Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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

how to create a red link - Is there a standard way?

I was looking at List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll and noticed the entry for Pomona, a shipwreck: 400 died on 30 April 1859. But clicking on Pomona gives the goddess not the shipwreck.

Google gives a newspaper account of the wreck. http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SDU18590615.2.11&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-------

and the story here: http://www.sligoheritage.com/archpomano.htm

Since there is no article, (or is there?) it should be a red link. How do you achieve that? I suppose change it to Pomona (coffin ship) ? I’m not sure.

Is there a standard way to create red link? - thanks - ClemMacGána (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. :) Technically, to create a red link, you just need to link to an article that does not exist. For example: This is a link to an article that does not exist. However, to create an article, follow the instructions at this page. Regards, --Biblioworm 02:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wondered if there was a standard convention, for now I'll change it to Pomona (coffin ship) - regards ClemMacGána (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does all my teachers dislike wikipedia?

Aceruler1 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aceruler1. The Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. I suggest that you ask your teachers why they feel that way. Our article Criticism of Wikipedia may describe some of their reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do i donate a 1 million dollars to wikipedia?

Aceruler1 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco will be happy to take your donation in any amount. They pay the bills for Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Donates are always appreciated and can be made here; to donate anything over $10,000 USD, however, you'll have to get in touch with the Foundation. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

wmf:Contact us has contact information. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Default category for citing a source?

Lets assume I have found an online article that had previously appeared in a print publication, and I want to use that article as a source. However, since I am not familiar with that particular publication, I wouldn't know if the publication is either a newspaper or a magazine. Which "cite" category should I use for this source? Is there a category that's considered the default category to use when you don't know if you are dealing with a newspaper or a magazine? Would it be acceptable to use "cite journal" in this instance, even if the publication might actually be a newspaper?Lupine453 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lupin453. Why don't you post the link here and see whether anyone else can help identify the publication? Not an expert myself, but there are a lot of knowledgeable people watching the Teahouse, so among us we can probably come up with the answer. LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lupine453. I normally use Template:Cite news for general circulation newspapers and magazines. But you can use any template that contains the necessary fields. Just leave irrelevant fields blank. Please note that you should have enough familiarity with the source publication to feel confident that it is a reliable source. Does it have a Wikipedia article that lacks criticism of its reliability? Google it, visit its website, and evaluate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ok thanks Lupine453 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lupine453, you might also find it useful to look at the short description which covers how to handle your situation at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_read_it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I access the article I submitted before I even knew what I was doing?

I am in the learning stages (i.e. I just turned on edit for the first time). I submitted an article that had no formatting, before I got a username. Is it possible to access my article to start editing it? Is it possible to get it placed under my username? Or should I just start over? The article is Florence Connolly Shipek.Geolog10 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geolog10, welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission is at Draft:Florence Connolly Shipek. It is still waiting to be reviewed. You are welcome to edit it before the review. If it's declined then you will probably also get a chance to improve it and resubmit. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geolog10; welcome to Wikipedia. Your article is well-written but there are some issues I can see with it:

• 'Personal communication' isn't a reliable source. Sources need to be publicly accessible in line with the requirement that everything is verifiable by future readers without access to your private correspondence. If you have a close relationship to the subject of your article, consider whether you can write neutrally about them - although you are doing the right thing, submitting an article with that sort of language in it is going to get it pruned back - resist the temptation to lionise your subject, however great her achievements were (and, without question, what she's done has been very laudable indeed). Make sure publicly available sources state everything you add to the article, and leave out anything you can't substantiate without reference to private, unpublished communication.
• Please read about peacock words. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, so you need to remove where possible positive evaluative language such as 'venerated elder' or that she wrote the 'definitive textbook' or 'never lost a case', unless the sources use that sort of language about her; even then, we do prefer it if these facts are stated as neutrally as possible. Also, I'd personally avoid too much discussion of things not immediately relevant to her scholarship and/or activism, such as details of the subject's personal life or her husband's life and career. This isn't a biography; it's a summary of what makes a person notable: as someone once said: Just the facts.
• You don't need to add a table of contents manually. Articles with more than a certain number of headings generate that automatically. There is no need for 'Background' - this isn't a biography or essay. Rather, maybe start with an 'Education' or 'Early Career' section and document the basic facts about her starting from a convenient point in her timeline, omitting anything that is too personal for a dry encyclopaedia.
• Look up the various Cite... (Cite web, Cite book etc) templates. They help get produce clear and standardised citations for Wikipedia purposes.
• Otherwise, it's quite obvious that this subject is notable and once you get the formatting and copy-writing right, things will fall into place. I wish you every success with getting your article approved - and a productive and peaceful holiday season! LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I did some formatting and hope that has been helpful.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Geolog10, I have to agree with everybody above - you're off to a great start, and with just a bit of cleaning up it will be a fine article. I had a go at cleaning up the citations up as far as number 9; after that it got into the less verifiable written and oral correspondence, so I left those because, as Lstanley1979 described above, they are not really suitable in their present form. For now I have left the old manual list in place too, so you can see how it relates to the automatically generated reference list. I hope what I have done is sufficient that you can see how it all works; if not, then please ask again at the Teahouse! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing main title/page name and corresponding url

Hello All! I am a virtual assistant and my biggest client needs to have his page updated. He changed his name and also required a complete overhaul of his Wiki page. We hired someone to do all of this and were able to get the page looking just right. The issue is, we received unexpected challenges and now he is changing his legal name again. What I need to do is change the name of the page and corresponding url. I don't need any reformatting etc and would really rather not hire this job out (again). The big issue is that I need to figure this out today. Could any of you experts offer me direction on how to change a page's name and url? Thanks!FavAssistant (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the usual date format for references?

I've been using YYYY-MM-DD since I started editing, but a lot of references use the full date (such as December 7, 2014). Which format should I use? StewdioMACK (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, StewdioMACK. Several date formats are acceptable, but once a format is chosen for a given article, all dates should be presented consistently within that article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump: "One-sided" edit-warring: why and how?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_and_why_can_we_have_.22single-sided.22_two-person_edit-wars.3F_.28Self-contradictory.2C_isn.27t_it.3F.29

75.162.177.35 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you've already asked this question be patience and wait until someone reply to you. Do not create multiple threads for the same question. I'm sure those editors will reply back to you. As it's holiday season some editors are on Wikibreak, so it might take longer than usual.--Chamith (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

why can't I edit?

I am trying to give some information which is said by the one who I like to edit on TV but the information I am trying to edit is always considerd as vandalism and is being reverted.why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trender007001005006 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Trender007001005006. I have taken a look at your recent edits. It seems that you are adding information which is unreferenced, and other editors disagree with your edits. In such a situation, it is your obligation to provide references to reliable sources, which support the material you want to add. Please refer to Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to format your references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 that you added unsourced information. However, I also see that one of your edits was reverted with an edit summary that makes no sense at all. The editor stated that they were reverted a good-faith edit, which they were, but also used the word "Vandalism". They should not have used that word in reverting a good-faith unsourced edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have information about a significant person, but I am that person...

My articles are as popular as a woman who is listed on Wikipedia. I have published 40 books this year, and have received several citations of merit. However, most people seem to think that I am an unknown.

Is the only way to be known for intelligence to earn major prizes, or hold a job?

It seems like I've contributed more than enough material to have a place on Wikipedia. It would be good to know beforehand if there is anything 'in the works'... I don't know if my position has any potential right now. I'm even nervous that my position as an editor will ruin my options for being better known.

What if I become a bestselling author? Do I have to rely on luck to be noticed by the editors?

I worry that I just have the wrong name to 'sound famous' even though by some accounts I already have become well known.

I have a website with 104,000 views. I have contributed to an art movement. I write amazing poetry. And I have a philosophy to change the world, focusing on objective knowledge.

Somehow I found the 'suggestions' page, and I have submitted some materials there. But I am nervous that people just think I 'don't sound famous,' even though I have already influenced many people.

The time to achieve credit for my accomplishments is slipping away. People seem to prefer names like David and John and Stewart and Luis and Frederick and Henry and Kuala Lumpur to the name Nathan Coppedge.

Are there additional ways to acquire attention for my work? Do I just have to rely on luck, or is there something highly objective going on?

Should I 'wait' until after I'm dead to receive attention? Am I being too demanding, or should I continue to persist in my belief that I belong on Wikipedia?

Is my thought process necessarily wrong? Am I just too narrow-minded to realize how insignificant I am?

But is it fair to compare me to the space program, while other people get picked up for less notable accomplishments?

Is the major problem a lack of sources?

Is there a way to submit my name into a more privileged voting structure, or would this not necessarily be helpful?

Once again, I think I'm significant, but maybe I'm being impatient. Maybe people need to know who I am before they visit the Wikipedia. But the point of Wikipedia is to provide information on significant things. So I don't feel like I'm 'out' regardless of how I'm treated.

Should Wikipedia be about popularity, or significance? Some people think it's the same thing, but I disagree.

I think I'm at least as significant as Fern Coppedge or Joseph Newman, and critics seem to agree. NCoppedge (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NCoppedge (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, NCoppedge, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, Wikipedia is not about popularity or significance: it is about quality (rather than number) of sources. If several reliable published sources, unconnected with you, have written at length about you, then it is possible to write a good article about you, and Wikipedia may have one. If they have not, then it is impossible to write a satisfactory article about you, so no article is permitted. While there are borderline cases about which editors disagree, on the whole this is an objective requirement.

Because Wikipedia articles are required to be written neutrally, and almost entirely based directly on independent reliable sources, it tends to be difficult for people to write satisfactory articles about themselves or topics they are closely involved with; so writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. But it is not actually forbidden. If you have the necessary sources (remembering that, except for non-controversial factual data like places and dates, the source must be independent of you, your publishers, your agents etc) then you may try writing an article. I strongly suggest that you use the Article wizard, and you need to be prepared to be reviewed carefully. You should also remember that you may not put any information in which has not been published, and that you will not own the article or have any control over it once it is accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Colin. Is there a way to get a peer review recommendation for a short stub article relating to my verifiable accomplishments? I realize my own webpages will not serve as references (I have tried that before), but I have been cited in sources such as the following: critical acclaim at: , my website is listed as a reputable source at: influence upon economic policy of India, at The Economist: , "[C]learly a philosopher of this present age" comment at Project-Syndicate.org: . None of these sources involve friendships or close acquaintances. I could write a blurb like: "Nathan Larkin Coppedge has acquired critical attention for his work on perpetual motion machines (citations), and as a philosopher (citation)." I don't know if including a birth date requires a source, but if so, I suppose I couldn't include that. That makes it more difficult. NCoppedge (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll try the sandbox. NCoppedge (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though Wikipedia strongly discourage writing autobiographies it doesn't mean you can't auto biographies. If you can adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view and avoid creating conflict of interests then there is nothing wrong with writing an article about you. But you must be connected to numerous reliable source to prove credibility. Otherwise everyone would want to create Wikipedia article about them. It's a good idea to use sandbox before creating an article. That way other editors can check your work and guide you. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

References

I have completed a Google search, and I do not believe that Nathan Coppedge is notable. This is a person promoting his ideas about perpetual motion machines. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Independent evidence is wholly lacking. Coppedge should seek publication of his ideas in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. If such journals critique, accept and publish his work, then so should Wikipedia. Otherwise, Coppedge remains utterly non-notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Cullen328. Harsh as it may sound, your proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. You may instead wish to create a profile at one of the many social networking sites, which provide a free platform for this type of thing.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Help in Two Things

I want to add my old account ELreydeEspana to my new account MariaTudor1deInglaterra, I would also like to edit my name to add to the King Philip 2 in my username, thanks (user:MariaTudor1DeInglaterra)

Hi MariaTudor1DeInglaterra, welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts cannot be merged. You can request a change of your username at Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What links here and navbox

As neither categories nor navboxes appear on mobile view, I'd like to check individual pages with what-links-here, to see it needs something like see-also or whatever from a related page. But I haven't found an option to suppress links from the transcluded navbox. Any suggestions? Besides, what is the rationale of not showing a link to the category pages? After all there are links to other languages in mobile view. Jo Pol (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Turning off obnoxious donate banner?

I made a monetary contribution last year in order to access a choice to turn off the OBNOXIOUS ad banners. Has that choice gone away? I can't seem to locate it and I'm getting the OBNOXIOUS ad banners again.

Do I need to look to a third party app to reformat and delete the OBNOXIOUS (theme here...) ad banners.

Curmudgeonly.quilter (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Curmudgeonly.quilter, however FRUSTRATED you feel, you are OBNOXIOUSly screaming "OBNOXIOUS" at thousands of Wikipedia editors who have no control whatever over what the Wikimedia Foundation does with the user interface, and thus making yourself OBNOXIOUS. If you want to leave off being OBNOXIOUS for a moment and look at your user preferences, you'll find what you're looking for under "Gadgets". --ColinFine (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Curmudgeonly.quilter, just a few more points regarding the banners: remember that your preferences can of course only be in effect when you are logged in. And even if like me you work on computers that only you control and so you stay logged in (check the "keep me logged in" box on the login dialog) the system will log you out every few weeks and require you to login again just as a standard security measure. So if you happen to come back to Wikipedia when you have been logged out you will see the banners. Regarding blocking software -- this isn't needed for Wikpedia since you can just set the preferences but I find it very useful on other sites: I recommend https://adblockplus.org/ to block ads and also https://noscript.net/ to control scripting. Noscript can be kind of a pain sometimes, virtually all sites use scripts now so if you install noscript you have to be prepared that every time you go to a new site it's going to not work until/unless you explicitly tell noscript it's safe but I like it a lot especially for some of the Wikipedia editing I do which can take me to links I've never heard of and may not trust, it's nice to have script blocking be the default. It doesn't happen often but once in a while I'll end up clicking on some site that looks really iffy and be glad that said site was blocked ahead of time. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

All logged in users regardless of donations have the option "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

PrimeHunter is right on the money here. No need for NoScript or AdBlock or anything of the sort to turnoff the banner. Tutelary (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess "Regarding blocking software -- this isn't needed for Wikpedia since you can just set the preferences" wasn't clear enough. Next time I'll try to use words of one syllable --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Being an adopter

How can I become an adopter? I went to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and I was figuring out if editing the page and putting my name directly is the correct way to do it. Thanks, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 08:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nahnah4, you see how to become an adopter at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adopter's Area, in the first two sentences. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia want to know how create my page.

Actually I am Wikipedia newbie I don't know how to make my page I created one but may be it's in process of deletion or something actually I am an artist and I want to cretate my Wikipedia page where I can give my information and my social links.. Thanks (In Advance) Harrythetech (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Harrythetech. I think that the other editors do not know you are the real musical artist, and you are not really notable (I've never heard of you in the music industry). They requested for deletion as Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to follow to. If you are the real Harry Bawa, they will not know or even think you are hoax. As a result, refrain from creating an article about yourself. Just describe yourself on your user page. You do not meet the notability guidelines, so that is why they deleted the article. For any other articles you are planning to create, use the Article Wizard to help you through. You can play the The Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to edit in about an hour. Please remember thatt Wikipedia has guidelines and policies to follow, and happy editing! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 08:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Harrythetech. While Adrenaline was right in what they said, I don't think they expressed themselves in a very friendly way. Wikipedia has strong conditions on whether there may be an article on someone or something, which mostly comes down to whether or not other reliable sources (such as newspapers or book publishers) have written about the subject: we refer to these criteria as "notability". So when Adrenaline says you are not really notable, they are not being rude, just saying that there has not been much written about you in reliable sources such as the press. (I have not checked whether or not that is the case, but that's what it means). The other point that Adrenaline referred to without explaining, is that Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a neutral way, entirely based upon published sources. It is difficult for most people to write in a neutral way about themselves, their relatives, their band, their company etc; so we strongly discourage people from writing or editing articles about any of these. As Adrenaline says, you may write something about yourself on your user page, but this is not a Wikipedia article, and should be mostly about yourself as a Wikipedia editor.

If you want to go ahead and try and make an article about yourself, then follow Adrenaline's suggestions; but you may find it a tough battle: you will not own or have control over the article once it is written. --ColinFine (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not called Adrenaline btw, ColinFine. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 03:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed signature to prevent confusion here. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My accurate data on the dan Anton page is immediatley and constantly deleted

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

Edits and factual data I present on this page are immediately deleted by Antondb.

I do note that there is no documentation of any sort regarding the information presented on this page regarding Dan Anton.

I do see this as a problem because some person can create any biographical page they wish to create about themselves.

you may view the edit history and see that accurate data is immediately removed.

devadip334Devadip334 (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also created a talk page for this issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Anton

devadip334Devadip334 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The page has been deleted twice in the last ten days. Not a good sign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Consolidating sandboxes

I have too many sandboxes. I was thinking of consolidating many by using the "Move" featue. Is that the best way?```Buster Seven Talk 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Buster7 and welcome to the Teahouse! I've added a template to your page that will make it easy to create new sandboxes and keep track of all of them. I'd be happy to help you move your sandboxes to be listed in that box if you need assistance! :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Buster7: Hi Buster7. Wow, you have a lot of subpages. I know of no way you can do any consolidation using moves (well, actually, administrators can do a form of consolidation by doing history merges of pages which involves moves, but it is not in the slightest way relevant here). Since the pages you are here about, or at least the ones I looked at, only have edits by you, you can simply copy and paste the content from one or more pages into another below the existing text and save, and then tag the pages you copied from for speedy deletion using {{db-u1}}/{{db-user}}. (Doing this where the pages have substantive edits by other users would result in a copyright problem.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Technical 13 and Fuhghettaboutit. Those are the answers I needed. Tech...I will be getting in touch with you after the New Year to help me create the sandboxes I need ```Buster Seven Talk 06:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New page patrol too confusing!

I'm trying to figure out how to become a new page patroller but all of the stuff is weird. I don't get all of these strange rules. Can anyone explain what I have to do in English? EMachine03 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi EMachine03 welcome to the Teahouse. New page patrol is a feature on Wikipedia that allow other editors to check newly created pages for defects or copyright violations issues. All you have to do is check new pages for obvious errors. If there are any issues regarding the page you can fix them yourself or notify the page creator. If there is a copyright violation you have to nominate the page for speedy deletion under specific criteria for speedy deletion. After reviewing the page you have to mark that page as patrolled. You can do this by clicking Mark this page as patrolled at the bottom of the page. You can access the list of newly created pages here. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@EMachine03: Hi EMachine03. Doing newpages patrol as to all the things that falls under its purview (and doing each of those tasks properly), actually requires a great deal of experience; each sub-area has lots of ins and outs – marking for speedy deletion or other deletion; maintenance tagging; adding categories, recognizing if the title is proper and what it should be, stub tagging, etc. & etc. Luckily, there are many task involved that you can learn in smaller bites before tackling trying to do all of what's appropriate for each new article you open at Special:Newpages.

Because it's sort of the key gateway function, I would start with learning speedy deletion. You need to invest some time in study. Start with learning what the criteria for speedy deletion actually say. If you know no other, or if you want to take a smaller bite before moving on, learn CSD A7 backwards and forwards (the most common criterion used) – what is within its ambit and what's not and the various deletion tags (templates like {{db-band}}, {{db-person}}) associated with it (please also note the suggested warning to place on a person's talk page that you can copy and paste from the tag body). (You can use Twinkle to automate some of this, as well as Wikipedia:Page Curation through Special:NewPagesFeed though I personally believe learning manually at first is important.)

Once you learn one or more criterion can then go to newpages and just look for appropriate articles to nominate with the appropriate tags for the topics under that criterion, if they meet its basis. Once you gain some careful experience, you can learn other ones and so on. As I indicated this is just one aspect of newpages patrol but you have to start somewhere. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Would anyone be willing to review recent submission: Draft: Cherzong Vang

Would anyone have the time or interest to review a recent submission of ours, given the large backlog entitled (????): Draft: Cherzong Vang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cherzong_Vang

thank you Publico2020 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Especially given we are still learning how to submit, edit and many other things on Wikipedia.

Also, not sure how to fully categorize, or create charts, in various categories (Hmong, Laos, Vietnam War, Important Hmong-American and Lao-American people, War in Laos, military history, Laos Civil War etc)Publico2020 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. I've had a look as a signed-up article reviewer, and the main issues I can see, which probably won't affect the notability or referencing of the subject or the acceptance of the article, are that references are not spaced out (that is, you don't put a space between punctuation and reference or between two references placed together), and it would be good to use Template:Cite web to format the references properly so the urls are tidied away into templated references. Other than that, I'm not seeing an issue, but then again be warned I haven't delved into the details of the article or its sources (and am more of a copy-editor than a content-creator, so may be missing something else).

As for the charts, I have no idea on that, but someone else will no doubt be along shortly. Good luck with getting the article accepted. (On a related note, I have a question of my own: as a relatively new reviewer, is it acceptable to edit drafts at AfC for copy-editing reasons, or should those be left alone for an original contributor to fix?) LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And I do think it'd be better if you trimmed down unnecessary links in See also section.--Chamith (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Publico2020: I note with interest that you have been referring to yourself with "we" and "our", implying that your account may be shared by multiple persons. Please be aware that user accounts are supposed to represent your contributions as an individual, and for this reason, role accounts that are shared by multiple people are against Wikipedia policy. One especially important thing to know is that if you represent an organization or a company, you should avoid or be extremely cautious about editing articles affiliated with your organization. The reason for this is because you may have a conflict of interest for those subjects, meaning that you may find it difficult to write from a neutral point of view. Without intentionally doing so, editors tend to write biased content in the subjects they have a conflict of interest in. With regards to your draft, it looks pretty good. There are a few formatting errors that can be fixed through general editing. The ultimate question that will determine whether or not it will be accepted is whether or not the subject is notable—topics are generally notable when they have received significant coverage from reliable sources. This means that the quality of the sources you provide are essential for the submission's success. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mz7: - good point. Having looked at the article, there are a few issues, but nothing really that suggests a COI issue or is overly promotional (or which couldn't be overcome by a bit of judicious editing once it goes live). Most of what is mentioned - absent the OTT See also section that Chamith notes - is noteworthy and is about someone who assisted in law-making to assist the naturalisation of various individuals involved in the Vietnam War, rather than about a company or organisation which is outside the scope of the project. However, Publico2020 does need to note the policy on shared accounts. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Publico2020 and Lstanley1979: Taking note of the above, I have gone ahead and Accepted the submission and moved it to Cherzong Vang. Publico2020, thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia! I would recommend you read the advice above carefully, and if you have any further questions, feel free to come back to the Teahouse! Happy editing, Mz7 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear LouiseS1979, Chamith , Mz7,

Thank you for the comments, suggestions, feedback and help.

I appreciate it.

I am a new user and still learning. With regard to "we" and "our", I am the only one using the account. I am married, so sometimes forget to write things in the singular, especially around Christmas when signing Christmas cards, etc.

Thank you again. I am still learning about Wikipedia and how to do things, seems like there is a lot to know.

Merry Christmas , Happy Holidays, Happy New Year.

Very grateful for your help in trying to understanding these matters regarding my request & questions.

Publico2020 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Do and Don't on Wiki

Comment added at end of Tea house by Internet user: @82.196.32.2: , moved to top by MadScientistX11

Hey All,

I am very new at wiki and i don't know much. So anyone can please tell me what are do and don't on Wiki and how write and edit post effectively.

Greetings 82.196.32.2 welcome to the teahouse. Well, the first Do is to remember to use the "Ask a Question" feature in the teahouse. You added your question to the end of the page so it didn't get noticed. BTW, don't feel bad about that it's a very common mistake and really barely counts as a mistake because it's more sort of a glitch in the tea house that we use a different standard than other talk pages. Anyway, here are some good overview articles: Wikipedia:five pillars, wp:42, wp:referencing for beginners A couple of personal observations: remember that the tone here is supposed to be (and usually is) very different than most of the Internet. It is much more collaborative here. We try to never get personal or insult people and always focus on the tasks at hand and questions about wikipedia:policies Another major difference is that we take copyright of text and images very seriously here. The kind of random copy and pasting, especially of images, that you see on sites like Facebook or other social media is not allowed here. Also, one bit of advise I always give to new editors is don't start by trying to create a new page. There are LOTS of existing pages that need editing. You can see those here: Wikipedia:Community_portal down where it says "Help Out" there are categories for various kinds of fixes (e.g., add references) as well as links that say "Learn how" with tips for how to do it. One last thing, if you ever watched Law and Order you may remember Jack McCoy had the saying "I only know what I can prove in court". I always think there should be a Wikipedia equivalent of the Jack McCoy rule: we only know what we can cite in reliable sources If it's not documented in a good reference then it can't be published here yet. Hope that halps. Happy editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@82.196.32.2: Two last things I forgot to mention, I actually should have said these first: I strongly recommend getting a Wikipedia:User name rather than just using an IP address and also once you have an ID always remember to login before making any edits and remember to sign all your comments on talk pages like this one (use five tildas or just use the signature icon in the editor). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

One more don't: Don't call Wikipedia "Wiki"! There are thousands and thousands of wikis on the internet. This particular Wiki is called Wikipedia --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Renaming a page's name

Hello,

I'm trying to change the name of a page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanco to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/globalCloudXchange

because the name of the company has changed. I'm also unable to change the title..

Can anyone please help me?

Many thanks. 82.196.32.2 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Ochilov (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I already made the move...Not sure why you have changed it to all one word? Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ochilov:There seems to be some sort of mix-up here. If you do not have a, to us, unknown reason for moving the page to the "one-word-page", I think you should move it back to the place where Theroadislong placed it since that is how the name is written in the article and then perhaps delete the "one-word-page". Or discuss it with Theroadislong for a good outcome of this. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ochilov: Unless there is an obvious to reason to rename a page do not rush to move it just because someone requested. This wouldn't have happened if you have discussed it with other editors on article's talk page or here. I'm sure that you didn't notice that Theroadislong made the move before you. Anyways you better discuss it with Theroadislong as soon as possible otherwise some readers may not be able to find the correct article. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm in trouble. What should I do now, W.carter, ChamithN? --Ochilov (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ochilov:I think it would be best if you discussed this with Theroadislong, and the two of you can agree on something. That is a very experienced editor who can give you good advice. - w.carter-Talk 15:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I did check that the company actually changed their name to "Global Cloud Xchange" and it seems to be correct. Can the recent rename be undone or does it need an admin to sort out the redirects? Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are absolutely sure that their new name is "Global Cloud Xchange" there is no need for an admin to get involved. Just be bold and move it correctly.--Chamith (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see now why Ochilov got confused and moved to that page. The page move requested by the IP that started the whole thing, wrote the name in one block. So the next time someone writes a new address, check it against the article and also remember that the http and the Wiki-link are not always exactly the same, since there is no spacing in https save with "_". Best, w.carter-Talk 16:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The company's website refers to the company as "Global Cloud Xchange" so I think the page needs to be moved to Global Cloud Xchange over the redirect.--ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Can someone tell me the template, which is used on article talk pages to stop the references appearing on the bottom? Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vigyani - you want {{Reflist-talk}}. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a background in my Portal?

I'm in the sandbox working on a new portal. I wish to add an image as the background ( in the black area). How do I do it? You can use any image as an example.

my sandbox

The code that is related to that black area is at the very top of the source. I don't think it is a good idea to copy and paste it here Tetra quark (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Tetra quark: and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm now an expert on portals, but I did a little bit of searching and I can't find any portals that actually do have background images. They tend to have simple layouts so I think the one that you have is good already. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 04:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheQ Editor: You're now an expert on portals? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a crack here, but I can't figure out how to float the image behind the table structure, which means the bottom of the page is cut off. Might be worth asking someone like Technical 13 for a hand; it's a bit beyond me. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanaks again. I managed to make the box collapsed by default so it would fit in the page. I've published my portal now and created links to it on other pages: Portal:Cosmology. Once again, thanks for the help Tetra quark (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that looks great! That's exactly the image I wanted to add by the way. I guess this is a first step at adding a background image. I'll check the source to see how you did that and perhaps I figure out how to make it not cut the page off. I was thinking that maybe I could open MSPaint and duplicate that image by hand, so it will have a greater height. Then I upload it to commons and try using it. Well, thanks for your work Tetra quark (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener: Ahh... that was a horrible typo. "I'm not an expert on portals". Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 12:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a simple and obvious solution that didn't occur to me; just repeat the image. No need to do it off wiki - see what the draft looks like now. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: and @Tetra quark: hope you don't mind some friendly kibitzing but I've been glancing at the Portal, btw, very cool awesome job and wonderful topic, and I liked it better without the image background. Part of this is just my style, I'm very much a minimalist and like a user interface to focus on the content and the task not on looking slick but IMO the topic is so interesting and the content so fascinating having a flashy background is not needed and is just a distraction. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad you liked it! I don't believe the background is flashy. It is mostly black anyway :) Tetra quark (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"@Yunshui:, that is great! If we make the "Celestial events by month" section hidden by default, everything will fit in just fine. However, I wonder what made the "About" box fall to the bottom? It should be on top. Tetra quark (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the errant "About" box. I don't really want to do anything to the Astronomical events page (or anything else in the Portal's namespace), so I'll let you deal with collapsing the Celestial Events section (personally I wouldn't bother, though). Yunshui ^雲_水 14:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I took a quick poke at it. I've cleaned up all of your nonHTML5 compliant code, and I tinkered with the background image thing a little, but I just don't have time to get it working. You might want to look at examples of others doing this kind of thing on the userpages of The Earwig, Soni, and Yunshui. You may also want to ask Edokter for some help as he is my go-to guy for CSS trickery. Good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheQ Editor: you can edit. nownot.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there :)

I met a man who teaches at my school and he asked if i knew how to create a wiki page for him, i said i can give it my all, and it seems 6-7 times someone has tried to create a page for this cool dude and they didn't follow thro, he is a very noteable man and deserves me to create this page to the highest standards, but i can't find all the codes and buttons to create that main page for this main dude, any advice? or web pages u can lead me to to get that codes an platforms? :)

i thank you for your time

Viva ed impari!@ZieanteZieante (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zieante: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! :) If you want to create an article about him, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article. That'll guide you through the whole process. Make sure he's notable! Good luck! :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zieante. Are you referring to the article Deepak Shimkhada? If you are, then, in addition to the advice AmaryllisGardener gave you above, I also suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest editing. In particular, I recommend "Wikipedia's Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guide", "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest" and "Writing about yourself and your work". In general, creating or editing articles about people you know or who are connected to in some way is discouraged on Wikipedia. COI editing is not expressly prohibited, but it's can be a tricky thing to do. If your teacher is really notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it might be better for you to leave the editing to others in order to avoid any misunderstandings. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC); edited 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it determined if something is relevant enough for a Wikipedia page?

I'd like to create one for the company I work for. I think the company's wikipedia page would be a good resource for people to get an unbiased look at what we've accomplished since opening almost 20 years ago. We're a locally owned business in Springfield, MO, USA and have lead the market for over a decade. I don't say that for promotion, just to qualify my question about relevance. I'm well aware of the practices of creating a page, and my intention is not to include links or self promotion. Just curious if it would be considered relevant enough. 76.77.134.2 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@76.77.134.2: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. It is not recommended that people write Wikipedia articles about their own companies, but you have the right attitude. If you can write with a neutral point of view and find independent reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines and books that have written extensively about your company, you can certainly try. Start with someone independent of your company who can verify the claim that you "lead the market". Just be sure to disclose your conflict of interest. The best thing is to write a user draft so that the article can be evaluated before it goes to mainspace. Otherwise, it will likely be criticized and possibly deleted before you have a chance to improve it. The process is described at WP:AFC.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Internet user: I just wanted to add to the good info that Vchimpanzee provided above: a common mistake, I can't say how many times I've seen this happen, for people creating articles about their company is to copy text from the company web site and paste it in as the article. This almost never works and is almost certain to get the article rejected. For one thing there are copyright issues but even more importantly the text for a Wikipedia article is meant to be neutral where as the text for a company web site is almost always promotional. Just thought you might like a heads up so you can avoid a common pitfall. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. One more thing I want to add to the good advice you have already been given: your wording "an unbiased look at what we've accomplished", despite the word "unbiased" is already promotional language. Wikipedia is not about what anybody has accomplished or failed to accomplish (unless it cites a reliable independent source which talks in those terms): it is about what the subject has done, but it is not Wikipedia's business to describe that as "accomplishment". --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How and why can we have "single-sided" two-person edit-wars? (Self-contradictory, isn't it?)

Hey, can I talk to an administrator, please?

What the hell is the deal with only one person in an edit-war getting the shaft while the other one, who's doing the same thing, gets to come away clean? (I'm not talking about a war where there are 2 or more editors in consensus against the one, so that means that maybe only the one is warring; I mean a one-on-one war!) It's like some admin.s think that the editor whom they agree with "isn't edit-warring," while only the other person "is," so they only block one of the two, even though the other one was doing the same thing, and even though WP policy say that even the one who is correct can still be warring! What the hell is up with that?

And then what's with you admins (assuming that I have gotten your attention now and are talking to one instead of just a regular-member host here) not being willing to continue a discussion in a user's talk page until it's actually done (like when they have a question like this, but then with follow-ups)?

75.162.177.35 (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings 75.162.177.35 welcome to the teahouse. Sorry I'm not an admin but I'm going to reply anyway. Also, sorry your editing experience hasn't been good so far. A couple of points: first at Wikipedia there isn't all that much distinction between admins and regular editors. There are a few things only admins can do but those are more technical things. Most of the discussions, consensus, etc. are collaborations among editors and what counts in those discussions is not who the editor is, not if they are an admin or have a PhD, etc. but the strength and relevance of their arguments. In those discussions admins are just considered to be one more editor. Second, yes in edit warring who is making what changes absolutely matters. Here is a real example: last night someone vandalized a page I watch by adding their name, or at least a name, into one of the section headings. I reverted the edit. If that person had made the same edit and I reverted again I wouldn't worry about an admin looking at that and saying I was edit warring, the change was obviously vandalism and it makes no sense to leave some arbitrary name in a section heading where no rational person could think it really belongs. That's an extreme case of course and I'm sure your case is more nuanced but my point is just that this example shows when evaluating an edit war it's not just how many changes each user made but are they following wikipedia:policies. One last thing: remember the goal here is consensus, not perfection. Trust me we've all had work reverted and lost arguments about it and for some of us (me for example) it can really piss us off when that happens. In such situations I always try to remind myself that Wikipedia is huge and there are always other articles to edit and other editors to work with. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But I was talking about situations where no vandalism is involved. What then?

75.162.177.35 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you had a contribution history, I would look at it and see what article you had this experience in. However, you have no contribution history except here, so that it is hard to say what the problem has been. Other examples of what one editor might be said to be edit-warring and another would not are that the first editor is adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to biographies of living persons and the second is removing it, or the first editor is adding original research and the second is removing it, or the first editor is adding material without explanation in edit summaries and on the talk page and the second is removing it with discussion on the talk page. Until we look at the actual article, we can't say much more. In general, if you are warned that you are edit-warring, you should stop editing and should start discussing on the article talk page. If discussion on the article talk page does not help, read dispute resolution and follow one of the dispute resolution procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything we can say beyond MadScientistX11's good answer without knowing specifically what page or edits you are asking about. While Wikipedia has policies, it is almost always that case that general questions don't have good answers: it usually depends on the circumstances. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, guys, thanks for your responses. Please look at the edit-warring that was going on at One Magnificent Morning between sphsu, another IP, and IDriveAStickShift over whether or not 2 "sources" that falsely say that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" (another implication of that is "R.I.P., Saturday morning cartoons"). For some reason, the admins who took hold of that seem to think that ..."StickShift" was supposedly "edit-warring," while spshu supposedly "wasn't."

Curious, I linked around to their talk pages, and eventually end up seeing a report by Stick about spshu's edit-warring. But then the report ends up showing "declined." But guess what happened to IDrive...! HE ends up getting blocked for "edit-warring" without spshu's being blocked too! WHY? If spshu was reverting just as much as the IP and StickShift were, then why doesn't he get in trouble for warring too? How can one of them not be considered as warring, while the other is, still, even though the one removing false "sources" was not vandalizing the article (which would then make the reversions against those removals not considered as warring because they're reverting vandalism instead)?

75.162.177.35 (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for deleted page cont.

Hi. I asked a question about a deleted page (BN 1470), and I am really disappointed with the results. I wanted you administrators to copy the source code and paste it at the bottom of the question, but you didn't. You just said it was patent nonsense. I know that it was patent nonsense, but I cannot remember at the top of my head what was in the page. So, can you please paste the source code of the page at the bottom? Thanks. ApparatumLover (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@ApparatumLover: The entire page made by User:Galaxy-15 was: BN 1470 is called Scooby-doo. It is part of TV fiction (pertend friends on TV) It is 87 million inches away, 17 inches across, and at magnitude 11.7.[[File:Scooby-doo.jpg]]

The only other edit by the account was the creation of BN 1372 with this: BN 1372 is also called Tuck.It also is a friend. It is part of TV fiction (pertend friends on TV) It is also on the channel Nick.jr. And it is 69-72 million inches away, and at magnitude 14.7.[[File:Example.jpg]]

PrimeHunter (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)