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
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

What is the best way to start a new category (technician) with related subcategories

Hi,

I'm particularly interested in added profiles of technicians to Wikipedia. Their role in the history of science, art, etc. has been historically under reported and I'd like to help change that. To do this it would be really useful to have a separate category and related subcategories

The profession of "technician" is a separate profession to say, scientist or artist. So, while a technician might be a scientist they are also a technician. So, it would be useful to have a structure like:

Category:: Technician

Subcategories:

Science Technician
Theatre Technician
Sculpture Technician
etc...

Is this possible? What would be the best way to go about this?

Thank you in advance for any help.

I'm a new user.

--TechnicianJourney (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TechnicianJourney: Welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. It's great that you've spotted a group of people who are under-represented, and want to address that. However, I think you may have some difficulties doing so.

First, don't worry too much about categories: they're a convenience for sorting and navigation, not a fundamental matter. Concentrate on creating the articles: when an article is created, it is easy to add it to a category, even one that doesn't exist yet. (By the way, I strongly recommend you ditch the word "profile": that suggests the kind of entry you find in a directory, or social media. What we have is articles about subjects.)

The difficulty you may have with the articles, aside from the fact that creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, is that the subject of every article must be notable, in the special way that Wikipedia uses the word: roughly, that several people unconnected with them have chosen to publish material about them in reliable places. Because technicians (of whatever kind) tend to be in the background, I suspect you will find little published material about the individuals, and so be unable to write acceptable articles on them.

As well as the links above, please study your first article, and referencing for beginners. You might also find a few relevant WikiProjects to join, such as WikiProject Science and WikiProject Theatre. --ColinFine (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ColinFine: Thank you for getting back to me. I am still learning how this all works so all advice welcome. It is true, I have struggled to find sufficient published material about technicians. It is very frustrating but I will keep trying.

Thanks

--TechnicianJourney (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: I just wanted to point out Category:Technicians already exist, so there's no need for Category:Technician. Although it exist, there are no subcategories due to the very small number to pages on technicians. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 17:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity & Religion

Hi, I'm pretty new to the back end here and have been surprised by the many references to the ethnicity and/or religion of living persons. I was especially surprised to see that there is even a category called "American Jew". Maybe it's my Canadian showing, mon amis, but, where I live, most people are Catholic, and no one discusses religion, or is even allowed to ask... like when someone applies for a job or loan or something... but, then it might just be published on Wikipedia anyway. It seems more odd attached to the living than the dead, too, but that's just my opinion. Sorry! Since its quite pervasive on WP, I suppose that I'd just like to get a little perspective on why religion and race are included on pages and even as categories.RFT42 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. There are guidelines for biographies of living persons, but I don't see anything in that article that applies, so I recommend you start a discussion on that article's talk page. This has to have come up before, and someone familiar with that page will be able to help. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TimTempleton, will do. -RFT42 (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources on episode lists

In March 2017, User:Czar deleted the episodes list at the The Rubin Report-article, since, as he wrote: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: rmv list of episodes sourced solely to primary sources—if guests are important, put the secondary coverage in prose. In June, the episodes-list was restored by User:Trevw23, but then deleted again by User:Grayfell, who commented: Per previous revert. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and again per Please find secondary sources or discuss on talk. Inspired by this, I deleted the episodes list for Red Table Talk, with the same way of reasoning. This time, User:BoogerD reverted the removal, stating Inline citations not required for episode tables per MOS:TV and WP:VERIFY. Since all editors involved are experienced and skilled editors, there is something to say for all arguments. Yet still, they come to very different conclusions. Now, is there anyone out there who know the actual policy guideline for this? Whether secondary sources turn out to be needed or not, I am OK with it. See also The Jace Hall Show, where I deleted the episodes-list too. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102, for what it's worth, this is a quote from a current discussion at WT:TV:

But, as has been said repeatedly, WP:PRIMARY does not cover everything in the episode tables, so in fact air dates, and usually episode titles and prod. codes still need to be sourced even after an episode has aired. So, yeah – this fact should actually be written into the MOS:TV to make this point crystal(heh) clear...

Probably better to discuss that there, though safe to say that BoogerD needs to show what part of MOS:TV is being cited in that quoted edit summary. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one may actually be tricky – "guest stars", if credited, are actually verified by WP:PRIMARY (provided the title of the episode is included). Now, in this case, we're basically talking about a "talk show", so it would be very unusual to include an "episodes list" (most would consider it redundant). In the case of Red Table Talk specifically, the episode titles and airdates at least would need to be sourced, as I'm assuming this show does not show the episode titles "on-screen" – more generally, I think most in WP:TV would say that there should not be an "episodes list" for a talk show (article) like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can episode listings be applied to talk shows? Maybe, maybe not. If it's a daily-run talk show, then no, that would be likened to a news broadcast, soap opera, radio program, daily podcast, long-running game show, or YouTuber's daily vlogging. On the flip side, if it is a limited run series like Red Table Talk, then yes, it could have an episode listing. I've also had some cases where the guest stars are a big deal, and backed up with a schedule by listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Table Talk has a formal list of titled episodes on its Facebook page, and guest stars. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting this new user window.

I open a Teahouse Window and am met with Apology to new User, My question must be vetted. I've been a user for over two weeks and have two articles publishedOldperson (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, When I saw the notice and the follow up about review I thought it was because the system thought I was a new user, disregard the aboveOldperson (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That notice is shown because the article has been semi-protected (only autoconfirmed users can edit this page) due to recent disruption from IP vandals. Of course you are confirmed, so you edit this; it's just a notice to IPs and users who haven't reached the criteria for being autoconfirmed. The protection will expire very shortly, so soon enough the notice will be automatically hidden. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with this syntax

At my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oldperson/sandbox2 are two reference syntax I am trying to perfect. One works, the other doesn’t. I call them a Long Reference and a Short Reference. The Long Reference looks like this (inserting “ to keep the example in visible text) <”ref name=”Long Reference”{{cite web|url=https:Long Reference.com}}</ref>, the short reference is <ref name=”Long Reference”> Thank youOldperson (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're trying to do there, but this

 <ref name=”The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol 9”/ref >

has two errors in it. You use curly quotation marks ””, where straight ones "" are always preferred; and the named-reference tag is not correctly terminated with a solidus immediately before the final close-pointy-bracket. So this may work better:

 <ref name="The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol 9" />

Maproom (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Oldperson: I've added nowiki tags to your post so the second reference doesn't break the page. Quotation marks aren't enough to break them up.

Long reference should be <ref name="Longreference">{{cite web|url=http://longreference.com}}</ref>

Short reference should be <ref name="Longreference" />

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Actually straight quotation marks are not only preferred; they're technically necessary. If you used anything other than them it will be parsed as part of the reference name. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom and Ammarpad:Thanks guys , duh you just reminded me of what an idiot I am.. I should have thought that the ending tag was wrong, hopefully this oldperson (literally) will remember this. I'm told I suffer from Sometimers disease :) I really appreciate the help. I was frustrated to deathOldperson (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placing userbox boxes

I've added a userbox box to my user page, but I don't know how to place it where I want it. I tried moving the links lower down, but it just moves what it looks like further down the page. I would like to put them under the shell picture. Thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done reply to follow Nick Moyes (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aurornisxui, welcome to the Teahouse. After a little bit of experimentation (whilst lying in the bath!) I managed eventually to use the {{stack}} template which gives you what you want. Forgive me for making the changes directly - it was easier than trying to write a full explanation via my tiny mobile device. (Be sure if you add new elements to keep the double pair of }}}} characters at the end, so that each element, separated by the pipe "|" character remains nested within the "stack" template as a whole.) I hope this gives you what you want. I haven't forgotten your message on my talk page regarding adoption. I will reply in a positive manner there in due course (probably sometime over the weekend) but have been rather busy of late in real life doing a lot of building work - hence the need for a soak. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nick, thanks! I can check out the stack template tomorrow when I'm on the computer (kindle is garbage for editing). Aurornisxui (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness

I'm sure I'm not posting this in the correct place but I'm about to delete my account but I'd just like to highlight why.

I spent (quite a lot of) time creating a page. It was a page about a Venetian church which I had noticed was missing. The page I created had 8 references, images from Wikimedia and research on the artworks from the church and where they can now be found. I submitted the page in May 2016 and it was rejected because I apparently hadn't made the case for the subject being notable enough. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ognissanti_Venice (I haven't made any changes since that submission).

In August this year the page was created by someone else on the same subject and contained one sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ognissanti,_Venice&oldid=856590720

This process does not seem fair or encouraging for new contributors. In fact it has completely put me off ever contributing anything else to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeniceEmpire (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VeniceEmpire: If there's already an article for something, edit that instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. The only person stopping you from doing that is yourself, don't blame anyone else for that. Just make sure that the material you add summarizes and paraphrases professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

VeniceEmpire, I agree with you that the standard Wikipedia process wasn't followed, and that the result is unfair to you. Your version is much better than the faulty stub that seems not to have been reviewed. How did it escape being deleted? I'm not an administrator, so I'm not sure what process should be followed now, but please don't leave Wikipedia. I'm sure this can be sorted out. Dbfirs 18:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It escaped being deleted because there weren't enough volunteers (who don't have to be admins) checking new articles to nominate it for deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... (later) ... Oh, I see that the original stub was improved and a single source was added, so that was why it wasn't immediately deleted. Can we do a merge? Dbfirs 18:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why anyone would think the current article was a stub. Within a span of 12 minutes the article in its current form took shape. It wasn't reviewed because it was created by an editor who has autopatrolled status. The issue is that the draft remained stale for over 2 years. At one point it was tagged for speedy deletion, but that was declined due to another editor feeling the subject was notable. Then in September of this year, without any improvement to correct the issues which had been mentioned when it was declined back in May 2016, it was simply resubmitted. In the span of time it lay dormant another editor, created a start level article. It happens, especially when a draft lays dormant that long. Nothing fair or unfair about it. And I don't believe you "merge" drafts with existing articles. However, you can simply improve on the existing article. And, WP policies were followed in every instance. I do some small effort in both AfC and NPP, and hope you don't let this discourage you. I would encourage you to improve the existing article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd looked at the original stub linked above, and later saw that a reference (Franzoi, Umberto; Di Stefano, Dina (1976). Le chiese di Venezia. Venice: Alfieri editore.) and further information had been added. I also note that you gave some good advice on VeniceEmpire's talk page at the time. If they had continued with the draft and added the above reference, then the draft would have been accepted. Dbfirs 20:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - content is merged - please check if I missed anything. Ognissanti, Venice TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to open a document in mrc format

I just downloaded a document, over 100 pages, it is in .mrc format. I am running Windows 7, I checked WP for .mrc and it seems to be more of an image and mostly for scientific purposes. Is there any software that can open it? All I have is Word and PDF.Oldperson (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oldperson. Since this doesn't appear to be a question about Wikipedia, it's out of the scope of the Teahouse. You might have better luck asking it at Wikipedia:Reference desk, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: MRC (file format) says: "The MRC format is supported by many of the software packages listed in b:Software Tools For Molecular Microscopy." I haven't worked with the format or tried any of the software. Beware that some file extensions are used for different things. MARC standards is about another use of .mrc. mIRC has a third (not mentioned in the article), and there may be more. If you ask for help then say where you got the file. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to use source URLs with "pipes" WITHIN the URLs?!

What am I supposed to do when the URL to a source has pipes within it? Here is the source in question:

Gottschau, Jakob (Director) (2002). Cybewar in China. Filmakers Library. {{cite AV media}}: Text "2314856" ignored (help); Text "video_work" ignored (help) - This documentary includes discussions of Human Flesh Search Engine

Here is the URL: https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C2314856

I've currently got it in a ref ideas template on the talk page of Human flesh search engine (I'm reading through more recent scholarship discussing this topic out of my own curiosity and intend to update the page with any relevant info after reading through them all, but this issue is puzzling and trying to figure it out has been driving me crazy). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think that now that I've posted this it may have suggested the solution to me in the way that it rendered the URL. I'm going to test it here:

Gottschau, Jakob (Director) (2002). Cybewar in China. Filmakers Library. - This documentary includes discussions of Human Flesh Search Engine

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VICTORY! 💯💯💯💯 Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 21:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shashi Sushila Murray. Yes, a pipe can be encoded as %7C in url's. See more at Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm adding that link to my list of useful references! Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what is this everybody wiki

I have an article in draft and it shows up here: what is this site https://en.everybodywiki.com/Oldperson (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to everybodywiki, the free wiki inspired by Wikipedia where everybody can write their own biography !" Sounds like a WP:FORK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oldperson. They use the same MediaWiki software we do. The Purposes of Everybody section toward the bottom of their home page describes some important policy differences. It appears they copy articles from Wikipedia, which they would be allowed to do if they complied with our CC BY SA 3.0 license. But since they don't seem to give any attribution, they violate our copyright. —teb728 t c 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Teb728: I think they are complying by showing edit history from Wikipedia. For example: [1]. Is that sufficient attribution? RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I just ran into another called wikisourceOldperson (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson, please read our article Wikisource, which explains that it is a sister project of Wikipedia intended to be kind of an online library of copyright free and freely licensed books and documents. It is not a fork like Everybody Wiki. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: OK, thanks for that link. I was looking at the View history tab, where I am accustomed to look for attribution. —teb728 t c 10:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to publish article out of my sandbox?

I don`t know how I can publish my article with I created in my sandbox. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoElArnold (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CoElArnold: On the top of your sandbox, you will see a box explaining that it is a user sandbox. Click on the blue button inside that says "Submit your draft for review!" and follow the instructions given after that. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CoElArnold: I just checked out your sandbox. The first heading is "Environmental Standards." However, there is already a Wikipedia article called Environmental standard. Duplicate articles shouldn't be on Wikipedia, so you should read the existing article first. If you have extra information about the topic, you can add it into that article instead of creating a new article. You might also want to think about making "Environmental Standards" (which is a plural form) as a redirect page to the "Environmental standard" article. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of free biography books available on Wikipedia

There is a list of online biographical encyclopedias that are in the public domain and I can't find it. Thanks Aurornisxui (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Hi Auronisxui welcome to the Teahouse see list of biographical encyclopaedias.2402:3A80:A7E:1392:0:58:2A0A:FB01 (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, but the link only goes to a summary of teahouse talk, not to the list. Also, sorry if I sounded abrupt, it's driving me nuts that I don't remember wher it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean List of biographical dictionaries? Rojomoke (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no. I did eventually find it, it's on the WikiProject:Women in Red page (and, for some reason, I kept getting an error message when I tried to post that I had found it). Thsnk you for looking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth it to create an article about the January 1997 Tuscaloosa tornado?

A little bit of information: The January 24, 1997 Tuscaloosa tornado was the second notable tornado to hit the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama after one in 1932. Unfortunately, it would not be its last, with more destructive tornadoes occurring in 2000 and 2011. There was also another tornado in 2005, but that one was part of the Hurricane Rita tornado outbreak and rated at only F1 intensity.

The 1997 twister was rated at F2 intensity and resulted in one death, the first tornado fatality of the year in 1997. It also injured 10 others and damaged up to 100 structures. I cannot find any information linking this tornado to the January 1997 tornado outbreak, hence why I think it deserves an article of its own. Information on the tornado can be found at the National Weather Service^[1], the AlabamaWX Weather Blog^[2], as well as some newspaper articles from 1/25/1997 (though I don't know if I can find those online.)

What do you experienced editors think about this? I look forward to hearing feedback regarding my question!

TheRMSTitanic (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRMSTitanic: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what the notability criteria for tornadoes are, but you might find help with this at the Meterology WikiProject- if no one who is familiar with the subject posts here. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Tuscaloosa Tornado 1/24/1997". National Weather Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
^ "The January 24, 1997 Tuscaloosa Tornado". The Alabama Weather Blog. The Weather Factory. Retrieved November 30, 2018.

If you can find enough sources to meet the general notability guideline, you can create an article on almost anything. But I'm not sure the sources listed above would be adequate. Deb (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo copyrights

Hello,

I must say that it is not easy to write and upload an article in Wikipedia for approval, that includes photos of individuals. I have a distant relative who was a court judge and I wanted to upload an old black/white photo of him that I found on the internet. What must I do to make Wikipedia approve it? It's not my original photo. It's probably an old press photo from a past case. Thanks for your help.

Kirk Haggerty Munich — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPHaggerty (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KPHaggerty, and welcome to the Teahouse! In short, WP:s basic assumption is that random photos found on the internet are most likely copyrighted, and so we can't use them. There are exeptions like public domain etc, but this is a rule we take very seriously because legal. The same rules means we can't copypaste text from other sources either (we can quote to some extent). More at WP:COPYOTHERS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Kirk, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you're right, it is not easy to write an article. But if you think about it, is it reasonable to expect it to be easy to create something of high quality? Myself, I find it disappointing (if understandable) that so many people want to contribute by creating new articles, rather than working on bringing some of our existing 6 million articles up to scratch).

As for the photos: if the photo is old enough to be in the public domain (which depends on the country but is typically pre-1923) you can use it freely. Otherwise, I'm afraid that the only way you are likely to be able to use it is if the use meets all the criteria in the non-free content criteria. See Image use policy for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Draft: Save it and edit it later?

Hello everyone,

First of all thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. I'm really happy to find such a great space where you can get help or be guided in the right direction. Great to see so many Wikipedians take the time answer other people's questions.

I spend a while figuring things out before I first registered as a member. Some minor edits are made and created a user page.

Now I feel it's time to start drafting an article. Unfortunately, since I don't want to make a mistake, i'm a little concerned about 'saving a draft' in the sandbox. If I'm right I need to 'Publish' the draft to save it. Can I just do that without the risk of getting it deleted as I want to cite all facts later on? Or when not all content is hidden? How much time do I have inside the draft to complete an article?

I've read you can just publish (save) the draft and continue styling/editing/citing on a later point. But again, i don't want to mess things up haha.

Thank you in advance

Izzo24 (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izzo24, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, your own sandbox at User:Izzo24/Sandbox is a safe place to develop an article, and the content there will not be deleted unless it is a copyright violation or otherwise illegal. Alternatively, you can develop an article in WP:Draft space where collaboration with other users is easier, and where you have six months from your last edit to submit the article for publication in main space. Yes, the button marked "Publish changes" will just save your edits to the draft. Ask again here if you need any help with your draft. Dbfirs 12:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Izzo24, and welcome to the Teahouse! An unedited draft (Wikipedia:Drafts) can be deleted after 6 months, so unless your draft contains something like "living person X is a murderer and rapist" without incredibly good cites, you're good for quite awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dbfirs, Thank you so much for the reply. I will definitely look into WP:Draft space section. Collaborating with other users seems fun to me. I appreciate your warm welcome and reply,Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Thanks for the information given. Izzo24 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended block

It says, I have been blocked by an admin and it says: {{anonblock}} Help me please! 182.0.239.250 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that you have a dynamic (changing) IP address, and that someone on the same network has been doing enough vandalism for us to have to block the address(es) to stop the disruption. You can avoid this problem by creating and using an account, as explained in the notice. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing wrong and I am blocked! 182.0.239.250 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are blocked then you cannot ask a question at the Teahouse. I don't think you are blocked.Denim11 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no block on your current IP; if you are using a floating IP you may have been given one that was blocked. You can avoid these sort of problems by creating an account. If you have an account and it was blocked, you need to return to your account and request to be unblocked there. There should be a message there indicating the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article making and Signing

How do I make an article? I wanted to make an article on archetypes in games. I cant find any button n how to make one. And i remember somebody telling me about signing and using this: Denkiden (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC). Can anyone teel how to use it?[reply]

Start by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translating an article from a German Wikipedia page for a new page in the EN-Wikipedia

I translated an article from a German Wikipedia page and used its references to create a new article in the EN-Wikipedia -- is this acceptable? KMPfeiffer (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KMPfeiffer:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Such translations are greatly appreciated. However, guidelines about formatting, structure and referencing may differ between different language-specific Wikipedia projects. For example: referencing requirements on English Wikipedia are usually stricter than in other projects. For your draft at Draft:Cristin Claas you should consider looking for 1-2 more reliable sources (although the newspaper references are already a decent start - see WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO for the specific requirements). And you should add inline-citations to all unsourced sections such as "History" and "Lyrics", or remove possibly controversial or unclear content if you can't verify it. Regarding structure and formatting, I recommend to look at a few well-developed English articles in the same topic area and take these as examples - of course the draft doesn't have to be perfect at first try anyway. A comprehensive but lengthy guide for article creation is available at WP:Your first article. Please feel free to ask here anytime, if you have further questions about this or other aspects. GermanJoe (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Song

I want to create an article about an song. The song was originally created in 1989. After that two remakes done. I want to create such article where information about every song should be given (as the songs have different artists). So which template should I use? If I use Infobox song it will lead info about only one song, not all (in the template). Please suggest what should I do? (Please example any article if possible)

AnkurWiki (talk) 01 December 2018, 16:50 (UTC)

Hello, AnkurWiki. I would advise you, before you spend time on superficial niceties like infoboxes, to attend to the important matters: finding the independent reliably published sources without which the article will never be accepted. Infoboxes and images are generally the least important part of an article, and the part you should spend least time on. --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnkurWiki, and welcome to the Teahouse! ColinFine is absolutely right, and I would also recommend that you make sure your draft on "Dilbar Dilbar" shows that the song meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines on songs before paying attention to the infobox. After citing the necessary sources, consider reading through Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song), which is an article that describes an original song along with two cover versions. You can use this article as a model for your draft on "Dilbar Dilbar". (Featured and good articles make great examples of well-written articles.) Please feel free to ask me if you have any other questions about editing. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me get started!

I signed up a few days ago because I want to add a page on the village in which I live. I thought I'd created a test ;ine in "sandbox" but apparently it went somewhere else. I'm really struggling to get started despite looking at various "help" guides. It ther anything simpler to understand? Pedr0175 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedr0175: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You did post a test line to your sandbox, which you then submitted as a draft article(which I don't think was your intention). It's still there, at User:Pedr0175/sandbox. Please understand that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You will be much more successful if you start smaller by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia operates. Then you can work your way up to article creation. However, if you still want to dive right in to it, you can(if you haven't already) read Your First Article which I think has many of the answers you are looking for. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is all too complicated for me. I thought I was messaging someone but instea have inaadvertently added to a page. Please could you delete this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedr0175 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedr0175: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedr0175: If you were attempting to communicate with otner users, that is what this page is for. It does not work like text messaging. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedr0175: Over Stratton is currently a redirect to South Petherton. If you want to write an article about the village, it would probably be best to develop it in your sandbox, then move it over the redirect (which has no edits other than its creation, so you should be able to do that). Deor (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

How I can create a page for my username — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imkingsunny (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Imkingsunny: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already edited your user page; simply edit it again to add a little information about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing. You may want to read the user page policy for guidance on what acceptable user page content is. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania

I’m finding it hard to understand, why do people keep on changing my edit in lithuania page. Lithuania is Northern European country by UN’s law from 2017. My edit is being changed to north east which is not accurate and, may i add, as a lithuanian, insulting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan311 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan311: Welcome to Wikipedia. Do not engage in an edit war. The edit summaries undoing your changes say "per consensus", which I take to mean that this issue has been discussed before and consensus was to have it say something different than what you want it to say. Please start a discussion on the aticle's talk page and discuss your proposed change with other editors. RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan311, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you did try to discuss your changes, which was the proper thing to do. Personally, I think your version (Baltic region of Northern Europe) fits in best with those and other Wikipedia articles for consistency. Perhaps we could find a reference to support this. If you get reverted yet again, then the correct thing to do is to discuss the change on the talk page of the article where others can join the discussion. Dbfirs 22:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan311: Different sources use different terms as mentioned in Lithuania#endnote NoteA. Wikipedia has no obligation to follow the United Nations geoscheme for Europe (not a "law") with only four European regions. It has been discussed before at Talk:Lithuania/Archive 5#Position in Europe and Talk:Lithuania#Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting To Contribute

Hello Wikipedia community, I'm new here, just joined today. I have to say, I regret not joining years ago. My name is Catherine, I'm 67 years old and a retired head teacher. I am eager to start my journey as a "wikipedian" and share my contributions. I have already contributed to three pages, correcting minor spelling and grammar mistakes. I would like to point out that I am not just a bored old woman sat at the computer with nothing better to do. Due to being retired and having ill health and restricted mobility, keeping my brain active does me wonders. I hope the community will see that even at 67, I still have some life and knowledge in me. I only rarely lose my keys and forget to have breakfast. (kidding) I would be most grateful if someone can have a look at my profile and tell me if I've set it up correctly.

Also, if somebody could give me advice on where my skills would be best placed, that would be much appreciated. I suppose my skills would include correcting spelling mistakes and verifying the legitimacy of information and sources. Like I said, I have a lot of time on my hands and do enjoy research. Any other on new user information, rules, briefing and so on is welcomed.

Thank you Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine-gerald (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catherine-gerald: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. The best way to contribute is to find something that you are interested in and do it. You mentioned fixing typos, so look at joining The Typo Team at WP:TYPO where you will find resources on how to find pages needing spelling corrections. If you like researching, there is a large number of pages that need addition references/citations to improve the article. You can start at WP:REFB to learn about referencing and then check out the list at Category:All_articles_needing_additional_references. This is just a couple of ideas. RudolfRed (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catherine-gerald: I also want to mention that there is a tutorial for learning how to edit at WP:TUTORIAL and the WikipediaAdventure, which is an interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse and welcome to Wikipedia, Catherine-gerald. I am a very active editor and administrator, and I too will be 67 in a few months, so it is nice to meet a new editor of a similar age. In addition to the excellent suggestions above, I recommend that you take a close look at the Community portal where you can find links to many tasks that need doing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Catherine-gerald, may I also add my welcome and thank you for introducing yourself here? As a retired professional person myself, I do appreciate the satisfaction that editing articles or sharing information to assist others can bring, and I wish you well on your new learning journey. It sounds like we've both spent a lifetime sharing knowledge with others, so Wikipedia is an absolutely perfect way for us to continue in that vein. It really can be immensely rewarding. It's certainly a very good idea to start slowly, making small edits at first, simply so you can 'get the feel' of the place. Just searching for and reading articles on topics that interest you and making any improvements you can find is one such approach. With over 5,000,000 articles, you could always consider it as a potentially very long exercise in homework-marking! Every article has its own 'Talk page' which in standard view is found via the tab at the top left, just next to the article tab. That's where you can discuss concerns related specifically to that article - a far better place to do it than to bring them here because other editors interested in that page will already be monitoring it, and will answer there.

Of course, with your research interests, should you find new content or sources that support something you want to add, it's important to cite these as inline references, and only to use what we call Reliable Sources. Thus, we ignore all self-published websites, blogs, social media and so forth. But citing published books is fine - they don't all have to be available online, and our editing tool contains a helpful 'cite' button which provides you with a selection of templates in which you can enter reference details, field by field, to make life easy. One of our two editing tools (called Visual Editor) makes editing more WYSIWYG, though many users - like me - prefer using our 'source editor'. It's a little bit more scary to use at first, but you soon get the hang of it.

Now, you asked about 'rules' - Boy, do we have tons of pages of rules and guidelines! But with such a vast encyclopaedia capable of being edited by anyone in the world, that's hardly surprising, is it? I'll simply give you one link which splits them all up into different areas, but please don't think you've got to wade through them all before you start contributing! Just be bold - but here's that link in case you're interested: Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. You'll find many editors refer to our multitude of help and guidance pages using 'shortcuts', all of which start with WP: - so, by way of example, WP:PGLIST takes you to that self-same page.

I support the above suggestion by RudolfRed of trying The Wikipedia Adventure - it's an interactive tour in which you can collect 15 badges en route as you whizz round the galaxy, learning the basics of editing, referencing and so forth.

And you asked about your 'profile'. Actually, no, you haven't created one yet, though we call it your 'Userpage'. You can find it at User:Catherine-gerald. It's where you can say a little about yourself and yourd interests - ensuring you only reveal what information you're OK with. So avoid emails, addresses, phone numbers etc, or other personal information you wouldn't want published. We conduct all matters here openly, so only very rarely would one editor consider emailing another. Personally, I love seeing a short summary about an editor. Should they have made some mistake I need to deal with, I find that seeing a few words about them and their interests helps me appreciate where they're coming from and why they're editing. To create yours, look for the Tab entitled 'User page' in red text.(the red link tells me the page doesn't exist yet - it'll stay blue once you have. At the 'Create' or 'Create source' tab, simply type a few words to introduce yourself, then look for the huge blue button labelled 'Publish page' and this makes your userpage. Thereafter, the button is entitled 'Publish changes', but it's effectively just saving and publishing your latest edits online.

Your userpage is also a great place to compile lists of useful pages and other stuff you encounter and don't want to forget about. You'll also see a little empty star symbol in one of the tabs at the top of each article. If you find a page that interests you, you can click that star, which adds the page to your 'watchlist'. This alerts you to changes made to articles or even other editors userpages that really take your interest, or where you want to monitor what other editors add to the page. You probably don't need to add the Teahouse to that list as it gets modified far too frequently, but just hanging out here and reading questions from other new editors and the answers we supply them with can itself be a great way to learn how things are done. We like to think of ourselves as offering a friendly place to come and ask questions - and you'll certainly sense that you aren't editing alone. There are hundreds of new editors joining us every day. And we're here to help you whenever we can.

Whatever happens, don't be put off should you accidentally make the odd mistake en route. Nothing can be permanently damaged, and each edit is not only separately saved in each page's 'History', but each one can be reversed (reverted). So have no fear that you'll make an encyclopaedia article go up in smoke! Best regards and good luck from the UK, and when you post again on a talk page, please try and sign your edit. You do this by typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the very end. That automatically adds your username and timestamp when you hit the blue 'publish changes' button. Just like this: Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Hi, I am trying to add a picture of a map to a Wiki entry. There is no copyright problem with the picture but the system won't let me add it. Any suggestions ? Thanks, PHD1967 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd1967 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phd967. I can't tell from your contribution history which picture you're trying to add. Are you trying to add a file already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? If you are, then please post the name of the file's page below because it will make easier for others to help you. You find the name of the file's page by clicking on the image, and scrolling to the top of the page; it should be something like "File:XXXX.file extension". If you're trying to add an image from an external website to an article, then you can't since only files uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers can be added directly to articles.

You appear to be working on trying to improve Hawthorn Quarry and Mining in Japan; so, in addition, to knowing what file you want to use, it would also help to know where and how you want to use it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Phd1967: [2] shows you tried an upload method which has restrictions. Try commons:Special:UploadWizard instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italicization in an article title

How do I include italicization in a title? Play-Doh (sculpture) should be Play-Doh (sculpture). How do I change that and/or how could I have accomplished that at the time of article creation? Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bus stop. Please read Template:Italic title and just place that template at the beginning of the wikicode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: Look at {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. I think the first example is what you want. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great—thank you everybody! Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tense on timeline

Sorry to beg your attention again, but the two pertinent pages have seen no TALK in years (Timeline of Montreal history, Wikipedia:Timeline standards). Canadian history articles have always drawn my attention and now, in my fledgling efforts to fix obvious needs, I wonder if I might be putting my foot in it, too, in that I've been changing present tenses to past-tenses on edits made, and I thought I ought stop and check the Wikipedia policy. Should a timeline article use present- or past-tense? -RFT42 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RFT42: Greetings. To the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia guideline on this, and usage in our articles is mixed. Out in the non-Wikipedia world, however, timeline entries are usually written in the historical present tense (as they are in the example at Wikipedia:Timeline standards#Events, for example). I wouldn't change the tense in a timeline article except to make usage consistent within the article. Deor (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TENSE says past events should use past tense, which I would apply even to timelines. MB 16:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, these two answers perfectly reflect what searching got me... one way, and the other! Merci bien! The article in question has both tenses at play (hence, any change to it), though mainly uses present-tense, so I didn't want to make a whole lot of changes to past-tense, per MOS:TENSE, with such as Wikipedia:Timeline standards#Events also setting standards. Do I edit the past-tenses out, or alter it all to past-tense? (I'd like to avoid doing so only to have it all reversed.) I await further input with great interest. -RFT42 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is a project-wide guideline that should generally be observed. The Timeline standards don't mention tense. I would say they use incorrect tense in the examples, but that is not the focus of the section. See Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards#Present tense or past tense? and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Request for comment regarding tense for past events. for some more background. MB 20:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned specifically with Timeline of Montreal history, RFT42, I'd say that the "Pre-European period" section isn't really part of the timeline proper, since the entries (except for one) aren't tied to particular dates. I think that past tense is OK in that section, but I'd try to make sure that present tense is used consistently elsewhere. Deor (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Wick Article

It was flagged because it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. I added additional sources and found what seems to me to be noteworthy information. Can we clear the flag? If I happen upon an article like this in the future is there a way I can flag it for review to see if it is then up to Wikipedia standards? Thanks! - MysticalFairyAstha (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MysticalFairyAstha. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to do that at this time. I've done a bit of cleanup and reformatting of the article and saw the citations you added, but none of those citations clearly establish Wick as satisfying WP:BIO, at least not in my opinion. Moreover, it's not clear if she would even meet WP:AUTHOR. Christian romance novels, however, might be a sort of niche genre that typically doesn't generate lots of WP:SIGCOV in more mainstream reliable sources and she does seem to have sold lots of books; so, it might be a good idea for you to ask about this on some of the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the article's talk page. Someone more familiar with articles about authors and Christian romance fiction might be able to better assess the article. I will say though that content does appear to be a fairly promotional in nature (lots of flowery quotes), etc., and it also seems pretty bottom heavy (a large bibliography but very little sourced content about Wick herself that you'd expect to find in a Wikipedia biography about an author).

As for removing a maintenance template from an article, you can find some general information about that Help:Maintenance template removal although I would not really suggest you do that here. When articles are tagged with a template like Template:Notability, it' not always because there's an insufficient number of sources, but rather the quality of the sources cited is insufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, MysticalFairyAstha. I agree with Marchjuly. The promotional "flowery quotes" that Marchjuly mentioned are from sources that have a financial stake in promoting her books. When we add quotes like this to an author biography, they should be from truly independent sources like professional book critics writing for publications with good editorial control, or academic literary critics. The quality of the sources that we use is much more important than the quantity of the references. Three solid references are better than 20 mediocre references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that helps! - MysticalFairyAstha (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How Can you do tags about yourself?

How Can you do tags about yourself? Ex:This user has visited New York. Acyclonxe (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acyclonxe. You seem to be asking about Wikipedia:Userboxes. if that's the case, please check that page for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage issue

Hello. I'm having a problem with creating user subpages. Specifically I'm trying to create a subpage for a userbox but the save button doesn't work. It appears to be clicked, but nothing happens. Can you please help?
Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 16:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyMinecart88: I see your question has been answered by Maproom in the Help Desk. In future, please do not ask the same question in more than one forum as this repeats effort and is unfair on the volunteers who give their time to help you and others here. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:

Apologies about that. I didn't know that at the time. Thanks for notifying me!
Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 19:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help move my article from the draftspace to the mainspace for me?

I tried to move my latest articles from the draftspace to the mainspace after it has been there for a while. I have edited it to Wikipedia's standard, me think, but I have not been able to make it go live. Can someone look into it for me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndiongJohn (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EndiongJohn and welcome to the Teahouse.

For an article to survive in mainspace, it must meet WP's standards for WP:notability, which your submission did not. While it may be possible to show that Bush meets our notability criteria (see NBIO), the current draft does not do it. I've moved your article from Michael Bush - Nigerian back to Draft:Michael Bush - Nigerian. I also advise you to let the accepting reviewer determine the final title of the article and any disambiguation that might be required. the dash and nationality, with no parentheses, does not follow our conventions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help move my article from the draftspace to the mainspace for me? AKEES

I need help with the AKEES article. Please can someone take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndiongJohn (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move drafts to mainspace yourself when they aren't ready. While you're waiting for drafts to be reviewed, please learn how to make wikilinks, where not to put external links, and how to give full citations rather than bare urls. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every article you have proposed through Articles for Creation has been declined as not adequate, and every article you moved to mainspace on your own have been returned to draft status as not ready yet. Please learn more about what it takes to create a valid article. Also, please sign your comments here at TeaHouse by typing four of ~. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious but...

Is there a way to create article? I new here at wikipedia so it bit complex to me right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38caution (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 38caution and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes there is. For newer editors such as you, you can't create articles directly in mainspace, but you can create drafts and then submit them for review, and an experienced editor will come and accept or decline the draft. Before attempting to create an article, you are strongly encouraged to read Wikipedia:Your first article; in particular, all articles must be notable, verifiable, presented in a neutral point of view, and most importantly, contain no copyright violations. Once you've read through that, you can go to the Article wizard which will give you step-by-step instructions on how to create an article. I hope this helps you and good luck with your first article!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot

How can I Upload a screenshot directly from my computer?--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: See the guidance at WP:SCREENSHOT to determine if that is appropriate or not RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thegooduser: I may have misunderstood what you are asking. You can use the wizard at WP:UPLOAD to upload images. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Article Archives

How does one go about searching article archives?Oldperson (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Archive" as a term applies to storage of older Talk page contents. For example, for the article Jamestown (Virginia) the top of the Talk page has Archives 1 and 2. These can be viewed, but should never be edited. If you want to re-open a discussion in an Archive the way to do it is start a new discussion in the current Talk. If necessary you can refer to or copiy in from the older discussion.

As for older versions of articles, in the article's view history, clicking on prev (left side) will show the changes that editor made on that date. However, clicking on the actual date of the edit will show the version of the article that existed at that time. Again, no editing these old versions, but you will see what older versions of the article looked like. Hope this helped. David notMD (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD:Thank you but not quite what I was asking about. WP has archives of deleted articles. I stumbled upon an archive page, with a table . the x axis is months, the Y axis is years, but no search engine if looking to see if an articlehas been deleted, otherwise one is searching through over 100 monthsOldperson (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, a link to the page in question would make it much easier to answer your question, rather than volunteers trying to guess. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson, only admins can see deleted articles; but anybody can search the deletion log. --ColinFine (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Understood, I guess my question should have been is there a way to name search (articles not users) in the deletion log?Oldperson (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Oldperson: the box labelled "Target (title or User:username for user):". I don't know if there is a way to search for part of a title, though. --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: Administrators like me can search for part of deleted article titles at Special:Undelete. We cannot search the content of deleted articles but we can view them one at a time. Is there a search you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Ineptness

I have the content for an article I'd like to see published, but it seems hopeless for me to be able to understand how to create it. Is there someone with an interest in botany and/or arboriculture, and who is also experienced with Wikipedia editing, to whom I could send the article content and have them create the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecolaty (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tecolaty: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. I suggest going to WP:YFA, which explains what is needed to create a new article. In addition, there is a wizard there that will help you with creating a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tecolaty. Another place to go to might be WP:WikiProject Plants, where you might find somebody interested in taking up your idea, or working with you on it. Note that a Wikipedia article should be based on what reliable published sources say, not on what you know: if you have started working on your article in any way other than finding sources and summarising what they say, it's very possible that it will not be suitable for Wikipedia without starting again. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To edit Bongos Ikwue's page.

Bongos Ikwue was presented with the Idoma legend award 2009 by the president of the Idomanite entertainment, the organizers of 'The Idoma Award'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polycarp Iwodi (talk • contribs) 00:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polycarp Iwodi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're trying to create an article on Bongos Ikwue, then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article, which shows you how to write your first draft. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about editing. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's list of combatants for armed conflicts

Hi All,

Does anyone have any insight into how Wikipedia editors create the list of combatants that are participating in ongoing armed conflicts? Each conflict page on the site typically has a box listing the combatants fighting on each side. These are often quite detailed, which is nice -- although sometimes they have groups that are quite minor or marginal to the conflict included. Is there any central guidance/standard on inclusion, or does anyone have any sense of how these lists are being created by editors?

I am thinking, for example, of the list of groups active in conflicts such as the Syrian civil war, or conflicts in Yemen, Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc.

(I ask because I am with a group of scholars interested in using these pages for research, but I wanted to better understand how they're being made first!)

Thanks for your help.

-Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmsilver89 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, and welcome to the project. You're likely to find that there is a multiplicity of perspectives on that question, and somewhat variant approaches across the very large number of articles we have regarding armed conflicts. However, in each instance, the chosen lists of belligerents will have been the result of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among editors working on a given article as to which parties/forces/states are considered combatants as judged by the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in WP:reliable sources. That is the broadstrokes answer, but you may find some more nuanced perspectives as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history; the editors who collaborate at WikiProjects are not allowed to set firm standards (that needs to be done on WP:POLICY WP:Talk pages or in central community spaces), but they would be able to tell you a little about how sources are generally weighed in article talk page discussions about belligerents. Of course, there are plenty of other Wikiprojects and spaces which might represent editors with insight into how the combatants of contemporary conflicts are identified in sources, for our editorial purposes, but as it happens, WP:MIL happens to be one of our more active and organized groups of editors, so you is suspect you will find all the info you need and more on that talk page. Best of luck--let me know if any of the above is unclear. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a Organisation Profile in wikipedia

How to create a Organisation Profile in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishya23 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not carry organisation profiles. Wikipedia has articles about notable organisations, where notability is determined through the existence of extensive coverage of the organisation in independent, reliable sources. Please see NORG for details on what is expected.

If you are thinking of creating an article about an organisation you have a connection with, you need to be aware of WP's conflict of interest policies. Creating a new article on Wikipedia is a difficult task for new editors; creating a neutral article when you have a conflict is even more difficult.

But not forbidden. Please read your first article and referencing for beginners as starting material, then open up the article wizard and create a draft. When you think it is ready, you may submit it for review. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

kuro5hin.org

I was fixing broken links in meme and memetics which had a couple of pointers to kuro5hin.org. After fixing those (I had alternate links) I searched all of Wikipedia. There are a number of such links. Since kuro5hin.org is kaput (though it is reputed that it might come back as a static archive) the links should be fixed if possible by people who know the article subjects and can find alternate links. Sorry I can't be of more help. Keith Henson (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkhenson: You should take a look at WP:DEADREF since it provides suggestions on how to deal with links that no longer work, etc. The outright replacing or removing of a dead link is not always necessary because an archived version of the original source might exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hkhenson and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please do not remove links simply because they are dead. Many of the Kuro5hin links can be found at web.archive.org or perhaps at other archive sites and it would be much better to provide a link to the archive than to remove the dead link. Replacing links (dead or alive) with better links is almost always welcome. I've added back one of refs you deleted in Memetics by recovering an archived version.

But I have to ask whether you are the same H. Kieth Henson that authored these references. If so, it would be preferable if you make edit requests on the talk pages of the articles rather than make the edits yourself. This is the approach we prefer to see any time an editor has what may be considered a conflict of interest with the subject matter they are editing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unaccptable

you are blocking edits for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterventionalRadiologist (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello InterventionalRadiologist and welcome to the Teahouse.

I see from your contribution history that you have recently made some edits at Sikh and Sikhism that were reverted by other editors. While the other editors gave brief reasons for reverting you in their edit summaries, you are welcome to discuss your changes on the respective talk pages of the the articles to see if you can better explain the aims of your edits and understand the reasons other editors have challenged them. While it occasionally happens that editors revert edits for no discernible reason, in nearly all cases the editor can give you much more specific and policy-based reasons for their actions. Discuss on the talk page and see if you can arrive at some consensus about how the article can best present the topic of concern. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending edits but extended autoconfirmed user

My edits are showing up as pending edits but I am an extended autoconfirmed user. See here for example. Can anyone please tell me why this is the case? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Morgan Leigh and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not entirely sure, but what I think is happening is that when you revert back to a state of the page that was once a pending change, but not accepted by the editor with the pending changes reviewer bit, it also re-instates it as a pending change. WP:Pending changes is not very clear on exactly this situation, but comes close to mentioning it when it discusses a sequence of IP edits that result in a null edit.

Normally, the only way your edits would be pending edits is if they somehow came after an unconfirmed editor's changes, but something extra is going on here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When there are edits still pending review, any further edits, regardless of who makes them, go into the pending edits queue. This is to prevent possible vandalism from showing up until the initial edit is reviewed. For this reason, we generally don't do pending changes protection for popular articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel reasonably certain it was my own reviewing of this article, as it is on my watchlist, and I review pending changes. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless Aggression Era

I want to create an article about the Ruthless Aggression Era but whenever I type this link to my talk page it shows the page is created and when I click on it it is showing about WWE so please tell me how can I create that article?Denim11 (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Denim11. What you've run into is called a WP:REDIRECT; it's away of automatically taking the reader to a related page (in this case WWE) when they try to search for a particular term like Ruthless Aggression Era. There are a number of reasons why certain terms or pages are redirected to another page, but if you want to go to the actual Ruthless Aggression Era page then click on the blue link for it in "Redirected from Ruthless Aggression Era" located at the top of the WWE article. If you look at the article history for that page, you see that it was once actually an article, but was redirected to the WWE in June 2014 with this edit. My guess is that one or multiple editors felt that there wasn't a sufficient amount of properly sourced content to sustain a stand-alone article; so, they decided that WP:CHEAP was preferable to outright WP:DELETION. This doesn't mean that such an article can never exist again, but it does mean that it might be a good idea to discuss it first, for example at WT:PW, see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Maggi noodles controversy

Could an experienced content moderator please check if this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maggi_noodles_controversy is suitable for Wikipedia. I am receiving a huge amount of conflicting feedback. Content moderator Pythoncoder said in his decline stement that it was probably not suitable for Wikipedia and is not answering to me about what I should improve, After reading up the technical doc and other pages I added the "references" but then when I asked on your live help channel they told me that the references were okay but that it should be merged at proposed mergers with article Maggi. Please help, I am confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3271960JT (talk • contribs) 11:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Please do not add your question to a thread created by another user create a new thread for your question.Denim11 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an editor, but in my opinion the noodles recall story does not deserve its own article. The Maggi article has extensive content on the 2015 event, with literally dozens of references. Better to see if that article can be improved. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

formatting a quotation

Hi, dear people, this is how the quotation looks in the german article:

   „Das Kunstwerk ist […] ein sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Denkgegenstand“

– Jean-Christophe Ammann: Bei näherer Betrachtung. Zeitgenössische Kunst verstehen und deuten, 2008 and it has a referencelink to it, giving the info, where the quotation is from.

In Html it looks like this:

{{Zitat |Text=Das Kunstwerk ist […] ein sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Denkgegenstand |Autor=Jean-Christophe Ammann |Quelle=Bei näherer Betrachtung. Zeitgenössische Kunst verstehen und deuten, 2008 |ref=<ref>{{Literatur |Autor=Jean-Christophe Ammann |Titel=Bei näherer Betrachtung. Kunst verstehen und deuten |Datum=2009 |ISBN=978-3938060438}}</ref> }}

I would love to have it look the same way in the english article (i translate it).

right now it looks like this in the article:

      Das Kunstwerk ist […] ein sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Denkgegenstand
   — Jean-Christophe Ammann, Bei näherer Betrachtung. Zeitgenössische Kunst verstehen und deuten, 2008

in Html:

{{quote |text=Das Kunstwerk ist […] ein sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Denkgegenstand |translation=A work of art is [...] a sensually perceptible object of thought |author=Jean-Christophe Ammann |source=Bei näherer Betrachtung. Zeitgenössische Kunst verstehen und deuten, 2008 }}

but a. the translation info is not given when looked at it in the formatted text, and b. i don't know, where to add the referencelink. Could someone please be so kind to tell me, how i can get this done? I searched the help, and read a lot about quotations, but didn't find the right formatting. Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyanda! It might help if you could give us a link to the German article you mentioned, and/or to the article where you want to have the translated quote.

The problem is that {{quote}} does not accept a |translation= parameter. The only quotation template I've been able to find that might work for you is {{Text and translation}}. If you want to use that one, the correct syntax would probably be:

{{Text and translation |Das Kunstwerk ist […] ein sinnlich wahrnehmbarer Denkgegenstand |A work of art is [...] a sensually perceptible object of thought |Jean-Christophe Ammann, Bei näherer Betrachtung. Zeitgenössische Kunst verstehen und deuten, 2008<ref>(insert reference here)</ref> }}

If that's not what you want, it might be necessary to create a new template for this, but I can't really help you with that, I think. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you people are wonderful and react quick! The article, where i would use this can be found here User:Gyanda/my new site it would be very kind, if you could have a look at it. I now have the short version - without reference and your version right beneath, but it doesn't really look fine. Presumably i did something wrong? And thank you again for your kind help! --Gyanda (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change an incorrect article name

The name of the article about Ohio State University should be "The Ohio State University". The word "The" is actually part of the University's proper name and should not be excluded from the article's title, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moravian1415 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moravian1415. The place to discuss or propose such a change is Talk:Ohio State University. However, if you check that page, you'll find Talk:Ohio State University#"The" yet again as well as Talk:Ohio State University#Requested move 19 March 2018, and it appears that an consensus could not be established either time in favor of changing the title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how can i make a translation in greek???

I would like to translate an article in greek. Can you explain me how?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniazigo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on traslation to English is at WP:Translation; advice on translation from English is at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image insert / uploading sourced content

Hi there thanks for the invite I'm new to wiki and would love to upload some articles to prove sourced changes how do I do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echojoe1944 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the teahouse

I would be delighted to be apart of the teahouse when do i start? P.s i have to log out and change my account so look for the name malroselotty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by minecraftbookworm (talk • contribs)

Putting a user on your watch list

Is there a way to put a user on your watch list, and I don't mean their User:page, but on a list that you can see what articles they edit or create as they move around the site?17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)

No, I'm afraid that the MediaWiki software does not allow that. What you can do is to save their "Contributions" page as a bookmark in your web browser, and then check on it from time-to-time. That's the best work-around I know of. --Jayron 32 17:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: Do not be a stalker. See WP:HOUND RudolfRed (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a stalker, and no user here interests me enough to stalk them. The reason I asked is that there is prima facie evidence that I have been stalked, that is a user shows up on virtually every article or page where I postOldperson (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can see the list of articles you have edited, and if you have made a series of unconstructive or controversial edits, it's possible that someone is consulting that list periodically and acting on what they find there. As long as the actions that person or persons are taking are consistent with policy, it is not stalking. General Ization ^Talk 18:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor makes changes to an article on my watch list and revert the changes based on my understanding of appropriate content and citations I sometimes look at their contributions to other articles to see if similar errors are being committed elsewhere. I do not consider my actions to be stalking. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also entirely possible that the other editor(s) simply share your interest in a given topic, and may have been editing the article(s) long before you got there. Check the history of the article(s) to determine this. Since it appears to me you have only edited a small number of published articles (versus the draft article you are working on), there is little or no evidence of someone "stalking" you and this is actually the most likely explanation. General Ization ^Talk 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Site Mechanics

I will try to be as precise as possible. I am puzzled by site mechanics. Meaning how some editors can manuever around the site so easily. What I am referring to is this A hypothetical example. A new user, lets call them "Tinydancer", signs on and voila a long time user who calls himself "Internet Superman" Shows and posts on their user page "Welcome". How does "Internet Superman" even know that "Tinydancer" was a new user. Then Tiny Dancer creates an article and voila "Internet Superman" and another user "Imapro", show up on that page making edits and recommendations. So how does one even know that a person has created an article? Is there a New articles function? I know all about the Watchlist, but you have to be aware of the new users existence and their article creation to even put them on the watchlist. So how does that happen? Just curious. I see people who I never interacted before and whose existence I am unaware, showing up making edits on my articles. How do they even know that I created an article, and how are they aware of my existence. Surely not the watch list, elsewise a users watchlist would be so long as to be unmanageable. Mine already is.Oldperson (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson, All new articles are reviewed and approved by new page reviewers; and are monitored through Special:NewPagesFeed; people also monitor all edits through Special:RecentChanges. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, Oldperson! There are indeed pages for these sorts of things. Special:Log is a catchall place where one can access all sorts of information, including the page creation log and the account creation log. I know that I'll occasionally keep an eye on the account creation log in my capacity as an admin to suss out accounts created for disruption, and as Galobtter mentioned, the patrolling of newly-created pages is important enough to have specialized tools on its own, at Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed. And yes, excessively long watchlists is a chronic condition of Wikiepdia editing; I think mine is ~1300 pages, and I bet mine is unusually short. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is 4500 pages long.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. I watch about 20 articles, no Users. David notMD (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

240, many because I let WP:REFILL add them when I use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, to get back to one of your questions, posting questions at TeaHouse is akin to asking for a spotlight on you and your postings. Likely there are viewers who did not get involved in the Q&A, but later checked in on your contributions. This is in addition to those watching new article creation. There are examples of relatively minor questions being posted at TeaHouse that led to articles being deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting a copyvio

I suspect that this edit (dated 2011) is a copyvio of an excel spreadsheet last edited in 2010 (it's safe, downloadable, and the description is in the "Business Description" tab, conveniently the second company listed). Where do I go to report this? Thanks StaringAtTheStars (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StaringAtTheStars: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. You can report the problem at WP:CPI. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I'm stuck!

I need to go back and re-edit some things I added to the Little Rock, Arkansas page. However, where the "edit" tab option was at the top of the screen, there is now "edit source", and when I click on that option, it brings up a bunch of crazy computer lingo. I just need to figure this out so that I can get a good-ish grade for this class and not fail, be forced to drop out of college, and end up living on the streets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiestiffs1 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending article

Hi, I created and "published" my first article several days ago and since then, nothing. What did I do wrong? What did I miss? Is it simply because the approval process takes more time than I thought?

I'm a bit lost. Any help is welcome.

Thank you, Mguevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguevin (talk • contribs) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Tuscaloosa Tornado 1/24/1997". National Weather Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved November 30, 2018.

[2] "The January 24, 1997 Tuscaloosa Tornado". The Alabama Weather Blog. The Weather Factory. Retrieved November 30, 2018.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 589: / Line 589: @@
 Thank you,
+Mguevin  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mguevin|Mguevin]] ([[User talk:Mguevin#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mguevin|contribs]]) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Mguevin