're on Will's user talk page, it will notify him automatically." What does it mean to say that I have to be on Will's user talk page? chaos1618 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaos1618 and welcome to the Teahouse. Because I have included your username in my reply to you, and signed it with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~), you will receive an automatic notification that I have mentioned your name, plus a link to it within that notification. It appears as a red bell (in desktop view) or, if I remember, a red star in mobile view.- both at the top of the page. You can click that red notification link to see who and what message has been left for you. Every editor here has their own Userpage (e.g. User:Chaos1618) and an associated Talk page. It would be wrong of me to edit your Userpage - that's really for you to use. But if I were to want to contact you directly, I would find your user Talk Page tab, click it, and at User talk:Chaos1618 I'd leave a message for you there at the bottom of the page (where new messages always go). I wouldn't need to include your username in my message - but you would still receive a red notification when logged on to Wikipedia that someone had left a message there.

You can read more about the different ways notifications between editors happens by visiting Wikipedia:Notifications. BTW: Do keep persisting with The Wikipedia Adventure - there are a total of 15 badges to collect, and you are totally free to delete any or all of the welcome messages that the TWA system leaves you. (You get another one for every time you log in, so it can get a bit irritating if you do it in multiple sessions) I hope this makes at least a little sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful reply Nick! :) I went through Wikipedia:Notifications. My confusion actually arises from this use case. Let's say I participated in a talk page discussion of an article and I have NOT chosen to include that talk page in my watch list. If someone else replies to my discussion on the talk page (by leaving an indented message), but without explicitly mentioning me. Would I get a notification? For example, I've intentionally didn't link your username in this particular edit. If this page is not on your watchlist, would you get a notification that I replied to you? Sorry if my question is unclear. Look forward to your reply. And yes, I've completed TWA and don't intend to delete those badges. I've earned them! Greetings. chaos1618 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you're not mentioned you don't get notified. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David! Indeed I didn't get a notification for your reply because you didn't mention me. chaos1618 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey chaos1618. A notification is generated in two cases: 1) Someone adds texts that includes a link to your user page and also a new signature by typing ~~~~, or 2) someone leaves a link to your user page in an edit summary. If either of these are satisfied, it will notify you regardless of whether the page is on your watchlist. If these are not satisfied, such as someone linking to your user page but without a new signature, or if someone incorrectly attempts to link to your userpage but includes a typographical error, then it will not notify you, regardless of whether the page is on your watchlist.

The only cases that are special is your user talk page and your main user page themselves, where you will be notified every time someone makes any change regardless of what that change is. So for example, if I left a comment on your user page saying Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjpy your stay. ~~~~, you will get one notification. Then, if I go back and fix my typo to say "enjoy" instead of "enjpy", you will get a second notification because I have made some change, even though it was only fixing a typo. GMG ^talk 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the detailed help, User:GreenMeansGo. May I ask what you mean by new signature? Is it different from signing with ~~~~ every time I make an edit? I'm already feeling very good with the overwhelming positive responses here :) chaos1618 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaos1618: New signature means that a signature must be added in the same edit as the user page is linked. It does not work if you edit an existing signed post and add a user page link without making a new signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the time stamp of the signature needs to match with the time of edit, or else it won't work. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: The time stamp is actually ignored and doesn't even have to be present. This edit is signed with ~~~ which omits a time stamp but you should still be notified. PrimeHunter (talk)

Hey chaos1618. So the way that the software works, once you hit save and transform ~~~~ into [[User:Chaos1618|chaos1618]], it's no longer a "new signature". The practical implication of this is that you can't go back and add a notification to a previous comment. For example, if I forgot to notify a user like this:

Let's ask [[User:User Number One]] and [[User:User Number Three]] what they think. ~~~~

I can't go back and add the ping for User Number Two. I'd have to add a new comment with a new signature like this:

Let's ask [[User:User Number One]] and [[User:User Number Three]] what they think. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]]
 :Oops. I forgot to ping [[User:User Number Two]]. ~~~~

Hopefully that makes sense. GMG ^talk 14:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes total sense GMG ^talk. Thank you so much for helping me clear my doubts. Thanks to PrimeHunter and —AE as well! All of you aer so kind and helpful :) chaos1618 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Offices

Does Wikipedia have offices around the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.62.101 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. Although Wikipedia relies primarily on the volunteer efforts of users all over the world, the offices for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that administers Wikipedia, are located in California. GMG ^talk 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

only —AE (talk • contributions) 14:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation

How to post information on wikipedia so that any user can search and get benefitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vats12345 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vats12345: You appear to have found Articles for Creation. I suggest filling out the article a bit more, then submitting it again. I cannot see your deleted edits, as I am not an administrator. Do you know what article they were on and why they were deleted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding susta village.

@Vats12345: I have indented and separated your comment to add clarity. Also, please add four tildes (~~~~) after every post on a discussion page so it can be identified as you.
I have found the article Susta, is that on the topic you are looking for? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? re editing

Hello,

Several times I've added a small amount of info via edit on the same 3 Wikipedia sites. My additions appear, then, disappear. Once, a message was sent to me saying I was banned for some reason which I don't understand because what I said was 100% accurate & benign. I may be doing the process incorrectly, i.e. not documenting.

I'd greatly appreciate if you could check into this & get back with me so I can learn how to remedy this recurring situation.

Thank you so much for your Insight & assistance.

Genia Stephenson Angelsings1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsings1111 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Genia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking over your contributions, I see that each time you have added information, you have said in the edit summary something like "This information is 100% accurate because he is a friend of mine". Thank you for using the edit summary (many inexperienced editors do not). It easily pinpoints the problem. Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody may edit, people can put in all sorts of information: things they know to be true, things they think are true but are mistaken, things they don't know whether are true or not, and things they know are false. On top of that, most users don't use their own names (and even if they do, we have know way usually of knowing whether they are really the person they say). To make matters worse, even if the information somebody inserts actually is correct, somebody else may come along later and change it - again, either in good faith, or maliciously.

Given all that, nothing in Wikipedia is actually reliable, unless there is a source given where somebody could look it up. (In practice, of course, 99.something % of it is actually reliable, but the problem is knowing which is the 0.something % which isn't). For this reason we require that all information in a Wikipedia article is backed up by a reliable published source: personal knowledge is not acceptable, unless supported in this way, so that a reader next week or next month or next year has a way of checking that the information is correct. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A second point: People listed in Notable sections of place articles are included because there is a pre-existing Wikipedia article about that person - hence the name showing up in blue. Don Lasseter, albeit a well-known author, does not have a Wikipedia article about him. If such an article existed, and had references for the various places Lasseter has lived, then he could be listed as notable for those places (Fort Ord, etc.) without having to provide a reference in those articles. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You were neither banned (blocked) nor warned - what you got was a suggestion to not do more of what you did, which was add content without referencing. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common nickname

I've created a page for a sportsperson whose name has no current duplicates. It seems that publicly they have a nickname which has duplicates. What would be the approach to help visitors find this person? Should I create a redirection page for Nickname (sport)? I've brought this up on the talk page of the disambiguation page.

Thanks in advance for the guidance. - Mcstove (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mcstove, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess this is about Georgina Fisher, yes? It continually puzzles me why people asking for help here so often avoid actually telling us what article they are talking about, so that we have to go and look for it.. The answer is in COMMONNAME: all three of the sources refer to her as George, therefore that is what the article should be called: George Fisher (netball player) or similar. Moving the page will automatically leave behind a redirect from Georgina Fisher to the name. You can also add her to the disambiguation page George Fisher.

However, I want to point out that there is a problem with that article: at present, the references do not, in my opinion, establish that Fisher meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Two of them simply list her name; one has more information, but appears to be based on an interview with her, so is not independent. In particular, you have not given any source for the claim that her name is Georgina. Please review the requirements of biographies of living persons. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine Thanks for taking time to look into the post and apologies for the avoiding - I was unsure about making the problem completely specific, and assumed it would only be a second more to see my contributions. I'll review the links to notability and then see if there are appropriate sources, and look into moving after. -- Mcstove (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To L293D

Regarding my comment on Creation Sandbox from 3 months ago:

I am indeed dissapointed that my comment was not accepted. Please chalk it up to my inexpearience submitting comments to Wikipedia.

Lightness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldonastring (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk to L293D, the place to do so is User talk:L293D. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Theworldonastring, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you have misunderstood what Wikipedia, and more specifically the draft process, is about. There is no process for submitting "comments." The draft process is for drafting Wikipedia pages, with the intent of ultimately putting them into the main Wikipedia space. If you would like to learn more about what you can do on Wikipedia, a runthrough of the Wikipedia Adventure might be helpful. Regards, JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly non-notable minor locations in bulk on Wikipedia

Why are there so many seemingly non-notable minor locations with full Wikipedia articles, often barely cited such as this or this that I've found while using Special:Random? They appear about one in every eight articles. --9563rj (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation is that there a lot of people who are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and one of the most obvious places to start is one's own hometown. You might well be interested in learning more about your hometown for other reasons, and doing that research in support of a Wikipedia article achieves two goals. Some of these editors then move on to other things and some decide editing is harder than I they realized and go away.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, they are easy to make. The structure is basically the same and the key details can be derived from data sources. If you look at the edit history of these articles, they are not created by people whose hometown it is, but by people who know how to use (semi)automated tools.

Populated places with legal status are "are typically presumed to be notable" WP:GEOLAND. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this presumption is notoriously hard to rebuke when it comes to even tiny villages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on both points. One common headache on copy patrol with an article about some small town that triggers a possible copyright situation. When you do the investigation you see that it is almost identical to some site that is copied from Wikipedia with the only differences being the name of the town and the various census numbers. The structure and flow and much of the text is identical.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USBG

"USBG" redirects directly to the United States Botanic Gardens. However, the United States Bartenders' Guild, a well known organization in the service industry, has the same abbreviation, but doesn't have a page. I've been wondering whether to create a disambiguation page for the "USBG" abbreviation (since there may be many more uses for it), or to merely create the page for the United States Bartenders' Guild, and have one or the other include an "if you meant etc. etc. etc., you may be looking for this" sentence at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polio18 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Polio18. Since on the face of it, the Gardens seems likely to be the more prominent of the subjects, we would probably want to create the page for the Guild, and then add Template:Redirect to the Gardens article in case someone is redirected there, but intended to go to the other article instead. We generally don't create disambiguation pages where there are only two existing pages, in the case that one is pretty clearly the more prominent of the two subjects. GMG ^talk 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

England Touch Association

Hi there, I have just recently done a lot of work on this page. England Touch Association. It has a lot of shouty banners on top, which I believe are now dated. Could anyone give it a review and take some of them (all hopefully!) down? Multiple sources, including ABC, and in particular the BBC now, so feel that it is a solid piece. What's added there is what I feel the reader of the page will be looking for. What has the ETA, and its teams done? What is the ETA? Credible sources etc. many thanks SamCardioNgo (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamCardioNgo. Anybody may remove the cleanup templates if they think they no longer apply; but asking for somebody to review it first is a good plan. However, I for one am not inclined to review it until somebody formats the references better, with proper bibliographic data (in particular, title, date, and the publisher or organ). Without this, it's harder to evaluate the references. Please see REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ColinFine. I have updated as requested! SamCardioNgo (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamCardioNgo. All your citations were formatted as external links with no substructure. I worked them into {{cite}} templates. This is not mandatory, but this way you get nicer looking auto-formatting and I find they are easier to read and work with, when it's not all one linked block of text. 2.247.241.98 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How article rating works when part of numerous Wiki Projects

If an article is rated B on one wikiproject and Start on another (and it is clearly not a start article), does the article need to be reviewed by a member of the other WikiProject or can it be automatically switched to B for all WikiProjects it falls under? --Michail (blah) 20:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Michail. Ratings between start and B are comparatively arbitrary. If you feel a rating is pretty obviously wrong, you can feel free to update it, even if you are not listed as a member of the project. GMG ^talk 22:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, User:GreenMeansGo. And in the case of GA articles, if an article is reviewed and passes GA, does it become GA for all WikiProjects involved? --Michail (blah) 22:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Michail. A GA or an FA is either a GA/FA or it ain't. It's not dependent on individual WikiProjects. The major exception to all that is A class, which is really only used by the Military History WikiProject, but which is widely accepted as a legitimate class, since WikiProject Military History is one of the most active, if not the most active WikiProject. GMG ^talk 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Philly boy92 and GreenMeansGo: I noticed a milhist mention here, and wanted to chime in briefly before this gets archived. The military project here on the en.wikipedia tends to be the standard by which a lot of other project's articles and processes are judged - not through any forced means, its just that the military history project's bars, infrastructure, and other related processes tend to churn out a lot of the quality work on Wikipedia. Within the military project, a distinction is made between start and B-class: a start class article is usually heading towards greatness, but lacks a lot of the context needed to cover all aspects of the article's subject (perhaps there's a missing picture or no background information or so forth in that manner) to justify a higher rating, whereas a B-class article adequately covers all aspects of the B-class check list leaving nothing for want. Of particular note is that a B-class article in our project must have all information in all sections cited to reliable sources and cover all aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions for the lead into the subject, the subject itself, and the subject after its completion. While ours is admittedly a higher criteria, a number of other projects borrow our criteria for their project so its a good idea to check and make sure that the assessment of the article matches whatever the project's assessment department (if present) believes that article should be rated at. In the case of the Military history Project, you can find our assessment criteria and examples here. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how do I submit an article from my Sandbox?

My article is completed in the Sandbox with all references/citations included. I reviewed Article Wizard, but still cannot understand where and how to submit the article for review. Can you please help me with this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Django1887 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you do some reading of the links on your user talk page. It will aid reviewers if you make the draft comply with the Manual of Style, for example: wikify the draft, format section headings, tidy up same reference used more than once, reference punctuation, remove inappropriate capitalisation, ... After that, the first paragraph of WP:AFC tells you how to submit for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Films and their content rating

Hi, I was just wondering: why do movies' pages tend not to have any information related to content ratings? I.e. American films have the MPAA rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17), but for a classic movie like Jurassic Park, for example, there is nowhere on its page that has rating information (it was rated PG-13). I would think this information is important for several reasons:

One, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it makes sense to record the facts of a film's publication and effect on society - the MPAA is factually related to the release of the film since it classifies it in a specific way that is relevant to its target audience.

Second, from a financial standpoint a film's rating has a big effect because it limits (or liberates) the audience who are able to see it and thus can dramatically affect is financial gains. Since finances are a part of the business aspect of filmmaking and thus relates to its social relevance (which is a criteria for it to be on wikipedia in the first place), it might be important to consider how a rating affects a film's business.

Third, From a practical point of view, since Wikipedia results often come up first (or close) when searching movie titles online, many people might search a film's wikipedia page if they were looking for film's rating. This could be important to them for obvious reasons, i.e. if they have small children and need to know if the film's content is appropriate. But if they are unable to find the rating of a movie on the page, they might think of it as a needless omission of something pretty important. If wikipedia is THE place most people go to for information online, why should a person have to go somewhere else to find something as simple as a film's rating? It makes little sense.

Fourth, it is true that some people (professionals or not) find the rating system controversial or just plain don't like it/think films need it. But Wikipedia is not about what people's preferences are, it is supposed to simply state the facts of a topic or entity with as little bias as possible. And a film's rating - the fact that it has one or doesn't, or if it does, what it is specifically- IS a fact, it is not subject to interpretation because that it is part of the reality of its release.

So that is what I was wondering. I made the above cases because my recent experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy/formality has shown me that for the smallest issue, there is usually a BIG reason why things are done the way they are. I know that if I were to make a minor change on the Jurassic Park page and add a "rating = PG-13" in its infobox, within an hour it would probably be deleted by someone because that's "not how pages are done." But for this particular issue I can't see why there can't be a rating display on a film page. If the issue is that films are rated different things in different countries, then clarification can be made in that regard (i.e. by using a table box or something). The point is that it wouldn't be that hard, and it is still a pretty important thing to know, despite it being a 'small' thing.

Thanks.

Rush922 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rush922. I'm not apart of WikiProject Film, so I can't answer this question directly, but I believe WP:FILMRATING is what you are looking for. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your answer. That information somewhat satisfies me, but not entirely - I guess I will have to question the WikiProject Film people directly at some point! Rush922 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page rejected

Hello, I've just had a page I submitted in the artist Henry John Dobson rejected on notability grounds only to see a similar page on the same subject appear minutes later including similar links. Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Stuart 11 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-01T23:04:21 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jamie Stuart 11. When I compare Draft:Henry John Dobson with the new article Henry John Dobson, it is clear to me that the new article is much better than your draft. The article is written in complete sentences, is properly formatted, and has several references. Your draft lacks these features. I suggest that you read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are inactive Users purged?

Stats for English language state >34 million registered users, but only ~130,000 editing within past 30 days. Is there any policy for purging Users who have not edited in, say, five years? Or if no-purge is a firm policy, perhaps adding a stat counting people who have edited at least once in past year? I an saddened by the numbers showing only ~ 0.4% having edited in past 30 days. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: For the same reasons accounts cannot be deleted even at user's request (copyright mostly), I would expect there be no "purge" either. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We couldn't delete any account that has ever made an edit, because that would destroy attribution; this is a legal requirement so not something we could consider even if we wanted to. The statistics for active editors are here; in general, around 30,000 editors are active (in the sense of having made at least five edits in the past 30 days) at any given time. Bear in mind that a lot of registered accounts are either people who don't edit themselves but create an account so they can operate a watchlist of articles that interest them, or are people who don't edit English Wikipedia but are active on another Wikimedia Foundation project and have consequently had a placeholder account created under Wikipedia:Unified login, in the same way that सदस्य:David notMD exists on Hindi Wikipedia despite you never having edited there; purging inactive accounts would cause significant inconvenience to huge numbers of people. ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why my edits removed?

Hello, I made a few edits and quite shaken they were struck off. Not sure what I'd done wrong. Thank you. ^[1] Greenleaf CA (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of my question so I made it a new section. The editor who removed your edits stated that they contained content that was under copyright. Wikipedia disallows. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greenleaf_CA

Portmanteau Word

If portmanteau is a three-syllable word with three meanings, and each meaning arose vis three different and unrelated paths, how can I prove this to puddingheads who simply refuse to accept Carroll's own definition? That is, how do I demonstrate that a portmanteau is a (1) narrow table intended for use in front halls were space may be dear, (2) a potable closet for carrying coats and other long clothes, and (3) an adjective used to describe its unique relationship with (1) and (2) without arising from the origins of either of (1) or (2) so that it does not create a connection between (1) and (2) and fulfills its own meaning as (3)? If you doubt that the origins of (1) and (2) have no tangent, I refer you to the OED. Yes, I said "tangent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary beachum (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gary beachum. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. You may have better luck at the Reference desks. By the way, I can find no evidence that "portmanteau" refers to a narrow hall table. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word is sometimes applied to a hall stand where you can hang coats. They sometimes have mirrors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music artist

What does it take for a musician to be accepted on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki World Centre (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wiki World Centre. Please read the Notabilty criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about speedy action

what is speedy action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbabu5405 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "speedy deletion", the criteria are listed at WP:CSD. The notices on User talk:Durgaprasad107 have blue wikilinks to the relevant criteria. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sir i want to write articale on website

how to write a articale on website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgaprasad107 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Durgaprasad107, and welcome to our Teahouse. We encourage people to write about 'Notable subjects'. But for a new editor like you, creating a completely new article is one of the hardest things to achieve here. (It took me 9 months before I dared try!) It is actually far better to learn the ways of Wikipedia by slowly making small improvements over time. A very good introduction would be to try out The Wikipedia Adventure and then to read Wikipedia:Your first article. If you want to write about a website, it will have to have already been written about, in depth, by other, totally independent, reliable sources. You can learn precisely what criteria are used to decide whether a new page is meritorious (worthy of being added to this encyclopaedia) by visiting Wikipedia:Notability (web) where the criteria are explained in full. Should you want to write about a company, the criteria we require you to met are explained at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I'm afraid that if you cannot provide sources to demonstrate a new topic meets our notability criteria, then you stand no chance of a new page being accepted. This may sound harsh, but Wikipedia is not here to help people promote favourite businesses, websites, musicians etc - we need to know that the world at large has already taken an interest in them, and we demand that references (citations) are provided to demonstrate that fact. I hope this assists you in deciding whether you stand a chance of being successful. Feel free to come back for guidance if you need it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple topics in one article

It seems EN series seems off one paragraph about chairs and another one about steel. I thought the chairs were maybe made of steel, but the care seems to be made of plastic. So those topics seem to be unrelated. I've seen other pages where a disambiguation page is used, and I've also seen "this article is about the X, for the Y, see title (Y)". When is each thing used? And how do I split a page in two while keeping the history? Pretended leer (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be about the steel; someone added some unsourced spam about chairs to it last year which wasn't previously detected. I've reverted the article to its previous state. ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find art pages that need improving

I am a fine art student from Wolverhapton University and am interested in improving some art pages. I am particularly interested in artists from the North of Englan. Could anyone recommend any pages to get me started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albrighton Titon (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Albrighton Titon and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your willingness to help improve Wikipedia. I think the Arts WikiProject might be a good place to start. Others may have better suggestions. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksAlbrighton Titon (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Albrighton Titon, and, likewise, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you also aware of the 'GLAM project'? It stands for Galleries, Libraries Archives and Museums, and if you click that link you'll see the worldwide homepage for projects trying to encourage collaboration between Wikipedia and Museums etc. So one good place to start would be to look at the UK section of that project, and then maybe the Wolverhampton Art Gallery page here. I'd then suggest contacting one of the art staff at the museum directly to see if they have resources or local artists they'd like to work with you on to improve. Give them a ring and make an appointment for a 10 minute chat. Museums love volunteers, and this could lead to some valuable CV experience for you working with them, perhaps. Local museums are bound to have books and resources that are not easily found elsewhere which can be used as references sources here, and most staff are delighted to provide information on their collections that others might be able to mobilise for them (though sadly this rarely extends to images of their collections). You may encounter the odd curator who's a bit suspicious of Wikipedia, but nowadays museums recognise the need to publicise/promote awareness of their cultural holdings but rarely have enough resources to do it themselves. Of course, you could approach any other museum in the North of England that you're interested in and enquire of their staff. I used to work at Derby Museum and Art Gallery, albeit in natural sciences, but what got me involved in Wikipedia was when one long-standing editor (Victuallers) approached us to work with Wikipedia. Nobody else was very keen, but I was, so a project ensued that put QRpedia codes on museum objects on display and launched an international project to improve a range of pages about notable people and artists relevant to our city, specifically across multiple languages. Now, I'm not suggesting you go that far (LOL!) - but the opportunities are almost endless. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions here, or if you would like any general support or ideas from from me personally, I'm happy to guide you via my Talk Page, should you so wish. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, that's a great idea. I might actually be swinging by the museum tomorrow or the day after so I will phone ahead and see what they are saying. I'll let you know how I get on. Albrighton Titon (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid Race article

The Mongoloid race article seems to be organised to promote outdated notions of racial categorisation. This is a difficult subject that causes much controversy and debate in the social science and anthropology fields. It is accepted by scientists that the concept of ‘race’ is a social construct. Forensic anthropologists sometimes attempt to determine the ‘ancestry’ of human remains in an attempt to predict how a living individual would have been assigned to a social constructed category. It is also understood that such classifications are utilised terms that are no longer considered appropriate, due to common origins with racist/pejorative terms. This Mongoloid article certainly seems to be a case of this, with unrelated images and many quotes included that omit or reverse the context in which it is used. It seems that some editors who introduced this material are banned. It seems as though the article has been written by someone who found every academic use of the word "Mongoloid" and found a reason to insert it. If you get a chance please help with this review of sources, and help find better sources. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse is primarily to answer questions about the functioning of Wikipedia, not of specific articles. My guess is that none of the editors who help out here have any knowledge of the topic. That said, looks like you have made several dozen edits to an article that gets more than a thousand visits a day, and has scores of people who have it on their watch list. Expect other editors to get involved. Meanwhile, kudos for your Bold efforts to improve the article by both deletions and additions. I agree that many of the images make no useful contribution to the article and should be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains in its first two paragraphs that it is about a historic term, not much used today. Most of the body of the article is about its historic usage. Maproom (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the European Grid Infrastructure page

Dear Wikipedia editors: I work for the European Grid Infrastructure and I noticed that this page is not up to date. Since the page was last edited, EGI has 40000 new users, has reached 1 million CPU cores, developed a Cloud Service for researchers in Europe, etc. I would like to make a few edits for factual information (no marketing I promise, I know this is not the place). However: I am aware that I have a conflict of interest and I probably cannot edit the page myself. (If I was Wikipedia, I certainly wouldn't want people to edit their own pages!!) So: what can we do? Kind regards, Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.117.237 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sara. If you can find sources to verify the information, you can leave a comment on the article's talk page, and if you include {{Request edit}} it will add it to a list of requested edits to be reviewed by volunteers. GMG ^talk 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sara, and thank you for complying with Wikipedia's policy. GMG has told you how to request edits. The article certainly needs work. It starts "European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) is a series of efforts to provide access to high-throughput computing resources". How can a series of efforts can have 40,000 users? Maproom (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely!!! :) EGI is an e-Infrastructure (that sentence is a relic from the time EGI was indeed a series of projects. I will follow the suggestion and add a section on requested edits. Thank you for your support! Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.117.237 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I add the Request for edits thingy? The page itself? Or on the discussion page? (Srry for the stupid question) and how do I sign? Thanks, Sara

See Wikipedia:Edit requests for details on the process and how to use it. Signing is as simple as typing ~~~~ which will automatically be converted to your username / IP and date/time. While you are at it, consider creating an account which will hide your IP address and allow you to track all your edits as well as plenty of other things. Regards So Why 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is at Talk:European_Grid_Infrastructure -- Mcstove (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you all! Sara 145.100.117.237 (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting page published

I was wondering how I can get my page reviewed/published and wondering if any editors could help me! I'm new to Wikipedia! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinmoorejr: Hello and Welcome to Teahouse! If you have created that page under Articles for creation, you can submit it for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. If you have created the article in namespace and published changes, the article has been created already! However, a new page patroller/reviewer will review that article, which may happen any time. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's views on autobiography are at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Family Photographs and Copyright

1) The photograph of my great grandfather Kumokun Haastrup was deleted for copyright reasons. I don't understand. The photograph is by an unknown photographer taken in Nigeria latest 1920 (he was in his late 70s in 1896). I requested an undeletion a couple of weeks ago. This has not been effected and I can no longer find the thread. (I must admit, I do not find navigating this site straightforward).'DesoHaa (talk)

2) I submitted a series of photographs from family archives, again by unknown photographers, to support an article on Adedokun Abiodun James Haastrup which was declined for not demonstrating sufficient eminence of the subject. The photographs of aforementioned with various eminent personalities such as Emperor Haile Selassie, met during his work as one of the first 12 ambassadors of Nigeria were submitted to address the Wiki editor's concerns. These family held photographs have been published by Heinemann Books in the Biography of subject with no reference to authorship as there is no record of such. Heinemann are reputable publishers therefore I am certain that all due diligence was done.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'DesoHaa: thank you for trying to contribute these images. It ought to be possible.

Navigating this site can indeed be difficult. Part of the problem is that English-language Wikipedia (here) is a different site from Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded the images. So people here can't really help with your problems. That's unfortunate, because in my experience people here are more helpful and friendly to new users than those at the Commons Helpdesk. I see that there are some messages for you at your talk page at Commons. I hope you will persist, and explain to the people at Commons that any photograph taken before 1923 is ought of copyright, and that Haile Selassie was a notable person. However, an image taken from a book published after 1923 will still be restricted by copyright. Maproom (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Yann did end up undeleting File:Kúmókụn - Ajimoko I.jpg. Maybe they can give insight into whether the other images can be similarly restored. GMG ^talk 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction. I finally worked out how to re-post the photograph. Hopefully on the right track to sorting out the issues with the others. Your Help has been invaluable and I very much appreciate it. You're all doing such wonderful work.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for database access at Wikipedia Library, but no access months later

Hi,

I applied for access to databases at Wikipedia Library earlier this summer. I have been sent user ids and passwords to all but Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis. I cannot find where to ask for help with this or ask a question on the Wikipedia Library site. Can you point me in the right direction or assist me with thiis issue? thx MauraWen (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MauraWen: You can check your applications on your library card user page. From there you can access your individual applications and leave a comment for the reviewing coordinator. Alternatively you can go to the page of the resource in question from the overview where you will find the name of the coordinator for this resource as well as a way to contact them. Regards So Why 17:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling to figure out what is happening

I'm new to Wikipedia and want to start creating and maintaining updates to articles of photographers and filmmakers of notable importance. I'm part of a few groups off Wikipedia who find the lack of documentation of MANY photographers such as Chase Jarvis, Martin Moore, Brandon Woelfel and others on Wikipedia concerning, but as I start to edit articles I have a gang of people trying to undermine additions throwing accusations of COI. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be taken seriously, you could start by not making obviously nonsensical claims such as that User:Martinmoorejr doesn't have a COI on the topic of Martin Moore Jr. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as confirmed sock. David notMD (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No subject

Is it possible to use STiki on mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfield1122 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "The Signpost" please!

Just in wonderment: Exactly what is "The Signpost" , how often is it published, how is it edited, and is I have something to contribute how do I go about doing it? All responses welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the big set of links at the bottom of the page for details. The explanation of what the Signpost is is here, and the instructions for new contributors are here. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. Just noticing, why is their so many vacant places in the staff? Lack if interest perhaps?

This isn't a response to this question so much as your initial question, but if you want to come over and help with the top 25 report feel free! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single vs. Other Charted Songs

On artist discography pages what are the criteria for something that goes under “singles” and something to go under “other charted songs” and how do I tell whether or not something was released as a single?

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CAMERAwMUSTACHE. The basic answer, like every such question, is "if you can find a reliable source which says that it was released as a single, then you can list it as a single". If you can't - even if you happen to know it was so released - then a Wikipedia article should not say that.

I'm aware that your case might be a bit more complicated than this, and suggest you ask at WT:WikiProject Discographies. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A to edit or present information on a major discovery in the art world

To Wiki We want to know how to best bring this to the attention of your readers.

A major revelation has been discovered in the content of a Caravaggio work that will affect the presentation of the painting “Saint Matthew and the Angel”.

We have documentation and incontrovertible provenance on the details and color scheme of that painting. The painting as portrayed since its loss in 1945 is now notably inaccurate; Both in color and a small but very significant detail.

We feel that simply editing the current primary page on Wiki about the painting will not alert the art world to this change. We would like to request guidance on best to make this know on your site. A major worldwide press release is being organized. We would like to be sure Wiki has the first level of notification. What is the best approach to accomplish this?

We again wish to emphasize that this is a huge, new revelation to the art community, worldwide. Thank you B Baron your page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthew_and_the_Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by BARRY BARON (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BARRY BARON! Wikipedia, at its core, is a reflection of things that have already been published elsewhere, in reliable sources. Wikipedia is never supposed to be first with something. Our entire quality control systems depends on this. The best way to get something accepted in a Wikipedia article is to get reputable publications covering the art world to publish it, then using them as sources here. /Julle (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a Wiki Writer

Hi there!

I am new to Wikipedia but wish to post an article about the nonprofit organization I work with - Overcoming Multiple Sclerosis. I think retaining someone to do this would be more objective and present a balanced view of the organization. Plus, an experienced Wiki contributor would be well acquainted with the formatting and footnoting requirements. Is this a commonly accepted practice? Can someone point me in the right direction or refer me to people who can perform this service?

Best,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwersky (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alextwersky: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We cannot recommend someone you can hire to write for you; that's outside of our purview. Please review the paid editing policy. It is certainly possible for you to hire someone, but anyone you hire cannot guarantee any particular result for you, such as writing an article that will not be deleted. On occasion, people who claim to offer such a service just take your money and don't do what they claim. They also need to comply with the paid editing policy(a Terms of Use requirement) or they will be blocked. If you want to take the risk, that is your decision and we cannot prevent it, but few people here would advise you to do it.

You are correct to recognize that you shouldn't write about your nonprofit. That would be a conflict of interest. However, your nonprofit does not necessarily merit an article here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a forum to tell about an organization. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage state about a subject, indicating how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. (in this case, it is defined at WP:ORG) Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good causes.

You can make a request at Requested Articles for volunteer editors to write about it, though it is severely backlogged and it may be some time, if ever, before it is written. Your best bet is to continue what you do at your organization and hope that an editor takes note of the organization and writes about it. That would be a very good indication that your organization merits an article, more than if you or someone you hired wrote one. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend that you review WP:COI and WP:PAID yourself. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alextwersky: There's a lot of guideline and policy info to read to stay on the right side of things, but your best bet is to first see this section: WP:ORGCRIT. My personal take after participating in dozens of deletion discussions and also looking up sourcing for your organization is that there isn't enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Because of this, even if you requested the article at Requested Articles, as mentioned above, I don't think your request would be successful. I wanted to save you the time and disappointment. If your organization grows and gets significant media coverage, as 331dot points out, you can then request the article and see what happens. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request..

Dare,

I am writing to you to request that, please create the Wikipedia of Syed Nadeem Raza Sarwar ( Noha Writer,reciter). He is he most popular Noha Khawan among all muslims either shia or sunni not only in Pakistan but internationally also.If you want more information regarding Nadeem Sarwer i will be always available.. Thank You,

Regards

Muhammad Junaid Sherazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaid Sherazi 110 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have started a draft at User:Junaid Sherazi 110/sandbox. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the notability criteria at WP:BIO. If you reformat the draft in accordance with the Manual of Style, and more importantly add references to demonstrate the subject's notability you could then submit the draft for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add existing reference as a citation for an image

Hi, I uploaded an image and was trying to add a citation to an existing source on the page, but was unable to do so. I will have to create another reference for the image, which means there will be two references that open the same link. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladvipa (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did this edit do what you wanted? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you! Are there instructions on how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladvipa (talk • contribs) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions on how to reuse citations, but they specifically say the names shouldn't be numbers. And the reference doesn't seem to have a name. So I guess what that edit is doing is taking advantage of some sort of default name, so if a reference doesn't have a name, it gets a number instead, and that's how it references a reference without an actual name. But maybe someone with more referencing experience has another explanation and knows why the person making the edit didn't give the reference a name. Pretended leer (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reference name was added in this edit by the OP. The numbered reference names are what gets produced by the VisualEditor, which most experienced editors don't use. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect in vandalizing

Hi! I tried to do some corrections into World of Warships page, but unfortunately it didn't happen, as my edits were identified as "vandalizing". First of all, I'd like to object as I just provided some actual infos into the outdated article. Seconds, please give me a hint how to avoid such situations in the future.

Best regards, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holycalf (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Holycalf: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was not identified as vandalism- but it was reverted because it removed information from the template during your effort to add something, and also cited a blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. I think that the warning you were given was a bit harsh- but they were correct to remove your edit. If you disagree with it, you should post on the article talk page explaining what you were trying to do and get input from other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what should be done. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters which you were trying to use do not exist in Template:Infobox video game, so the material you tried to add wasn't being displayed (as you'd have seen if you used the "Preview" button). Your edit was obviously in good faith so the warning you received should not have described it as vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new Article about Sudhir Yadav on wikipedia

Hi I want to know if we can create a new page about Sudhir Yadav. I am not sure if this subjects comes under notable not. So thought of asking if this is notable or not. As per the information available from the news website such as Times of india, Hindustan times, DNA , Zee News and other famous news channel/websites, he is rti activist and he filled several PIL in supreme court and different -2 high court of india. He filed public interest legislation (PIL) against ban on WhatsApp. He is also spokesperson of Aam Aadmi party. he made serveral announcement which made headlines national level. His twitter account is also verified. He has combaine followship of more than 1,00,000 in different different social media platforms. Not Sure if he is notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yadav771: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that "Yadav" is part of your name and that you also use "we" in your post. Do you work for or represent Mr. Yadav? If you do, that is what Wikpedia calls a conflict of interest and possibly a paid editing relationship. Please click those links to review those policies.

A person merits an article on Wikipedia if they have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates they meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Some fields have more specific guidelines(like athletes) but WP:BIO is the general guideline for biographies. It doesn't matter if they have a hundred social media followers or a billion, what matters is that independent sources have written about them. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i am really sorry for my bad english, I am no where work for "Sudhir Yadav" and nor i am representing him. should i share some of the news articles on basis of which you can tell me if the person is notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few years back i tried to create a page but didn't approved so thought of asking if all these comes under notable or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhir Yadav, as you will have seen in the information which you deleted from your user talk page. Has the situation changed? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes i think change is significant press coverage after he become spokesperson of political party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadav771 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Yadav has been deleted four times, so any further attempt will be looked at very carefully. If, having read WP:BIO, you are confident that he meets the notability criteria you can write a draft and submit it for review through the AFC process. And if you post any further messages here please remember to sign them. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help on abusive behavior

Hi, I'm looking for advice on what to do. There is an editor who I feel is not acting in a polite manner. I tried to solve this on their talk page, but in their answer they claimed to keep doing it.

Diff of the answer

Two of the latest diffs are here:

[1] [2]

And some earlier:

[3] [4]

I'm not trying to get him blocked or anything. But I have no other issues with any other editors. Everyone is very polite and in general a great resource to Wikipedia. I'm also not a "lone ranger" on these topics here as Thomas.W claims, as is evident by support from other editors. I just don't want to experience constant insults and prejudice from the mentioned editor. According to Wikipedia:Wikibullying, the editor is doing Wikihounding based on what they have claimed themselves and also False accusations are the main ones. And also Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. I'm not clean myself, for example I got blocked for 31 hours for edit warring and take responsibility for that. But I don't assume bad faith from other editors or discredit them. Am I crazy? Should I change something in my own behavior? What should I do? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Here's another one - he's also attributing false actions to me which I have not done. I did not add anything to the original article. It was the editor in question who originally removed what had been in the article as long as I can see in history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting/opposing an edit-warring POV-pusher is not abusive behaviour (see Talk:Oeselians, Talk:Vikings and Talk:Norsemen). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's good you brought out the talk page URLs. Anyone can see what's been happening there. Also, labelling people, espeically in argumentation, is considered to be a red herring. And in general, impolite. How many times have I labeled you? Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any context here, and I wasn't aware there was some POV to push with regard to Vikings, but the standard advice is to follow the steps in the dispute resolution process, especially WP:RFC, and if that fails, consider filing a report at WP:ANI. But that should be a last resort, and whoever crosses that line would be well advised to have their nose clean, because ANI is not exactly known as a warm welcoming venue. GMG ^talk 14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone filing a complaint there should also know that the behaviour of the editor filing the complaint will also be scrutinized, to the same extent as the behaviour of the editor the complaint is about, so people who don't have their noses clean are best advised to stay away... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

I'm aware of an ANI option. I did not go there, because I'm not looking to get Thomas in trouble. I was hoping of getting some advice here. But if this abuse continues, I will go there. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Diff 1" and "Diff 2" are the same, as well as "Diff 3" and "Diff 4" in your original post. Onto the advice asked:
1. There is no behavioral problem from the diffs you linked. Certainly not something that raises to the level of abuse or constant insults and prejudice or Wikihounding or assuming bad faith. Maybe there is more but you just did not show it. Unsubstantiated accusations of that kind are a breach of WP:CIVIL, by the way.
2. For content matters, see dispute resolution processes. I gave a quick glance at the pages though, and I would warn you that my impression is that you hold the wrong end of the stick here. I am not saying that to prepare a "I told you so" moment, but to make you realize that the dispute is not obviously from Tom's fault, so you better prepare to make a tighter case that what you have shown so far.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! (or maybe Woe?). At those disputed articles B & T and many other editors are using Talk to debate at length and at times heatedly on definitions of Vikings, Norsemen, Oeselians (?) and so on. Why not leave the articles alone until emotions cool, and meanwhile contribute to a more simple project, perhaps Jews? David notMD (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oeselians are inhabitants of the island of Øsel, now in Estonia. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BERRY IIT

Hello, Editors please help me to post a article not able to understand the issue . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyes123 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uyes123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I removed your draft from this page, as this page is only for discussion. Users can see your draft by looking at your contribution history, which I have done. From what I have seen, you seem to have a common misconception as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to merely tell about a business. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, with significant coverage(not just brief mentions or routine announcements) that indicates how the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines it. In the case of a business, those guidelines are written at WP:ORG(please read). You have provided only two sources, both of which are routine, press-release style announcements. Those are not acceptable as sources. An independent source needs to, on their own, have chosen to write about this company extensively.

Are you associated with this company, such as in being an employee? If so, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome

I'm Conner! I'm currently in undergrad studies at CCC. I look forward to working with ya'll! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big.macncheese (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Conner. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you ever run into any issues and have questions about editing, you've found the right place to ask, and there's usually always someone around willing to help. Hope you enjoy your stay and happy editing! GMG ^talk 18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General queries

Hi. I am new here, therefore the only things ik are editing, creating new page and emailing. Can someone tell me how to use general features like 'talk' and stuff? It would be really appreciated. Thanks!Hindutva (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hindutva! I've posted a welcome message on your talk page that should answer most questions that new users have. You can find it here. User talk:YourEditorNextDoor#Welcome.

As for talk pages specifically, as has been pointed out to you, these are the primary means of communication here on Wikipedia. If you want to explain what is lacking about a specific article, you can raise the issue on the article's talk page. If you want to ask about a specific user's actions, you can ask on their user talk page. Email is rarely needed, and I suspect most Wikipedians prefer contacts on the talk pages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden to married

Hello, how do I address my name change in a Wikipedia page, (1999 World Special Olympics Summer Games) from my maiden name Cheryl Quiambao to now Cheryl Burchfield? Thank you very much for your help!

Cheryl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B047:F007:7CB6:6C2D:F919:3BA5 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you competed under your maiden name in 1999, the article on the 1999 World Special Olympics Summer Games should include you under that name and not your current name. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mention has been removed. (I agree with the removal.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Kirbanzo

I'm trying to find out how to answer Kirbanzo, which is so far a huge, time-consuming and fruitless effort.

On the odd chance that this eventually reaches him, I accidentally deleted info I was trying to edit. I'm a first-timer here.

However, the point of my attempted edit was to post the following:

"The Swiss, non-profit organization, FIGU, was falsely listed as a "cult". This is not only defamatory but inaccurate. Anyone disagreeing should present evidence that: they were solicited to join, give or donate money to, visited by alleged members for the aforesaid purposes, given unasked for brochures, etc.; also show that there is a leader who must be believed, obeyed, followed uncritically, etc."

I will be delighted to discuss, and substantiate, my statement, which should certainly result in the removal of the false claim of a cult. I (Michael Horn) have almost 40 years of experience in researching the Billy Meier information, which I represent in the US and English-speaking world.

And, since Meier and his information is attacked by parties with their own, unpleasant agendas, I'll assume that Wikipedia would prefer to be responsible, not contribute to defamation and be willing to discuss ANY of the elements pertaining to this information, etc., should they feel contrary to what I have stated.

I'm screen capturing this page for my records and I hope we can resolve the inaccuracies.

Best,

MichaelHorn812 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirbanzo: GMG ^talk 18:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the message which Kirbanzo left on your user talk page, the "talk" link will take you to User talk:Kirbanzo. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelHorn812: - Thank you for explaining your rationale further. And we all make mistakes - that general notification is meant to assume good faith. You're free to reinstate your edit. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the user sandbox wanted.

OK, I am new, and am wondering what the sandbox is for and how to use it. All suggestions welcome. Thanks

Well, the user sandbox has a simple purpose; to mess around with ideas in editing without having to edit the actual article. The primary use for the sandbox is to simply play around with ideas Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

How do I create an inline citation in on a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChillATM (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ChillATM, see Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CN Span

I have been trying to add citation to the 2018 Pacific Hurricane Season Article and there is a cn span and I don't know how to get rid of it. It will always stay there; and when I tried last it got reverted not even 30 seconds later. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cyclone of Foxes: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you are trying to use Visual Editor to edit a Template:citation span inside the 2018 Pacific hurricane season article. The problem is that the visible text is included within the underlying template itself - so you can't delete the template without loosing the text. You can either switch to the source editor for a moment to fix the issue directly within the article source. Or you can copypaste the "Text" parameter content from the template into your clipboard, delete the entire template including the text, and restore the text from your clipboard. Neither option is very comfortable, but there are a few uncommon or intrinsic editing situations where Visual Editor is difficult or even impossible to use (most common situations and functions are OK though to be fair). GermanJoe (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, except I don't know what the template looks like as I'm not seeing any template. Cyclone of Foxes (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclone of Foxes: The highlighted text and the template are displayed as one in Visual Editor - the text is representing the template as well, without a separate template icon or something similar. Click anywhere on one of the last unsourced sentences, the entire unsourced text will be highlighted and the template popup window should open (it did for me, tested it earlier with Firefox and Vector skin). Then click "Edit" in the popup window, and the window to edit template parameters should open. GermanJoe (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New user question re steps to create article with COI disclosure

New here and want to make sure I did this correctly. I have created an account and

1. On my User Page is where I put the {{UserboxCOI|1=Title of my draft}} and published it.

2. Then I created a User space draft of the article with references and publish it. But on the draft was I supposed to reference the COI or do the editors automatically know the COI because I have the name of the article on my User Page COI notice?

Thanks so much for your help!

I think the page at WP:PAID should answer most of your questions. Then look at H:GS for help in starting the editing process. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation Of Deleted Pages

Hello! is it allowed to recreat a page that was recently deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollback95 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rollback95 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can as long as the article meets WP:V WP:NPOV WP:N WP:OR etc. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i want to publish the page

i want to publish the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilyadavinbox (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before you submit a draft for review through the AFC process you need to ensure that there are references to published reliable sources with significant coverage independent of the subject, in order to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia's terms. Try also reading the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation quandry

There are articles on four people with very similar names, and I would be grateful for your suggestions about the best option to disambiguate. They are:

Brian Schmidt (born 1967), U.S.-Australian astrophysicist and Nobel laureate
Brian L. Schmidt (born 1962), music composer for video games and pinball games
Bryan Schmidt (born 1981), an American ice hockey player
Bryan Schmidt (footballer) (born 1995), an Argentine footballer

It has got a bit too complex to handle using hatnotes, and I think a disambiguation page is warranted. What confuses me is the two different spellings (Brian vs Bryan). Is it acceptable to set up a single page "Brian Schmidt (disambiguation)", to list both spellings there, and refer to that from all four articles? Then it might also need a redirect from "Bryan Schmidt (disambiguation)" to there. Or would it be better just to refer them all to the existing Schmidt (surname) page where the reader can figure it out? --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: A dab page with different spellings at one of those spellings is acceptable. See for example David Gilbert which also lists Daves. The other spelling can redirect there. Regards So Why 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs to be change. it provide wrong information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_noninvasive_arterial_pressure#/media/File:Arterial_Pathway.jpg

the above page contain an image that is give wrong information

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05633.x just go through this page it says that blood pressure decrease from calf to artery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish2211 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krish2211: I'm afraid I don't understand your point. That article compares BP measurement at the arm, ankle and calf. But the picture does not include either ankle or calf - it just shows different locations on the arm. They don't seem to relate to each other. Please explain how you think they should be interpreted to relate the picture to the article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the source cited by Krish2211, the image is obviously wrong. It shows the pressure variations increasing the further we get from the pump. Maproom (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my educational blogs/ebooks to relevant sources

I would like to add my educational blogs/ebooks to relevant sources, lease let me know how to do the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhara Raam (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant advice is on your user talkpage. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You joined today and have made multiple edits to six articles, all of which have been reverted to what was there before. Your blogs/ebooks are not considered valid references and should not be added to articles. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links, blogs and articles

There are cases where few vendor based pdf's, articles, blogs, guides are included with a page, let me know how to do this? Please share some video or source to understand how to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhara Raam (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice has been given at your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a relevant PDF/Blog to a page?

How to add a relevant PDF/Blog to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giridhara Raam (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of your attempted edits are to content you wrote, and all the content ends with a recommendation to contact ManageEngine, a company you work for. This is considered promotional spam, a conflict of interest, and undeclared paid editing. As the warning on your Talk page states, persisting in this practice will get you blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit the articles that interest you. Just don't reference your own work and don't mention the company you work for. David notMD (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Reporting. a user is hard can someone just tell me a easy way to just click on something and report a certain user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugland (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pugland and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism: WP:AIV, Edit warring: WP:AN3, Dispute resolution WP:DRN, Username violation: WP:UAA, Sock puppetry: WP:SPI, Behavioral problems or urgent issues: WP:ANI. You may install Twinkle which may assist you in filing reports. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pugland: If this concerns your reverted change to Clan MacTavish, the best place to have the discussion is on the Talk Page for that article. Provide reliable, independent sources to support the changes you are proposing. Then all the affected users can contribute the conversation and reach a consensus about what is the best approach for the article. If the user refuses to abide by that consensus, then feel free to report as AE described above. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FL Technics

Hi. The draft above was recently reviewed and declined by Robert McClenon saying the draft was written from the viewpoint of the company and not enough content was present to merit a standalone article. As I wrote the draft I personally felt the sources I used were reliable enough to be used as citations for the article, but the reviewer suggested I ask here for other editors' opinions. I certainly don't agree with the sufficient content point as the draft would be Start-class in terms of the amount of info provided. What needs to change or be added for the draft to be approved? Thanks in advance. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would vote keep, or, issue, based on the sources and fairly neutral npov. It also has a good amount of content for a a starting article.

The Growth and Expansion... section may, in fact, be too detailed. Perhaps highlight the most notable of those points and leave the rest to further reading? Although that is the main body of the article, you will understand how what basically reads as a list of achievements and business deals, no matter how accurate, does not come off well for the tone we try to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfabet (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has 31 references, and I'm not going to check them all. But the ones I did check are not to "reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject". If you have found any such sources, I suggest you make them easier for a reviewer to find by removing most of the others. Maproom (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a collapsible table that spans the whole page?

For instance this

Winter Olympic Games
	City	Country
1994	Lillehammer	Norway
1998	Nagano	Japan

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible"
|+ class="nowrap" | Winter Olympic Games
|-
|
! scope="col" | City
! scope="col" | Country
|-
! scope="row" | 1994
| Lillehammer || Norway
|-
! scope="row" | 1998
| Nagano || Japan
|}

But I want to set its horizontal width to fit a certain amount of pixels (or the whole length of the page). Thanks Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 16:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I figured it out. Apparently just add style="width: 100%" to it. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 17:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create page

Hello Sir! How to create a red link page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal7pro (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal7pro: I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but: if you want to create an article, Wikipedia:Your first article has some instructions. Most importantly, you first need to make sure there are proper reliable sources that has written about the subject in question at some length.

If you want to create a red link, you just need to add [[these]] around any word that does not already have an article. /Julle (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page that includes a list

I've attempted to create a list of impact investing firms around the world (firms that make investments which also contribute to social good -e.g. sustainability, education, improved healthcare etc.): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_investing_firms. I was hoping to connect it to the Impact Investing page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_investing.

However, it's been flagged for deletion because it is in violation of WP:NOTDIR. I've seen many similar lists on Wikipedia, which are also for for-profit organizations e.g. this one of banks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_(alphabetically)

What makes the List of banks appropriate for Wikipedia, but not a list of impact investing firms? How do I go about creating such a list without being flagged for deletion? Thanks! Jiajiayi (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jiajiayi. It might be possible to create such a list of notable companies, with each one cited to reliable independent published source that says that it belongs in that list. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything which a company (or any other person or entity) says about itself; especially for a value-laden claim like "contributes to social good" we would require a solid published source for each company, wholly independent of the company in question, which describes it in that way. IN any case, a list like this will usually only contain items which are already the subject of Wikipedia articles (which in turn requires that they be notable in Wikipedia's special sense). --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar case of micro-edits. Concern?

I was patrolling Recent Changes, as you will, when I stumbled upon Relic:_Guardians_of_the_Museum and investigating its history, found it had not just dozens but hundreds of (typically) single characters edits by user:fanoflionking all in the past few days. I honestly don't know what to make of it, except that perhaps they're trying to inflate their edit count for some reason? Testing a bot or vandalism filters? (Not much on their talk page though)

Not familiar enough with Wikipedia about whether this out-right frowned upon, I bring this to a broader audience for insight. I could see the behavior as disruptive as it could be used to hide something in a flurry of activity, and it's simply not conducive to wade through the hundreds of changes individually to check. e.g. making an edit once for each letter in spelling out the secondary name 1.

Thoughts and appropriate next steps, if any? --Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have recommended next steps, but this looks like someone trying to get extended-confirmed, and I would frown on this editing behavior because it fills up the revision history and leaves a weird article state until the editor has finished. Chris857 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris857: It's not that, they have over 3000 edits. They should have been extended confirmed for a while now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's really weird then. Chris857 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. An amazing 204 separate edits just to make these minor changes. Wanders off to investigate if there any policies and sanctions on trivial repetitive editing like this. It's a new one on me. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an article was moved to "draft"

If an article was moved to "draft", can you edit the article on that draft page or do you have to create a new article? Lupine453 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lupine453. Ideally we will edit the draft and improve it so that it can be moved back to an article. GMG ^talk 19:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I edited a draft. But now what happens next? Can I move it myself to an article? Or does an administrator have to do that? Lupine453 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lupine453. You can move it yourself. There should be a option under "more" at the top of your screen (on PC). Once it is moved back as an article, it will be reviewed by our new page patrollers, who can make sure there aren't any major outstanding issues. GMG ^talk 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do that, thank you GMG. Lupine453 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you created an article, and it was moved to draft space, that was done as an alternative to requesting deletion, and meant that at least one editor, the one who moved it to draft space, thought it was not ready to be in article space. I would advise improving it in draft space before trying to move it back to article space. If you move it back to article space and an editor thinks it is still not ready to be in article space, it is likely to be nominated for Articles for Deletion. If you created an article, and it was promptly moved to draft space, I would suggest treating that as a strong criticism for putting it in article space when it isn't ready, and to learn from your mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savela

Hello, does anybody knows how or where to access to Savela lists? I do contributions by adding verifications or citations about moths or butterflies in this case, and some of the references or recommendations ask to access the Savela lists for further reference. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anon york: and welcome to the Teahouse. You are probably looking for [3], a website by Markku Savela (but without a specific Wiki-link I am not hundred percent sure). Such links are usually provided in the "References" section or further down in a separate "Further reading" or "External links" section. If you need additional advice or information about this source and its usage from more knowledgeable editors in this topic area, you could also ask editors of related Wiki-projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Insects or more specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. GermanJoe (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GermanJoe: , I appreciate the feedback. I think that is the link I was looking for. Many of the species articles have references to Savela list, therefore, I don't have a specific wiki-link so I will start from there. Thanks. Anon_york 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some one took off my edits

I edited our company page information and 3 weeks later it had been removed. Website update and 2 references. Is it possible to tell if someone else removed them? Thanks!

Thank you for your effort to keep Wikipedia up to date! I assume the article in question is Central Security Group? I think the problem is this: "September 10, 2018, Central Security Group Unveils Alert 360 as new company name and logo which aligned brand identity with evolving and complete line of smart home security and automation solutions". That's not neutral, and not the language used to write an encyclopedia. In short, it reads as promotional, which is a big no-no. Since you have a conflict of interest, my recommendation would be to instead write on the talk page to indicate what needs to be changed and link any sources that can be used to verify it. /Julle (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two iterations of "Transactionalism"

I've been editing the philosophy of "Transactionalism" page since its inception. For about 9 months or so, a term with a different meaning has been showing up in the news that could be collapsed with the philosophy stemming from the work of John Dewey. How could I go about distinguishing one from the other? Do I add it to the talk page? Find articles and mention it somewhere in the philosophy article. Should there be a disambiguation and if so, how do I do it? The term "transactionalism" used in recent news about Trump seems to be related to the "transactional practice" of corporate law not philosophy. Any guidance would be useful. sheridanford (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SheridanFord. That sort of thing can be difficult. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary: its articles are about things, not about words. If a word means two different things, only one of those things should be covered in an article. If both things are notable, then there can be two separate articles, with names suitably disambiguated, and hatnotes between them. I'm not sure how one would disambiguate them: WP:NCDAB might help. I also don't know how to handle it if there aren't articles about both. It's certainly possible to have an article about one that completely ignores the existence of the other; but if the other is newsworthy (even without meeting the criteria for notability) that might be problematic. WP:REDHAT cautions against creating a hatnote to a non-existent article, unless you are about to write that other article. Sorry I can't help beyond this. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the palm beach times a reliable source

Is it? Huff slush7264 Chat With Me 20:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show simplified view nag popup

I use my mobile device (a Planet Gemini PDA running Android, but it could be any tablet) in landscape orientation and I use it to read/edit Wikipedia in desktop mode. A nag popup at the bottom constantly appears, offering me the simplified view which, to make it crystal clear, I absolutely do NOT want. No matter how many times I close the nag popup, every change of page pops it up again. Is there any way to shut the wretched thing up for good? And why does the popup not have a widget to do just that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine the best Wiki venue from an important but complex submission

I clearly understand the guidelines you require for submission. I am having difficulty in finding the correct Wikipedia venue position; there are so many options, restrictions, POV and forks etc it is difficult to decide where and how to correctly place what I want to contribute. In an attempt to maintain an encyclopedic content and high neutrality, the information (which is old and archived) yet this information is so newly re-discovered, it somewhat demands a venue of its own. It appears to go beyond editing or adding to any current Wiki Article. How and why it was discovered is even a greater information-plus to be placed with a pre-existing Wiki article. The information will dramatically affect the art community worldwide and a number of vital misgivings in the academic world.

I think I am going to need a mentor. B Baron--BARRY BARON (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your goal is to reach the broadest audience for this information, you surely won't mind sharing here the name, so interested editors can research its notability and determine if you have a shot at a standalone article. Have you read WP:GNG for the notability guidelines? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago you submitted a question about "A major revelation has been discovered in the content of a Caravaggio work that will affect the presentation of the painting 'Saint Matthew and the Angel'." The answer then and the answer now is that Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news. Once the information has been made public, and other sources have written about it, information may be suitable to add to the existing article Saint Matthew and the Angel. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hey i try to switch signature but it comeing to raw code help plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handatoe (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning an article about a new discovery

As per the last posting about this information. I suppose it is not really 'Breaking" news but rather more old news rediscovered. The information about the discovery is 30 years old. It has sudden just come to a revelation in the last three years. Not a news flash, just a missed historically lost solution and answer to a big question plaguing the art world for 73 years. --BARRY BARON (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BARRY BARON, every question you've asked here has been on the same subject. Please do not start a new thread each time, but rather add to the existing thread. To add to the responses, if the work of art is already notable, that is, has an article, add content with reliable secondary sources to that article. If it doesn't and you believe you have enough sources to support notability for the work of art, create a draft on it and submit it via WP:AfC. Without you sharing the sources that support your statement, there is nothing else we can do for you. You have to do your own research. John from Idegon (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I to change the title of my draft?

I am working on the draft: Joseph Lee (actor/artist) which I created yesterday and I would like to change the title to: Joseph Lee (actor/fine-artist) but I can't find an edit option for the changing the title. I did go to Advanced Settings and thought I was changing it there but it just created this line (with the double brackets on each side) in my draft: DISPLAYTITLE:Draft:Joseph Lee (actor/fine-artist) without changing what I see as the title of the draft. What am I doing wrong?

Thanking you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtwinlauser (talk • contribs) 23:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Verzeichnis der Schülerinnen des Lehrerinnenseminars. Sig. V.H. c.98:2.6.1.2. Stadt Zürich Stadtarchiv.

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greenleaf_CA

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 829: / Line 829: @@
 *{{u|BARRY BARON}}, every question you've asked here has been on the same subject.  Please do not start a new thread each time, but rather add to the existing thread. To add to the responses, if the work of art is already notable, that is, has an article, add content with reliable secondary sources to that article.  If it doesn't and you believe you have enough sources to support [[WP:N|notability]] for the work of art, create a draft on it and submit it via [[WP:AfC]]. Without you sharing the sources that support your statement, there is nothing else we can do for you. You have to do your own research. [[User:John from Idegon|John from Idegon]] ([[User talk:John from Idegon|talk]]) 23:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
-I am working on the draft: Joseph Lee (actor/artist) which I created yesterday and I would like to change the title to: Joseph Lee (actor/fine-artist) but I can't find an edit option for the changing the title. I did go to Advanced Settings and thought I was changing it there but it just created this line in my draft: {{DISPLAYTITLE:Draft:Joseph Lee (actor/fine-artist)}} without changing what I see as the title of the draft. What am I doing wrong?
-Thanking you in advance for your help!
 == How do I to change the title of my draft? ==