Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Very NOOB question/assistance

I am new to this whole Wikipedia creations and (i think) i have created a Wiki. It is for a company i'm very fond of. Currently i have it saved in a sandbox (i think) but i'm very worried about trying to post it publicly because i'm in no way associated with the company and am worried about any copyright issues. My intent is not to "infringe" on anyone or any company, my goals here are to one, learn about Wikipedia creating process (which is daunting at this point), and two to create a page for things I enjoy that don't have any Wikipedia pages. So i guess my general question is, how can I get input on what I have created thus far from someone experienced in the ways of the Wikipedia? Do i need to actually publish it outside of the "sandbox" and just cross my fingers i don't get yelled at? Any input and advise you ll can give would be greatly appreciated.

SteelZ691 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: S's Sandbox is User:SteelZ691/sandbox. As I see it, big problem is that most of the references are to the company's own website. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

... and the references were in the headings instead of following the text that they supported. The sandbox has now been blanked. Dbfirs 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

shoot!!! let me try to put it back.. i'm sorry about that. Like I said, VERY NEW!! Its back.. SteelZ691 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

That's OK, but you will need to find independent references to establish notability, and put them in the running text, not in headings. There will be no copyright problems if you put the article into your own words. A company's advertising is nearly always promotional, so needs to be rewritten for Wikipedia. Dbfirs 18:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SteelZ691, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia.

First, if you are unconnected with the company then you are a MUCH MUCH better person to write an article about it than anybody who is connected with it. But if that's the case, I'm puzzled why you have put a COI notice on it. (In any case, that userbox, if required, should go on your user page User:SteelZ691, not in the article).

Secondly, I'll note that creating a new article is one of the very hardest tasks on Wikipedia. I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles before they try their hand at a new one. As well as giving them a chance to learn how Wikipedia works, that will also add much more value to Wikipedia than will most new editors' tries at creating articles.

Thirdly, note that Wikipedia is simply not interested in what the subject of an article says, or wants to say, about themselves. An article about a company should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places.

Finally, when you do feel ready to try a new article, I recommend studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@SteelZ691: Welcome to the Wikipedia community! As in any country or community where you are new, you have to learn the local language. Don't worry, though, ours is a lot easier than Japanese, Russian, or Dutch. ;-) You wrote

I am new to this whole Wikipedia creations and (i think) i have created a Wiki.

No, you think you created an article. Have a couple of definitions, from Wiktionary (emphasis added):

• wiki: A collaborative website which can be directly edited merely by using a web browser, often by anyone with access to it.
• Wikipedia: A free-content online encyclopedia [this website that you are currently reading] founded in 2001, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web in a number of languages.
  

--Thnidu (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How can a supreme court decision cut and past be considered copyright infringement?

I'm not a lawyer but found it surprising that a major 1938 supreme court decision was not on wikipedia.

Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company

So, thinking I'm doing wikipedia a favor, I found the only two articles directly relating to subject from leagle.com and Cornell university, which were both identical duplicates of the supreme court decision. I cut and paste the decision in and then took a bathroom break. And came back to find the piece denied -

I was not wanting to get dragged into a week long process, but believing the piece is worth publishing have now spent quite a few hours trying to make it acceptable. The last attempt had the last comment who believes that its not acceptable to copy and paste a supreme court decision into an article. I'd already reduced the court's opinion by over half, and definitely don't have the time or legal qualifications to summarize such a complex decision!

I could certainly just delete all of it and send the reader to the external link. But what's wrong with posting a supreme court decision on wikipedia?

The last section of notes where the actual law being decided upon was included as reference material for the decision above it is also part of the cut and past. So both segments were and still are in the proposed draft and how it currently stands.

I would like to keep it in. But it is being blocked. I have no idea how wikipedia makes decisions but in this case it appears that one person has blocked the piece because the decision is too long - maybe 2 pages at best...

Since this particular court decision and the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 that its is about has been fought over and even repealed after decades of legal fighting - the idea that such an important piece of history may be lost from wikipedia simply because the decision was cut and paste???

I'm at a loss. Energynet (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Energynet, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the text is in the public domain (I have no idea whether it is) then you could upload it to Wikisource. But Wikipedia relies almost entirely on secondary sources. If nobody has written about the case (and been published in reliable places) then it fails notability, and no article will be accepted. If at least a couple of writers (unconnected with the case, I guess) have written papers, articles, or sections of books about it, then there can be an article on it, based almost entirely what these commentators have said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• For clarity, no, official works of US government employees are automatically in the public domain. However, Colin above is correct. An encyclopedia looks to give a broad overview of a subject based on reliable sources. Wikipedia generally doesn't host the full text of those sources. For that, we have WikiSource, which does exist to house a free repository of such documents. GMG^talk 19:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company exists, and has been submitted for a third time. A problem in looking at it is a lengthy discussion about the merits of the article is located between the Submission template and the article (rather than on the Talk page of the draft). David notMD (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The entire decision is at wikisource and was one of my original citations... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electric_Bond_Share_Company_v._Securities_and_Exchange_Commission/Opinion_of_the_Court

So my problem here is that because the decision itself is large and complex, I feel that I shouldn't be the person to summarize it in any detail. So should I just say - see wikisource for the full details -

and

that the court upheld the constitutionality of the Act which gave the SEC the power to regulate the industry which included the power to reorganize and breakup electric holding companies that did not conform to the law.

As I really need to move on. Personally the piece needs a legal scholar and researcher since there were so many followup attacks on the Act and how the SEC carried out its duties. Going back and looking at the SEC's annual reports on all the litigation around the Act are pages long of court cases - as mentioned at one point there were 58 different legal challenges against the act that were dropped after this decision but then took on other strategies. The last reference I just posted at the end of the background comes from a 1973 book that I just got in the mail this week that detailed the political battle to pass the law in multiple chapters by Funigiello but then devotes not a single page to the legal case!

being dragged into ever more time trying to defend this after going through pages of google books only found one other even remotely detailed summary of the law/ACT.

https://books.google.com/books?id=C5W8uxwMqdUC&pg=PA25&dq=Securities+and+Exchange+Commission+v.+Electric+Bond+and+Share+company&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNlK-_sqvkAhXzoFsKHUcVD404ChDoATAJegQICRAC#v=onepage&q=Securities%20and%20Exchange%20Commission%20v.%20Electric%20Bond%20and%20Share%20company&f=false

but it is not a summary of the legal case. In this situation, there is a rather major difference between a legal analysis of the summary vs. an electric historian's summary which is what the above is. And when we are talking about something on par with what might be the first real attempt to regulate Google or Facebook - the legal case history and the battle to regulate a giant industry for the first time should have current interest.Energynet (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Energynet: You are to be applauded for your tenacity in wanting to make an encyclopaedia page about this judgement. Bear in mind that I'm in the UK and know nothing of your legal system, but what you're unfortunately coming to appreciate is that the skills of collating and precis are an essential and often under-appreciated prequisite to creating a really great and informative Wilipedia page that anyone can understand. Providing you are prepared to stick at it, and to put the time in, I can assure you that the sense of achievement you'll get will be worth it.

But, the biggest problem as far as I can tell has nothing to do with copyright. It's all to do with the article's content and structure. It is simply far, far, far too long, and isn't succinct enough to yet have the characteristics of a Wikipedia article. That's the issue you now need to address to turn it from a draft full of a complex wall of text, albeit with potential, into a proper article. Honestly, we don't need walls of text copied from Supreme Court judgements. That can be provided with one simple hyperlink in a reference. What your draft article needs to do, and in just a few simply-worded paragraphs, is to summarise what the court case was about, its significance, and to base any interpretation of that significance, not on your own opinions, but on what contemporary or subsequent sources have said about it. Thus, I would be happy to have a short lead summarising the entire article, a background section, a summary of the judgement and an implications section plus maybe a See Also section if there are other Supreme Court decisions that are subsequent to it which are relevant, and I think that should be it. Better to start with a short article which meets our Verifiability and Notability criteria than a much longer one which is incomprehensible. I wonder if this helps you in anyway? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Energynet:Nick MoyesGuidance is accurate and very good (speaking from personal experience). I would place close attention to him. There is the issue of copyright, and having read the comments and templates on the articles talk page. Ihave to say that they appear to be in error as regards copyvio, as anything paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer, that means the U.S. Government, and that includes the Supreme Court and Congressional Records is copy right free. The only caveat is that quotations have to be clearly marked and mentioned as such with quotation marks, "<blockquotes> and be short, succint and relevant. Lengthy quotes won't do, that requires paraphrasing which in the case of legal decisions can be diceyOldperson (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Niki I like the slip wilipedia! :) I'm not quite sure how to use the ping thing so will just hope people come back and respond again. You answered one question - okay just leave the decision at wikisource.

But the other problem is a hard one. I have not found any current review of this case anywhere! By this, I mean, there is the difference between a history major - me or any other history person writing a summary - vs. a lawyer writing a review.

I have only found one or two pieces that summarize the law, and nothing - not a single legal summary of the legal case or their expertise about the case - just historic reviews not legal reviews... nada...

Because I can't find one, and I've already been down many pages on google books and there is nothing anywhere I can find about somebody that has written about this legal case that is online, I'm at wits end.

I have posted a reference to 20 page battle leading up to the laws passage, but all I have found once it was passed, were references to the case from the agency - SEC - that took on the case.

My problem here is that I'm not a legal scholar and don't know where there might be such a review

I'm already daunted by the scale of this case, and almost feel like the reason that its not already posted is for the same reason that I'm now trapped. After a week looking at this the only other dramatic discovery was that this very case may have been where President Roosevelt made threats to the Supreme Court. But once again, no legal analysis vs. historic summarization.

let me take my nightmare one step further. The 1935 legal dispute - this SCOTUS case - was based on one of the largest legal investigations of that era -- done by the FTC between 1928-1935. I even have an extended review of what the act does by the judge who was the FTC's general counsel that was then appointed to the SEC to carry out the newly enacted law. His summary of what the act does, is great, but it is not a legal summary for example he says:

"Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act we supervise various activities of holding companies and their subsidiaries, involving not only the issuance of securities but also various types of financial practices. Our powers here are not restricted to requirements of disclosure but more of a regulatory nature, However, one of the fundamental obJecttves of this Act too is the protection of investors...."

In other words, his (Robert Healy) entire 1941 review of the SEC and its role as set forth in the law that he helped write does not at all summarize the actual legal decision, just what that law and the others that were also part of the agencies formation does... Energynet (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Holy crap! I experienced two major crisis' this afternoon - our office phone went down and had to spend 3 hours on the phone trying to get it back with AT&T - which failed. The other is I'm also a care giver and the older guy I take care of is having a fairly serious medical emergency that required getting a prescription from the doc and getting it picked up.

When I got back and still not dinner yet - sent the above reply - went back and noticed that the draft is now set for "speedy deletion! Thanks to response that even though this does not appear to be a copyright infringement as its a federal court ruling - I still pulled it and linked the judgement to wikisource.

But I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO REMOVE THE SPEEDY DELETION WARNING AS IF THIS MIGHT BE SOME KIND OF AUTOMATED ACTION!

As per my other concern, as a desperate last act, since there appear to be no online legal summaries of the case other than a non-legal summary by one of the authors of the Act, I posted that reference into the piece.

It would be nice if folks here mentioned the fact that this system or someone might actually try and delete an entire weeks worth of work while still trying to figure out how to get it right! Energynet (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Energynet I nominated your draft for speedy deletion because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.leagle.com/decision/1938722303us419167 and Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Theroadislong (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

At [1]: Our materials are fully copyrighted by Leagle, Inc.. I.e., I think the text of the decision, as published directly by the Supreme Court (or GPO, etc.), is PD, but companies like Leagle can hold copyright over the assembly, combination with other material and analysis, presentation, etc., IIRC. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, understood - am not a copyright lawyer - probably should have never tried to post the court decision - kind of got suckered into thinking that I could get the piece to work - but this all came down so very fast and then just ate my life timewise - legal court cases aside, even if its brought back to life - this isn't fun when the real world and other issues are breathing down your neck feels like I've gotten into a hornet's nest as the actions were so fast. The bottom line for this came way up in this teahouse piece about how to put a link to it and leave the original decision on wikisource. Which was what I did - not well as I was still in shock and busy elsewhere - I don't function well under stress, and boy was I being hit from 4 different directions at the same time - 3 of which are still happening in the real world. Maybe I needed a surrogate or a wiki-lawyer or something Energynet (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

deletion protest ignored - article deleted why?

Hi, I'm in shock. Until yesterday I've not had anything like this happen - no real clock as to when or why? I have a previous piece here, but can't find it. a piece I had been working to try and fix is now gone and the deletion person is not responding... looks like this person's job is to just go around and delete things even though I believe that I had filed the proper protest and was here trying to get help. But then when I'm in the middle sorting out what was a major 2 part issue, the real world impinged and I had to get help for the older gentleman I take care of that took me away from dealing with this for 3 hours on a friday! As soon as I got back I noticed a new warning deletion message by another person. I immediately did what the warning said and filed a protest in the box offered. I then went to the article and deleted the disputed material as well. A short time ago the entire piece was deleted and the many hours of work that I had put in.

this is the piece that was deleted! Draft:Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company

I don't know how to find the teahouse discussion as I'm new at this, but at this point, it would appear that this system is highly unfriendly, or in this case feels alot like making a phone call to AT&T to get a simple fix. Three hours later, some hacker in Russia has taken over, robbed me of my bank account. Apologies, but I've now been trying to sort this out for 2 hours and can't believe that I've wasted an entire week of my time, and entire evening. Energynet (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as pointed out on your user talk page, copyright violations have to be deleted from Wikipedia - it is one of the very few really hard-and-fast rules that exist here. Contesting the deletion does not automatically mean that the deletion process will be halted. You asked the deleting administrator about it a little over 15 minutes ago, so it's unclear what you mean by "the deletion person is not responding" - like you and me and everybody else here, the administrator is a volunteer and there is no obligation to respond within a few minutes, like you might expect from a professional help desk. --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous Teahouse thread, above. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

thank you for the link. On the issue at hand...

as pointed out over at

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 31

This is clearly not a copyright issue! Someone labeled it that way while the piece was in draft status and still being worked on! The material had also been deleted and a protest filed after the warning was posted. The individual who then deleted it ignored my protest which was what I meant by not responding to me. - The content in question was a 1938 US supreme court decision and with me getting help on at the Teahouse when it was deleted. please see the above protest on this.

Why shouldn't there be some kind of time warning on this? I acted immediately but the person that deleted it or the system didn't give a time warning other than the word speedy which I had no idea of what this meant. The fact that this happened so fast and that I was also and still am dealing with a medical emergency in the real world which was also ignored just doesn't sound fair! And the fact that the original person that claimed that it was a copyright abuse never came back or responded and then this other guy sees the warning - neither look at the actual content or see that its a federal court decision and bang! I lose all of my work? Yeah, volunteer but what happens when someone loses a week of volunteer work?

The fact that with support that I'm actually going to get some relief on this with the piece returned to me so that I can finish getting it onto the site after such a horrible 10 hours would make any new user never want to be involved again! I truly can't believe how this happened so fast and so late at night! I was up 2 hours beyond bed time in shock and I'm heading towards 68 years old - and have had to suspend everything today so far, in terror that if I don't respond immediately that it will just die in some kind of huge pile of protests etc. Energynet (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Energynet, sorry to hear you've had a bad experience. Speedy deletions do not have any ticking clocks. They could literally be deleted right before your eyes, before you could click the contesting button even if you were waiting in ambush. This is because speedy deletion is supposed to be used for the kinds of completely rubbish material that the community has previously agreed there is no point in wasting time discussing about. The protection against wrongful deletion is simply that editors are supposed to exercise caution before tagging an article for speedy and admins are supposed to do the same before acting on them. When mistakes are made, because no one's perfect, we have provisions to get back the work, by contacting the deleting admin, asking them to have a second look, or through the formal deletion review.

As far as I can see, you have taken the remedies, and it seems certain that you'll get back your work if you haven't already. In my opinion, the added best you can get in this case is the rebuke that the editors involved in nominating and deleting your draft are getting at the deletion review process. Of course, these actions are also logged in their contributions history and may be used as evidence in the future. You can visit WP:ANI to see the kind of discussions that occur and the amount of evidence over long term that is gathered and considered in bringing/evaluating a case against an editor. This is a global project and not all editors can be expected to know all the copyright exceptions in any particular country. And by the same token, while it's ghost hour for one editor, it could be peak performance time for another. What should definitely have happened, though, was once you'd notified the involved editors of the mistake, you should have received a quick reimbursement with an apology. Why didn't get a courteous/humble reply is anyone's guess.

I do believe what happened with your draft was a one in thousands rarity. You could try and contact the nominating editor and tell them that you wish they'd been more careful, and see how that goes. Finally, yes, I agree that some of the stuff in this project gives the impression of urgency that's not really there and is frustrating and confusing to new editors. I have had the same kind of experience when I was new. But I have come to realise this is the kind of work that's never complete and that there are no deadlines for anything. People are constantly coming up with ideas to make editing a better experience for all editors, old and new. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support and well written details... something like this should go into every frightened/bewildred person like what happened to me so that I was not up way late in terror that nobody would see what happened etc.

Energynet (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

What is a barnstar? What does it mean? Specifically, "Barnstar of Awesome"? IndusFishIndusFish (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi IndusFish. You can find out more in WP:BARNSTAR, but basically a barnstar is sort of an "unofficial award" that an editor gives to another just to let them know that their edits are appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Many Many thanks. Testing to see how this WP thing works. WP:teahouse, wp:help, wp:new, wp:wikicup WP:anything. wp:badge. IndusFish (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@IndusFish: - if you're interested, the 'WP' in those links refers to a page on the 'Wikipedia' space, which is for wikipedia policies, discussion areas, noticeboards, and so on. A page without the WP is a real article page. So, for example, teahouse links to an article about teahouses, and wp:teahouse links here. As you discovered from your test above, those links will render in one of three ways: blue if it is a link to a page that exists, red if it is a link to a page that doesn't exist, and black/bold if it is the page you are already on. Hope that helps. Hug^syrup 08:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for you help. I am trying to figure things out a little by little. I am learning by reading articles, seeking guidance from experiences users like you, seeing what these users are doing and how, and finally attempting to follow in their footsteps. For example, I also just learned the use the {{ping|}}. @Hugsyrup:, thank you again for your help. IndusFish (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi everyone,

I have just created an article on a political activist. I would like to insert a screenshot of him taken from a YouTube video. Would that be considered fair use on the English WP? Thanks, --Hijadealgo (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Almost certainly not, I'm afraid, Hijadealgo. En wiki maintains its own, stricter, conditions for fair use images, all of which must be met: see WP:NFCC. Number 1 implies that an image of a living person can almost never be used in this way. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to edited PH name template

Hi! Kindly I create a revised version of Philippine name template with your permission coming from you??? RenRen070193 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RenRen070193. That's not how Wikipedia works: we work on consensus, not permission. Please study WP:BRD for how this works:

1. You were bold and made a change that you thought improved Wikipedia.
2. User Babymissfortune disagreed, and reverted your change.
3. (after a suggestion here, I think) you began to discuss the change at Template talk:Philippine name.

This is absolutely the right way to do it, with one important omission: you did not ping Babymissfortune to tell them you were opening a discussion. (I have pinged them here). Since it was that user that reverted your change, a discussion that they do not know about is not really satisfactory. Now that they know you have opened up a discussion, they can decide what to do. They might decide that they are happy with your change, and not comment. Or they may join the discussion to argue why they do not think the change should be made. Other editors might join in the discussion (that might already have happened - but the talk page has been viewed only 18 times in its entire history, so not many people look at it. For that reason, I suggest you also leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines asking for input to the discussion.)

In the end, the editors who get involved in the discussion (whoever they are) will either reach agreement (which might be what you want, or what we have at the moment, a compromise, or a completely different solution) or they will be unable to reach agreement, in which case dispute resolution tells them how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing the Title and other beginner questions

It's my first attempt at editing, and the first issue I saw was that the title of the article (Hooghly River Bridge Commission) doesn't match the official name of the agency (Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners), but I couldn't find in the editing history any explanation of the mismatch, nor can I figure out how to fix the issue. Would I just note that in the Edit Summary?

Also, there's a notation that to use Indian English. Should I move to an article with American English to begin? Or is there a handy reference to point up any reasonable deviations in grammar/usage/punctuation? Does it follow British usage in the main (spelling, comma placement with other punctuation, etc.)? Or does it not really affect the copyediting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodiGMc (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JodiGMc, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I agree with you about the title, and I have moved the article. (This is an operation you are not yet able to perform: it is unavailable to very new accounts, as a protection against vandals). As for language variants: it might be easier for you to start with articles in the variant you are used to; but if you make honest mistakes, nobody should hold it against you (this is a general principle in editing Wikipedia, not just on language variants). The general policy is WP:ENGVAR, but if you read our article Indian English you'll see that there are some differences in vocabulary, and in expressing large numbers, but spelling generally follows British English. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. Makes perfect sense why that would be a limited editing feature. (And how embarrassing to start my first interaction with an editing artifact that should have been deleted.) Loved the Wikipedia Adventure--that was exactly the kind of tutorial I was looking for! JodiGMc (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Historical populations problem?

I suspect a problem with Template:Historical populations. Several pages are showing up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unnamed_parameters with the error: " "Bevölkerung im Land Brandenburg nach amtsfreien Gemeinden, Ämtern und Gemeinden 31. Dezember 2018". Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg (in German). July 2019. Text "https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/publikationen/Stat_Berichte/2019/SB_A01-07-00_2018m12_BB.xlsx" ignored (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)"

but that URL is not in the article source, e.g. Carmzow-Wallmow

Any ideas?

Moe

Quebec99 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Quebec99. The Teahouse is not really the right place for this kind of question. I've raised it at Template talk:Population Germany. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Quebec99: I tracked it to [2] which accidentally removed url= near the start. I have readded it and the error in Carmzow-Wallmow went away. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix.

Quebec99 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to created Article was declined for the below reson

Page Title: Draft: Tolu' A. Akinyemi

Can you kindly confirm if the revision on this page meets your expectations?

As I have not heard back over 3 months now?

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyinbabe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joyinbabe. If you look at the bottom of the submission box at the top of Draft:Tolu' A. Akinyemi, it says clearly "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review." The time that this will take is unpredictable: Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people work on what they choose to work on. But coming here and hectoring people to review it is not likely to be effective. If you are getting impatient, you could spend some time editing some others of our six million articles: many of them need it badly! --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joyinbabe. There are so many drafts waiting for re-review that reviewers skip difficult ones. Yours has two very common problems that we see. First, the inline references go only in the text. Don't add them at the end. The software takes care of showing them at the bottom of the page. Take out all those extra references. Second, there are too many references for a reviewer to look at. With the extras at the end your article has 57 references. To show that the subject is notable we need to be able to see he meets WP:NAUTHOR by having at least three sources that have significant amounts of material about him, are published in reliable sources, and are independent of the subject (not press releases or interviews). Pick out those three sources. Rewrite the article using those as the references. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Title: Draft: Tolu' A. Akinyemi Many Thanks for coming back to me at StarryGrandma, that was so kind of you. The amendments have now been completed as stated. Once again, thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyinbabe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Content Plan: Online Job Skills for Inmates

Hi. Newbie here looking for guidance from a Wikipedia veteran.

A Wikipedia topic search in the area of online job skills for prison inmates seems to need content, such content being my area of expertise. I have a list of somewhat similar Wikipedia content.

My interest is not to make political statements or to promote an opinion but rather to collect useful facts related to this topic. Among other audiences, this would serve relatives of the incarcerated and those seeking to reduce recidivism with resources to support giving inmates and parolees a seat at our nation's digital table.

My request is for a wingman, someone well versed with the Wikipedia culture, to keep me from stumbling around to develop this area of knowledge and to maintain it given how much is emerging. I promise to take only a little of your time. Who would like to be this guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshikli (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is a good way to respond, I have answered questions below by inserting my responses in [brackets] below each question.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pshikli. Are you proposing the article Online Job Skills for Inmates?

[Yes, I could produce articles and such, as can others in my industry, even the inmates, and lots of people we would probably never meet any other way -- but most would probably add a few words with a link to a URL to relevant content.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

What is meant by "online job skills"? [In short, job skills involving the internet. Rather ubiquitous for the digerati like us. Not part of training or work for inmates forbidden from live, unmonitored internet access. Much more can be said, hence my suggestion.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Do you intend to promote a training company? [No. We could provide someplace to list them, but the important need is for a knowledge repository, much of which involves the public sector.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Please clarify for us, as your material might better fit into existing articles.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pshikli, and welcome to the Teahouse. A phrase you used rang warning bells for me, so I wanted to clarify what you meant: the phrase is "develop this area of knowledge". If you mean "use your knowledge as an expert to identify reliable published sources, and summarise them into existing or new articles", that would be wonderful: many articles could benefit from the eye of an expert. But if you mean "use your knowledge as an expert to write articles" then that sounds like original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia articles. Every non-trivial claim in an article should be sourced to a reliable published source. Even drawing a conclusion from information in two sources is regarded as SYNTHESIS and not acceptable unless the conclusion itself is in a reliable published source.

[Not entirely clear on the question but here goes. As much as I could write articles and provide content, I'm not looking for a personal mouthpiece. I would prefer to be priming the pump for many others in this field who could collect content, much of which exists in unvisited corners such as obtuse legislation, initiatives underway without an easy way to be found via Google, and URLs that address this indirectly but profoundly.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

The other challenge for expert editors is that you are discouraged from citing your own publications, as that is regarded as a conflict of interest. (As with other COI's what you can do is suggest that information be added that is sourced to your publications, and leave it for other editors to decide what to do with your suggestion).

[I could certainly produce some kind of whitepaper article to overview where things stand, but to leave it on some unknown editor's doorstep and hope for the best. Is that the way Wikipedia works?Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Beyond those points, and suggesting you read expert editors and (if you intend to write any new article soon) Your first article, I'm not sure what help I could give. What help are you looking for exactly? --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

[I am off reading your referral. That kind of direction is likely to help a newbie like me. Beyond that, I'm looking to learn the Wikipedia procedure to add a new information subcategory, whatever the culture, process, and structure to do that. The end result should be that if my son were in prison and I would like to encourage him to build job skills related to the internet, that Wikipedia has some answers and ideas collecting someplace. In another example, if I run one of the prison industry agencies and would like to expand license plate manufacturing to job skills with a better future that I have a place to learn of my obstacles and opportunities.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Hello, again Pshikli. First, some talk page etiquette: while I appreciate why you broke up the text to answer each point separately, we don't usually do this, as it makes it very hard to work out who is speaking - especially if you don't sign your contributions - I did sign mine, but only at the end, so you left portions of my posting unsigned interspersed with unsigned paragraphs of yours). On talk pages like this (never in articles), please always sign with four tildes (~~~~) - the sofware will replace that by your username and the time and date. If you do split your answer up as you did above, then sign each section separately; but that is not usually done.

Secondly, I am still not certain that what you are trying to do here is really consonant with Wikipedia. There is basically only one activity here: writing and editing encyclopaedia articles. The purpose of said articles is to summarise information which is already published about notable subjects. If an article is of particular interest or use to some particular group of people, that is great, but articles should not be written with that in mind. See WP:NOTADVICE.

I suspect that what will serve you best would be to find an appropriate WikiProject, which is where groups of editors with a particular interest organise themselves for the purpose of working on articles in that area. Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether there is a suitable WikiProject. WP:Prisons is a possibility, but seems to be mostly about the prisons themselves (though it does mention less solid topics as well); and there are a number that relate to education, but I doubt whether there's any existing group that covers your area. Nevertheless, you could post a message on the talk pages of any tangentially related project to see if there is anybody there that would like to work with you. The list of WikiProjects is at WP:List of WikiProjects. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your suggestions had me looking into WikiProjects and it sounded promising until a search showed nothing even close to my topic, not even to the broader topic of prison industries. Wikipedia's "prison education" had one paragraph about the subject for all of the USA. Makes it hard to follow the WikiProjects instructions to collaborate with others in similar topics when Wikipedia seems to have a sizeable hole in this area. Given how much activity I see in this field, admittedly often opinionated, that just increases the need for Wikipedia to be the factual destination. At this point, I've spent my Saturday learning about Wikipedia instead of just using it, but I still don't have a clear path to contributing in the area where I could bring something valuable. I could certainly produce a list of URLs, even an article to navigate through them, but my Saturday is ending without a place to deposit that. How about I close with a suggestion? We have a 9-minute video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK_kgM1SBx0&t=11s about what our inmates do (a bit nerdy), and a 4-minute one at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1z3JxDTRpo&t=3s about why we do it. I trust that last one shows why the topic is important for Wikipedia to cover. There is a lot more info out there about all this. If you can think of how I can fill Wikipedia's hole without too many more Saturdays, do let me know. Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Pshikli. Wikipedia is a huge and complex beast, and nobody should expect to learn all about it in one Saturday, or even a week of Saturdays! In particular, writing a new article is a difficult and challenging task. You are welcome to add material to existing articles, or create a draft using the articles for creation process; you're welcome to collaborate with other editors in doing so.

But we're not really set up for organising and managing such collaborations. The WikiProject structure is one way we do so, and it would be possible for you to try creating a new one: but setting one up, and keeping it going, are not really for the faint-hearted. I'm not sure what else to suggest. Perhaps start organising outside Wikipedia - keep information on Dropbox or a Google folder and appeal for collaborators on social media? If you ended up with a group of people who subsequently worked together on WP (with individual accounts), that would be fine as long as you were transparent and explained (eg on your user pages) how that had come about. --ColinFine (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I do appreciate the guidance. Having used Wikipedia over the years, it was time to learn a bit about its inner workings. The takeaway seems to be that there is no quick and easy way to cover a new topic, which may be a good thing to keep up the quality of the content. Given how much of my time I have to dedicate to making this social enterprise succeed, the honest answer is that I don't have the many Saturdays needed to pull together a WikiProject. Before giving up, here's a shot in the dark. Is there an easy way to enter a short article about Access2online, link to the content already out there about us and our initiative to improve criminal justice, and conclude with a few words calling for volunteers to put together a WikiProject in the area of correctional industries and their online future?Pshikli (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors at Wikipedia seem to be promoting content that is in Violation of a Court Injunction Against the American Medical Association relating in part to Bastyr Universities Programs

The Editor has Deliberately Filled the Bastyr University article with Links that are of a very Defamatory and Un-professional tone, from organizations such as "Quack Watch" which is run by a "Retired Psychiatrist" who has a personal vendetta against Bastyr Alumni apparently -- I would like to point out that "Psychiatry" as a profession has no scientific lab tests to test for mental illness -- There is no blood test that "Psychiatry" uses in diagnosing someone with any Disease. The Ft. Hood Mass Shooter was even a "Psychiatrist" who prior to the shootings "Diagnosed" hundreds of Soldiers out of VA Benefits, GI Bill Benefits, and Civilian Employment Illegally. "Psychiatric Diagnosis" is not considered medical FACT in civilian legal proceedings until a Judge and Jury make this legal determination.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST AMA (Regarding Defamation of Chiropractic and Naturopathic Practice) Susan Getzendanner JAMA. 1988;259(1):81-82. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03720010059044 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/370078

For the Bastyr article, I would recommend a review board that included retired PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS (DO, MD), CHIROPRACTORS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS, PA's, NATUROPATHS and others Related to Primary Care, and Psychology and the other majors the university offers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmwmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is a court injunction that is somehow binding on Wikipedia itself, that should be communicated to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, using the appropriate address listed here. The same goes for any content alleged to be libelous(see WP:LIBEL). 331dot (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wmwmurray, Welcome to Wikipedia! I would add that this is a volunteer project, and we do not have review boards of experts, but rest assured we have very dedicated editors from the medical community participating here. Expertise, however, is of limited relevance. We work under the criterion of Verifiability from Reliable sources. Wikipedia values verifiability over truth, and this is by design. What you are in right now, is a content dispute. And the place to discuss that is at the talk page of the article. Please remember to assume good faith, focus on the merit of the content, rather than the qualification of the contributor, and if you get nowhere, the dispute resolution noticeboard is the next port of call. Please consult the bold, revert, discuss cycle of collaborative editing. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 20:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that in the Talk Pages, the Editor References the AMA as though they are a Law Enforcement Agency or Other Government Entity such as a Court which as I mentioned is the only place legal FACT can be determined, when the AMA is in-fact a professional association. As such this subjects Wikipedia to this Court Injunction -- Wikipedia's trustee's have the appearance of acting under the AMA's direction. I would like to request a legal review of this matter. Wikipedia can be subject to a Defamation Judgement as a Co-conspirator to mis-guided parties at the AMA. I have notified security and legal staff at Bastyr. The state(s) and federal government have authorized Naturopathic practice primarily in states where AMA guideline medicine does not have good solutions for all the common and uncommon medical conditions in these locations. The Governments see value in this and the Editor who most likely has never done primary practice in a state allowing Naturopathy seems to not understand this. Until the editor can present the Legal Facts and dispense with opinion in a reference article I do not feel comfortable dealing with this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmwmurray (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You say "I would like to request a legal review of this matter". Nobody here is preventing you from doing so. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, using the appropriate address listed here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for violating the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. People can choose one of two things. They can choose to edit Wikipedia without making legal threats. Or, they can pursue legal threats and/or lawsuits off-Wikipedia. But they simply cannot do both things at the same time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving page from Draft to Article

I have been waiting for my article to be approved in Draft mode for 4 weeks now. May I move it to the Article page or do I need to wait 8 weeks?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocNerd3000 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DocNerd3000, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are allowed to move it to article space - the AFC process is entirely voluntary - but if you do it may get deleted. I am not a reviewer, and have only had a quick look, but you have far too many low-grade citations, especially for the length of the article. I got bored looking through them, hoping to find an example where somebody wholly unconnected with the film has chosen to publish at length about it, in a reliable place. (I'm not saying there aren't any: I just gave up looking). Without them the article does not establish that the film is notable. and the draft will not be accepted.

My advice is to remove every source that is not independent (anything published by www.californiasforgottenchildren.com, but also anything that is simply reporting their words in an interview or press release); and any unreliable source such as iMDB. If that leaves any statements in the draft unsourced, then take those out too. Then, (assuming you are left with some solid independent sources) write the article based on what those sources say.

I have no doubt that the film is a very worthy project: but that does not contribute to being notable in Wikipedia's sense. In order to be of any value, Wikipedia articles must be referenced to high-quality sources, independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I tried to help

I tired to help here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Vahe as someone pointed out that I made a mistake. What should I do? Should I delete my previous comment regarding delete? IndusFish (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@IndusFish: - given that the RfD will be viewed by an admin prior to its closure, and the deletion or maintenance of the article, and your error has been corrected, you should be fine. You should not delete the comment, but rather, it would be good practice to strike it, by enclosing the erroneous text as detailed here. The markup effect is like this. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

info on RM:TR

Hello Fam , Hope u guys are Doing Well I am a bit of stuck with this term called RM:TR , Can anyone please help me out a bit in Knowing it !! Thanks Kundaliniwar (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kundalinawar. I'm guessing (and this is an absolute guess, because you have given us no context whatever for your question) that you are referring to the Wikipedia project page WP:RM/TR. Have you read that page? What is it you don't understand? --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine (talk)

Thanks So much for the info , I was not aware of that shortcut , this place is helpful and amazing :) Kundaliniwar (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kundaliniwar: For a whole load of useful (and not so useful) shortcuts, see WP:SHORTCUTS. (WP:THF is my most well-used shortcut) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I use this script to make a TH link in the menu at top of pages:

$( document ).ready( function() {
  mw.util.addPortletLink(
    'p-personal',
    mw.util.getUrl( 'Wikipedia:Teahouse#footer' ),
    'TH',
    'pt-TH',
    'Go to Teahouse',
    null,
    '#pt-preferences'
  );
});

You can place it in your common JavaScript. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Where can I ask a question to get a consensus

My question involves the Native American name controversy. This issue has not been resolved for wikipedia. I see many articles that use the word Indian, which many native Americans perceive to be racist and pejorative (some admittedly do not and use the name) however Indian is too generalized and could refer to a person of the sub continent of India (Its proper use). My preference is to recognize the incipient racist (hegemonistic) undertones of the word Indian, and use Native Americans. An example is the Indian massacre of 1622 both the article name and its lead sentence are pejorative and misleading, at first it appears to be an article about the massacre of Indians. The actual event is popularly known, for centuries and in various literature, as the Jamestown Massacre. I am of an inclination to Move the article to Jamestown Massacre, and to change the wording in the article to reflect the change. Where is the proper place to discuss this and obtain a consensus (both the use of the word Indian vis native American (at least AmerIndian) and my Move idea.Oldperson (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, any changes you wish to make (that you have sources for) to a specific article, just make them. If anyone disagrees with your change, they will revert your change and then you discuss it on that article's talk page. If you wish to develop a naming standard for Native American people, that would be a Manual of style issue. There may be one already. You'll either need to search through the MOS, or perhaps someone else may know the specific chapter. With near 6 million articles, there are many that are in variance to MOS. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Thanks. Been there done that (changed wording to include Indian to Native American and it was reverted, I then tried "Indian" only to have that reverted. If I reverted the revert I get into revert warring. There is at least one editor that has an intense interest in keeping the word-Indian. I tried the Manual of Style once but couldn't figure out where to post the question. I would appreciate a link.Oldperson (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The link to MOS is WP:MOS. As I said I have no knowledge of a specific chapter on the names of races. I see no mention of discussion in your reply. WP:BRD only works if you actually discuss the issue. Also, please learn to be succinct. 95% of your original question is just yak. Why you want to know, and things you've done related to why you are asking the question are irrelevant. Everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer and most are primarily here to write an encyclopedia. Some are generous enough with their time to answer questions here. A nice gesture on your part would be to recognize that people are giving you their time and knowledge with the only compensation being that hopefully we get another good editor. Do this by being succinct. Editing Wikipedia is an exercise in writing, research and to some extent, debate. The less words you use to accomplish that the better. After all, editing an encyclopedia is primarily an exercise in condensing what others have written. The first step in doing that well is to learn to condense your own thoughts. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can people change information in Wikipedia?

The reason why Wikipedia enables the edit sign is because they thought people who changed the information was going to put in TRUE information.Instead, other people decided to use it as an advantage and put in inappropriate and FALSE information.You maybe asking why doesn’t Wikipedia just get rid of the edit button.Well I am not really sure but, I do have one assumption.I think that they keep it there since it draws attention making people want to come to Wikipedia more often.I am pretty sure Wikipedia is embarrassed that the rumour has been going on for ages that Wikipedia is a bad site to use.I both agree and disagree at the same time.Why you may ask?Well that is because some things people search can not be edited.For example, if you search up the word pencil, in the top right hand corner you will see a pencil.If you see a pencil but there is a line through it that means Wikipedia has blocked it to prevent vandalism.If you don’t believe me, then press on the icon and in words it will appear that Wikipedia has blocked it Tom prevent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneydancediva (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sydneydancediva, this is a forum for new users to ask how to questions about Wikipedia. It isn't a place to hold a general discussion on the merits of Wikipedia philosophy. Perhaps you may find one of the pages at the village pump more suitable for your discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sydneydancediva:I have no idea what you are talking about. I searched pencil and this unremarkable page came up Pencil here is a a link to the Village Pump https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pumpOldperson (talk)

Oldperson: you have pointed Sydneydancediva to the Wikimedia Commons Village pump. The place to discuss Wikipedia policy and philosophy is WP:Village Pump. --ColinFine (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sydneydancediva is using the mobile version https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil witn an account which is not autoconfirmed and cannot edit semi-protected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

... so three more edits and three more days and the problem will disappear. Sydneydancediva, please read WP:Autoconfirmed for details. Dbfirs 06:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Why no Pokémon anime announcement this week?

Before the latest ep of Sun & Moon aired there was a little teaser for the next anime which we’ve got a whole new look for the anime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:93b0:1350:4495:36ed:f3d3:a7e4 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The above question appears to be related to Draft:Pokémon the Series: Sword and Shield (anime), on which there has been much feedback. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked from editing?

I tried to edit an article and some random user threatened to "block me form editing this article".Although I proved my information's truthfulness with reliable sources and gave a valid reason for editing the certain article he still would not let me edit the page and contribute to Wikipedia. This is pure censorship! He just did not like what I said (which is the truth) and he aimed to misinform the readers by provided fake and generalized facts. What should I do and how do you let this happen? Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia where people can share the knowledge and improve the website by providing more information. What is the point of enabling users to do that if they will be "blocked from editing" because someone does not like what they have to say?

JupMc (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc

For anyone looking into this the article in question is The Legend of Korra: Turf Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). JupMc is deleting huge sections of the article and, although they are leaving long edit summaries, they aren't providing sources to prove those statements. MarnetteD|Talk 06:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

More discussion regarding the edits can be found at Bennv3771's talk page here User talk:Bennv3771. MarnetteD|Talk 06:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi JupMc, you removed referenced information from the article, and added an unreliable source (Quora is just random editors' opinions and is definitely not a reliable source). A content dispute should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Please do not edit war. It is WP:edit warring that might get you blocked. Wikipedia always welcomes improvements to articles, but if changes are challenged then they must be discussed to obtain a consensus. Please read WP:Reliable sources. You are doing the right thing by discussing this on Bennv3771's talk page but if you want other interested editors to be involved then the article talk page is a better place for discussions. Dbfirs 06:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I did not delete huge amount of information and I provided sources. I also added new information.

Dbfirs, thank you so much for being polite! Finally someone on this website is polite!!! So, should I discuss about those changes with other users? How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JupMc (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just start a new section on the talk page of the article, but remember to find WP:Reliable sources to support your suggestions. Dbfirs 06:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much Dbfirs!

JupMc (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc

What are the basic criteria to create a page in wikipedia

I am trying to create a page for renowned artists of Nepal to give them bigger exposure through wikipedia. But the problem with me or us is that we don't have web links of the creation which is mandatory in wikipedia. Please guide me about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.217.97 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give exposure. The criterion for a Wikipedia subject is existing notability through published reliable sources, though those sources need not necessarily be on the web. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If you just want to tell the world about artists from Nepal, you should use social media or an alternative forum. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NOTPROMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

English

Who invented the first airplane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biziwe (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Biziwe, and welcome to the Teahouse. What a pity there isn't an online encyclopaedia, where you could easily look up the answer to this sort of question. Oh, wait a minute! There is! It's called Wikipedia, maybe you've heard of it. You could look in the article called Airplane. --ColinFine (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Biziwe, you already asked this at the Teahouse before and have been told that this forum is only for questions about editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. Please do not ask the same question at the Teahouse again. Interstellarity (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Page review on my draft article

I've made a draft article, Draft:Badimo (Roblox user group). I want someone to review my page an see if it's okay to be in the main namespace. other than placing the draft article template on top of the article (because my draft article doesn't have one automatically generated) and pressing the submit button, can any administrators or experienced editors help me review the page and comment me under this topic or at my talk page? Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Radioactive Uranium, 92: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I saw your draft, but unfortunately, it has a chance of getting declined because it fails notability. A subject is notable if it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Roblox is not a reliable source, and most of your references are from Roblox. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: So how should I improve my draft article? Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Radioactive Uranium, 92: Well, you need to find more reliable sources for your article. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: So can we do it together to make it more reliable? I would like to have my first draft article being moved to the main namespace. Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Radioactive Uranium, 92: I would like to help out! However, I am afraid that the draft will get declined. Nevertheless, I’ll see what I can do. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Thanks a lot! Message me on my talk page. Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Actually, message me on the draft page's talk page instead. That would be more convenient. Radioactive Uranium, 92 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Radioactive Uranium, 92 and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you read the essay WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, to help you fully understand what people are telling you. --ColinFine (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Modern Practitioner Research: Complaints from Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq.

Hello Velella, I noticed you removed my improvement on practitioner research. Please re-add it. Every importation contained in that improvement is authentic. I have been a practitioner researcher for well over 20 years. I am a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

I am also a transnational legal research and dispute resolution consultant. My law firm, Prof. Teddy Idiabeta Law Consult is a full in-house practitioner research law firm registered as a Nigerian law firm with registration number 2946457. Modern practitioner research is my business. It was practitioner research I employed to do some matters in Dubai on three different occasions.

I am the founder of the Advanced Business School of Research and Legal Innovation studies, Online. Everything you read in the work on modern practitioner research was what I introduced to practitioner researchers, professionals, research interns, journalists and members of the public in the practitioner research public lecture on 21st April, 2119 at the College of Education, Warri, Delta state, Nigeria. Hence I want my improvement of the article restored.

Thanks.

Sincerely, yours

Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Teddy Idiabeta, Esq. (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Can you specify what the article is? Anyway, I assume you are in a content dispute. The appropriate place to bring this up is on the other user’s talk page or the article page. See also: WP:EW and WP:BRD. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think its Practitioner research. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 15:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a considerable element of forum shopping here. Nevertheless, there is a response on my talk page where this "Complaint" was also posted.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

How to make a new category

I want to create a new category in a wikipedia page.

I am very new,so could you please assist me in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easicon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Easicon, and welcome to the Teahosue. It would help if you would clarify what you mean. Are you talking about Categories in Wikipedia's sense (collections of articles grouped by some common property or relation) or are you using the word in a different way? --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Horse

Are horses fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradmererrer (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place to ask help. Do you have a question? LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 16:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

City of Anderson SC

Hello, I am an employee of the City of Anderson with full authorization to update this page. I did edits yesterday to include additions of information on parks, honors, shopping, etc. Someone whom I cannot identify or verify has rejected the changes. How do I proceed to get the additions made to the page and provide the public with proper information? thank you, Beth Batson City of Anderson SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Batson (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the advice on your user talk page regarding verifiability and about citing sources. You also need to read about conflict of interest, and about the mandatory requirement to declare paid editing. After you have made the requisite declaration of paid editing, you can use the article's talk page to propose changes, providing that you can support them with references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Also please note, Beth Batson that your authorizaton is of complete irrelevance to Wikipedia. This is the encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. So almost every person in the world is 'authorized' to edit that article (and most other articles) except people in your position, with a conflict of interest, who are strongly discouraged from editing it directly. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me. I am just trying to do the right thing. I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities regarding this. The page has incomplete information and I simply want to get it right. I'll keep trying and I appreciate your patience. Beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Batson (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Beth Batson In looking at your edits, what you want to do is more appropriate for social media or a website owned and operated by your City. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about an article subject, and Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject wants to say about itself. As noted, if you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage that support the changes you feel are needed, you should make a formal edit request on the article talk page. You will also need to formally comply with the paid editing policy as soon as possible; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Batson (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

​I've left some (hopefully) helpful links on your talkpage. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: article is Anderson, South Carolina. Not about 'offending sensibilities.' There are strict guidelines about undeclared paid editing. After declaring the paid relationship on your User page, standard practice is to start a new section at the Talk page of the article, and therein propose changes - with appropriate references. Other editors will review and decide to incorporate into the article or not. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Hindi a dialect of Urdu?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

sir, is hindi a dialect of Urdu, because i found many proofs that Hindi ia a dialect of Urdu like In olden times, Sanskrit was not allowed to be spoken by anyone, because Sanskrit was spoken by the Gods of Hindus. the result was that Sanskrit started to end. Hindus had to save their tongue. So they stole Urdu and Hindi came into existence after replacing Arabic and Persian alphabets with some Sanskrit alphas in it. the word Hindi means Indian or related to India. read more from http://www.qmuannt.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-hindi-has-come.html - PK-IN User (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@PK-IN User: Welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Teahouse is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. If you have any other questions about editing Wikipedia, please return. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@PK-IN User: just to be a little more specific you can ask your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You can also read the article Hindustani language, which discusses the question in some detail, PK_IN User. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Re-pinging, because I got the name wrong: PK-IN User. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a question. PK-IN User is almost certainly not here in good faith. This is an exercise in spamming/POV-pushing, and I expect them to be blocked soon. No need to waste time here. I expect the SPI to handle it well enough, so no need for new reports either. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to create a redirect page

Hi!, Police have idenified the Odessa, Texas shooter, how can I create the redirect page for [name of the perpetrator] to the article?, as done in every other incident like this. PS: I didn't see constructive naming the shooter here so that's why the brackets. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Please take a look at Help:Redirect. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 21:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Also see WP:SUSPECT. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I would note that in this case the suspect was killed by police. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

problem using the Cite Book template in Wikimedia Commons

Today I used the Cite Book template (as I have done many times before) to document something I was writing in a description for a Wikimedia Commons category (Category:Statues of Androgynous Angels). I used the |location= parameter to specify New York (the location of the publisher), and the |publisher= parameter to indicate The Free Press (the name of the publisher). When I did a preview, the New York entry appeared as Category:New York - a link which (of course) went nowhere, as the 'real' category is New York City. I couldn't figure out why the template wanted to make New York a category, so I eliminated the whole |location= parameter, and entered |publisher=New York: The Free Press, which made the entry look correct. I've left the entry with my 'kludge' modification (an early computer-era term for a slapdash solution), but it probably could be tested by editing the page and re-entering |location=New York and doing a preview (without saving). I'd like to find out what I might have been doing wrong (assuming it's not a bug in Cite Book).

Seauton (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seauton. Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects. While there's lots of similarities and overlapping content, not everything that works of Wikipedia will work on Commons. Templates, for example, used on Wikipedia are uploaded locally and unless there is an identical template with exactly the same name uploaded locally to Wikipedia Commons, the template is not going to work. Even if there are local versions for a template uplaoded to each project, the template will only work as it's been set up to work, i.e. according to it's documentation page. Template:Cite book is what the template looks like on Wikipedia, and c:Template:Cite book is what it looks like on Commons; since they're technically for separate projects, it would be better discuss the Commons one on Commons, perhaps at Commons:Village pump/Technical. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User Page

What should I put on my User Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Max263 Also I use the Visual Editor:) Max263 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Max263 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read WP:USERPAGE for information about acceptable userpage content, but in short, they are a place to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It's not required to have anything on your userpage if you wish; many long time users have never had a user page. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your list of "Things I like" does not do much to explain what your intentions are as a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps they are articles the user would like to edit or read, a common use for user pages (including mine). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to retrieve my deleted draft by editor for future reference and improvement

Hi,

Please can somehow advise how do I go about in requesting for a copy of it to be e-mailed to me? It would really help to have a copy of it for reference purpose and improve from thereon since I do not have a backup of it.

Thank you.

Regards, Carsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsson Tan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carsson Tan. If you were working on a draft which ended up being deleted, there should still be a WP:REDLINK for the draft floating around somewhere on your user talk page. If you click on that link, you should see the reason why the draft was deleted and who the deleting administrator was. You can then ask the deleting administrator on their user talk page to send you a copy of the draft's content via email. Most administrators seem to have no problem doing this unless the draft was deleted for a serious policy violation, such as a copyright violation, etc., or there's really no hope in the content ever being acceptable for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Biographic Articles - citation structure

Good Day,

Barbra Gayle is a user space created to allow Sand Box creation of Biographical Articles. These for later publishing. We charge for our services. We think we understand the inherent conflict of interest issues contained within creating Bio.s and especially those for profit. I, Tim Wilson, am the current single editor in this user space and I'm new to Wikipedia. Two questions?

How do I include direct interview information from the prospective biographee?

How am I able to use media files, eg. photos owned/taken by the biographee?

Thanks in advance.Barbra Gayle (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Barbra Gayle Before you do anything else, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy. This is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable. Also, your username is "Barbra Gayle" but you state that your name is Tim Wilson and seem to suggest that this account is shared, which is not permitted. If you yourself are not Barbra Gayle, you cannot use their name as your username. You will need to visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS as soon as possible to change your username.

Interviews are only acceptable as sources of information in certain circumstances. They are a primary source; Wikipedia is mostly interested in what independent reliable sources state, not in what the subject wants to say about themselves. You can find information on uploading images at WP:UPIMAGE. Make certain you know who owns copyright of the image, typically it is the photographer, not the person in the image. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Also be certain that the person you are writing about meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, which for biographies is written at WP:BIO. There are also more specific criteria for certain careers(musicians, politicians, etc.) 331dot (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Barbra Gayle:. Hi Tim, can I just clarify exactly what you charge for? Are you charging customers to write biographies about them on Wikipedia?

To answer your questions. 1) you can't, unless that interview is published in a reliable source. 2) to use images they own, they would need to upload the image to a website (flickr works well) with a clear and unambiguous statement that the image is available for use under a CC-BY-SA license. Alternatively they can upload the image to Wikimedia commons under that license. More instructions are available here.

However, from what you are saying, it sounds to me as if you are engaging in paid editing. In that case, it is essential that you read and abide by our paid editing policy before you make any more edits. I will also leave a warning on your userpage to that effect.

Finally, and apologies for piling on with lots of warnings, but your username may be a problem. Firstly, it sounds from what you say as if it is a company name that suggests shared use, contrary to our terms. Secondly, it is very close to the name of a real person with a Wikipedia article, which could also be a problem. I would suggest you rename your account using the instructions here. Hug^syrup 14:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me fix the error on Tax competition

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

NFL teams that play in higher-tax states have it harder chance of making the playoffs, than NFL teams that play in lower tax income states, because they will fewer games. Highest income-tax rate in a 23 year period (1994 to 2016) won 2.7 fewer games per year that teams in states that do not have in come tax such as Florida. This is because NFL player have to consider the tax implications to consider for which teams they play for. In higher-tax states player ask for a higher gross income to recapture the cost of paying higher taxes.

More NBA athletes are singing with teams in states (example Florida and Texas) that do not have income tax, like Miami Heat, San Antonio Spurs and Houston Rockets. As a result some players safe a few million dollars in taxes.

NHL player leave hockey teams located in higher-tax US States and Canadian provinces to low tax jurisdictions. NHL players with no trade clauses who changed teams, picked teams with lower taxes. This makes it more difficult for teams with higher-taxes to skilled players players to win the Stanley Cup. The same goes for dockets and engineers (other professions) that will from from high tax jurisdictions to low tax jurisdictions.

Can you help me fix the error on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_competition --43435hgggg (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

References

The tag at the end of a reference is </ref>, not <ref>. I have corrected the occurrences in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Naming References

I'm editing for the first time. I was proud to be able to get as far as I did, but then found error messages. First i had three errors in references #3-5. Then added more text, and had more errors. I was able to code the references properly to get them to number (1 through 8), but the Reference section is showing multiple errors, and most are from my not using a name "in the content" - what content? I tried using a name from within the url within the reference, etc. Here is a list of my references and below the "Cite errors". Below that is my text (note name attempts). I below all else is correct.

"Goldendale Astronomical Observatory". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey.
"Goldendale Observatory State Park". Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
Goldendale Observatory - History
Goldendale Observatory State Park - Dedication Retrieved August 31, 2019
Goldendale-Observatory - Telescopes. Retrieved August 31, 2019
[1]  
goldendale-observatory
[2]

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "renamed_from_2019_on_20190901042554" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "renamed_from_5212_on_20190901042554" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "renamed_from_2019_on_20190901042554" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "dark" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "depending" is not used in the content (see the help page).

---

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensar44 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pensar44. Referencing on Wikipedia is tricky and I am afraid you have run into problems. You don't need to do anything to make the references numbered, the software takes care of that. I will take a look at what happened. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,

I am new on Wikipedia and trying to create a new page but I can't see my page is getting published. Can someone please guide me since this is my first effort on Wikipedia. The only thing I can see that my content is saved in Sandbox. Since I am a beginner, I would appreciate if someone could help me in a very simple language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murad400 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murad400 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Murad400, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article is one of the harder tasks in editing Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months working on improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before embarking on this challenging task.

The essay your first article explains many of the things you need to think about when you want to write a new article; but the one I will single out is sources: every single statement in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source, and (especially in an article about a living person) it is best to cite that source. Your draft User:Murad400/sandbox cites no sources at all. This means that it does nothing to establish that Abdulla is notable and that an article about him is appropriate at all. (He might be, if he plays for a national team; but the article needs to establish that, with sources).

The direct answer to your question is that you can submit your draft for review by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of the draft. But if you do so in its current state, it will certainly be declined, so please don't do so until you've found and cited some independent reliable published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To what ColinFine wrote, I will add that it appears you have been working in two places, the sandbox and a draft: Draft:Mohamed Abdulla (Cricketer). I suggest you stop the Sandbox and work on the draft. But as CF noted, no citations = not acceptable as an article. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Blog verses news site

I am working on an article for a rapper, Brandon Cahill who goes by the stage name Vic Sage. I believe the sources referenced in the article are reliable i.e. Medium (website), Revolt (TV network), Earmilk, Rapzilla . I researched these sites and saw that they have an editorial process (which I understand is what makes a news site reliable); they mostly review music and artists. Ultimately this artist is being reviewed, and his music used as an example of good music by some of the most notable rap-sites. Additionally, the coverage on him is more than minor mentions. Can I get more insight as to why the above-listed music sites are not considered reliable? Thank you! ITLRosanna (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ITLRosanna. Your draft is currently clogged with many references to sources that are not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia. So, the first thing you should do is remove all of the Spotify and Apple Music references. As for Revolt, that is not significant coverage by an independent source. It is a blurb and a video of the rapper performing. The Medium source looks pretty good to me. Earmilk is a blog and I see no evidence of professional editorial control. Does Rapzilla have professional editorial control?

As a general principle, it is far better to have four or five really solid sources than 20 to 30 mediocre sources. No reviewer is going to approve a draft filled with bad sources like Apple Music which exists only for the purpose of selling music online, rather than devoting independent coverage to music. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I found this statement on Rapzilla: "We have limited time to put into Rapzilla, so please make it easy for us to cover you." That is indicative of a semi-amateur part time venture, not professional editorial control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Starry Grandma - Thank you!

Thank you so much for helping with the references. I'm still confused and there is one change I need help with. Reference [3] appears to now come before reference [2]. I would just reverse the order of the References, but I suddenly have NO ACCESS to that area. I just view "reflist" with nothing following? Am I blocked now?

Could you please add in the website description, rather than simply url listed for number seven [7]? To read:

Goldendale-Observatory (title) Washington Abandons its Starry Treasure of Darkness.(date) Retrieved September 2, 2019.

I would be so appreciative, Starry!

Thanks much, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensar44 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article is Goldendale Observatory State Park. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Goldendale Observatory State Park - after help source editing my references - Now invisible to me? Need help.

TO ANYONE THAT CAN HELP:

Starry Grandma you were a big help, but now I need to add content to a reference you edited it for me. I'm assuming i can no longer view my references because you were last to edit? or because..??

Anyway, please tell me how to add the article title that [7] is referencing. It should show: Goldendale-Observatory History - Washington Abandons it's Starry Treasure of Darkness.

Also, reference number [3] is listed before reference [2] - please reverse order. Pensar

Hello, Pensar. You can see and edit your references in Edit mode. In article mode, they are read-only at the end of the article.

Once you find your citation in need of a title, add the title, according to the format used in other citations in the article, or play it safe by re-doing the citation template.

The order of your references cannot be changed unless you change the order in which they appear in the article. The software does this to keep things aligned for user convenience.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Pensar44, just forget about the reference section. It indeed is supposed to only have {{reflist}}. That is what collects all the sources cited in the article in the order that they appear on the article and list them there for the reader. While editing, you are supposed to edit the references in the places that they are cited in, i.e. within the content of the article. Look at how they are cited by others and make changes accordingly. The order can not be changed unless you change the order of the citations, for example, by moving content that the sources cite. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 22:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Pensar, The links I put on your talk page will help. The line where the reference is in the article reads:

The IDA stated it “recognizes the interest of WSPRC in maintaining the Dark Sky Park designation for GOSP,” but remained “unconvinced that the desire is reflected locally at the Park or in the community of Goldendale.”<ref>[https://www.goldendale-observatory.com/starry-darkness-abandoned.html goldendale-observatory]</ref>

Change it to

The IDA stated it "recognizes the interest of WSPRC in maintaining the Dark Sky Park designation for GOSP," but remained "unconvinced that the desire is reflected locally at the Park or in the community of Goldendale."<ref>{{cite web |title=Goldendale-Observatory History - Washington Abandons Its Starry Treasure of Darkness |url=https://www.goldendale-observatory.com/starry-darkness-abandoned.html |publisher=Friends of Goldendale Observatory |accessdate=2 September 2019}}</ref>

Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you intended the accessdate to be 2 September 2019 (with a capital S), and you probably didn't intend the spurious apostrophe which isn't in the actual title of the ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Rm

Moved from talk page

I have been researching wikipedia since my secondary school teacher is a former admin. I want to know if I am allowed to vote in page move discussions or do I need a right for that? Goblin Islander (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Goblin Islander, welcome to Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Commenting on a requested move for information. It states that anyone can contribute to a move discussion. Usually we don’t vote on Wikipedia, instead a consensus is reached, but that is explained in the link above. Please also read our advice for younger editors, so that you can contribute to Wikipedia in the right way and safely. I hope that helps, if you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask on the correct page, not on the talk page. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Why aren't sortable tables sortable in mobile view? And why doesn't Help:Sorting say anything about it? --Thnidu (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

How to rate the importance of an article?

Hello,

I'm a member of Wikiproject Apps and one of the open tasks is to rate the importance of unclassified articles. Can someone explain me how is this done? (e.g. I would like to classify the importance of the article tvOS as high within the scope of Wikiproject Apps)

Thanks in advance, --Coel Jo (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic lists the classes as: top = must-have, high = a depth of knowledge, mid = fills in more minor details, etc. I would also expect some consistency between articles; Microsoft Windows is presently mid-importance in Wikiproject Apps - is tvOS more important to the subject of apps than Windows? (I think maybe Windows needs to have its importance upped). Chris857 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Idea

Hi! Sorry if this isn't the right place to put this. There is a feature that I always wanted on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it exists or not or how I can get my idea heard. My suggestion is to have an article of the day. This article will be completely random, unlike the featured articles. The point of this is that the chosen article will receive a lot of attention, and so, as a result, it will be edited a lot and improved. The article Jordanhill railway station was the 1 millionth article created on the English Wikipedia. The article started out as a 1-sentence stub, but due to its attention, it transformed into a well-referenced and well-formatted article in a day. If the article wasn't the one-millionth article, it would likely still be a small low-quality stub. Melofors (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement? Looks like it might technically be "This week's article for improvement" though. Chris857 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

New and already in an editing war

Hello. I go by Wes. I came across the entry for my 1st grade school and saw it was grossly misreresented. I made some corrections and they were removed.

I guess I should just let it go but it is of some importance to me.

I attended an all black school in the mid 70s 76-78 maybe or 75-77. Along with my sister who was in 6th and 7th grades.

The school taught 1st thru twelfth grades and we we were the only white kids.

Not exactly MLK contributions I realize but it is our history as well as our friends that we made there.

So yes it bothers me to read the school was closed in 1970 and it only taught grades 9 thru 12.

So yes I continued to change it back until I was directed here.

Hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwesleypark1971 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I believe the article in question is Alexander High School (Mississippi). John from Idegon (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires content be verified by published references. Sadly, what we (meaning thousand of editors, not just you) know to be true is not enough. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnwesleypark1971. Please try to remember to assume good fatih and remain civil when dealing with others. Some of your edit summaries are not appropriate at all per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I've posted more about this on your user talk page, but try and avoid this type of thing from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How long for approval?

Hi,

I have created the draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XinFin

Why is the approval taking so long and what must I do to get it approved?

Thanks in advance.