Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, 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

Need Help Please

Hello, You contacted me about changes to the entry "The MacDuffie School" It is NOT a new article for creation/entry, it is an update since the school has gone through many changes, however the updated changes are not being allowed. Can you help with the editing since I'm new to this?

The update is in my sandbox:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mis.reid/sandbox
Do you need the sandbox article to be in a draft? I would like you to proofread it.
You state in your comments the rule, an account cannot be used by more than one person. I have no idea who the people are who are tied to the MacDuffie school account? A former student of the school had edited the entry maybe 10 years ago, but she is long gone. At this time, I would like the entry to have the correct and current information, not ancient history as the primary explanation.

Appreciate your help, Ms.ReidMis.reid (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Nahimana: How can I make this page as good as possible?

Hey Teahouse,

My name is Nicole and I need to write a wikipedia page about Thomas Nahimana. Nahimana is running for President of Rwanda in the 2017 election. There isn't much information published about Nahimana specifically, and even less in English. I am working on the page now. It's a draft. I found a couple wordpress sites that I'm citing, and I'm also citing reputable articles about his biggest competitors for the election. Can I cite Nahimana himself for providing me with information about his age, schooling, etc?

Thanks for your help.

Cnd2015 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Cnd2015: and welcome to the Teahouse!

Almost universally*, Wikipedia only accepts content that is verifiable as having been previously published in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Blogs are almost certainly not appropriate and will not help to establish that the subject meets the requirements for a stand alone article. You may also be interested in WP:POL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

* Wikipedia would not accept that Nahimana had sent you an e-mail that "confirmed" facts. If your email encouraged Nahimana to post facts on a website that is positively identifiable as his official website, non-promotional information bits about Nahimana could be cited to his website, but that would do nothing to help establish that Nahimana meets the requirements for a stand alone article in the first place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Review tags on pages - how to remove after incorporating the suggestions

Hello, Waswo X. Waswo I had worked on this page and made changes as per the review template highlights. Had left a note to the editor who had made the review template - no response. Also had posted a comment in the talk page. How to further improve the article / get the feedback and remove the tags when the changes have been made !! Thank you Tirutirutiru (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tirutirutiru, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor may remove such maintenance tags if s/he believes in good faith that the problem has been fixed, or did not apply. (If someone else disagrees and restores the tags, do not edit-war over it, but discuss on the article talk page.) If one is unsure, consulting a more experienced editor is a good idea, but it need not be the person who placed the tags. DES ^(talk) 13:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel !! Tirutirutiru (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how to get my first page out of Drafts into the real world! ;)

Someone asked me for help creating a page about them. They have been published, received international awards and done multiple speaking engagements etc.

So I made them a page :)

I think it meets any/all requirements but certainly I could have missed something (my first one -- to be expected right?)

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

The page is: Draft:Anna Astvatsaturian Turcotte

Rstudner (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Rstudner: and welcome to the Teahouse!

I have added a template to the page so that when you are ready, you can click the green button to add the article to the review queue.

However, at this time, it appears that the article is not ready for "the real world" as it does not appear to meet the criteria for a stand alone article: that the subject of the article has received significant discussion, by people not related to the subject in reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight - such as academic journals, major newspapers or standard published books or magazines. Or see also the alternative criteria for writers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the template!

I guess I can't "make her more notable" by any actions of my own. She is a published author that has been to capital hill and spoken in front of the Armenian Caucus etc.

She has multiple mentions in newspapers (Armenian weekly etc) but of course not the new york times :)

(i'm not complaining hah -- just trying to help someone out of course). I'll talk to her and see if there are more references/sources and things that can link back to her etc.

Thanks for taking the time!

Rstudner (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the feedback from previous submissions, which you deleted a few days ago. Hence there is a "Resubmit" button, rather than the "Submit" button which TRPoD mentioned which would apply for a first submission. The feedback is there to help you and to help future reviewers. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

the Awards_and_decorations_of_Armenia#Mkhitar_Gosh_Medal might count - depending upon whether they are given out by the dozens or one a year. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

David - Ack! Sorry about that. I think i was unaware when I was asked to try to help that this whole process had been done a couple years ago etc etc and I was clicking out of confusion.

Definitely not my intention to scrub. Thanks for the feedback & restoring the old feedback. Much appreciated.

Rstudner (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm researching how common that medal is. I know a couple US poilticians have gotten them (Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) & Mike Gatto (D-Los Angeles)). The President of Armenia has to specifically sign something according their countries law to award them etc.

“Pursuant to paragraph 16, article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia awards these medals"

It is the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed etc.

Rstudner (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Messed up redirect

Can someone fix the redirect so that a request for Burmese–Siamese War (1568–1569) leads to Burmese–Siamese War (1568-1569) instead of the Burmese–Siamese wars article?--Catlemur (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Catlemur. I am assuming the reason you did not fix this yourself is because you had trouble accessing the redirect – it's not uncommon. If I'm correct that that was the issue, when you attempt to navigate to a redirected title and are redirected, you will see at the top of the page you land on, just below the page's title, "(Redirected from Burmese–Siamese War (1568–1569))" Click on that linked (blue) text to access the redirect to edit it. By the way, I relocated your post to the top of the page, as this forum uses top posting. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was very useful.--Catlemur (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy about future changes that are known? (eg. politicians who have won an election but not yet sworn in to their new role)

From time to time, announcements are made about changes that will occur in the future. For example, a politician may win an election, with their appointment to their role to occur many days or weeks in the future. Sometimes companies will announce mergers and acquisitions, and again, these events are only finalized many days or weeks after the announcement. In these situations, the relevant Wikipedia article could mention the situation in prose, but not as if the status quo exists no longer. For example, if Joe Sixpack wins the 2016 US Presidential Election, in December 2016, the article about the President of the United States may mention that Joe Sixpack will become the new president, however, the infobox will still have Obama listed as president. Unfortunately some editors edit articles as if the change has already occurred. Is there a Wikipedia policy that covers these situations? I know there is WP:CRYSTAL, however that policy seems to cover unverifiable speculation, whereas the scenarios I describe are verifiable, only that the change has not yet occurred.

Examples: 

• Recent edits to Activision Blizzard and King (company) following the mere announcement of a merger that will take place in the future.
• Edits to Prime Minister of Australia after Turnbull was elected as the leader of his political party, but before he was officially sworn in as Prime Minister. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gfcvoice. The policy is Verifiability. Using the proper tense is part of verifiability. If reliable sources state that two companies will merge after various legal and financial formalities are completed, then we summarize that in the future tense. Once reliable sources say that the merger is complete, we can describe the new company in the present tense, and the merger process in the past tense. The same is true of politicians who are described as holding an office only after reliable sources report that they have been sworn in, not when TV networks project victory, or even when election results are certified. The previous office holder continues until the new person is sworn into office. The first place to try to resolve content disputes like this is the article talk pages. There is no such discussion on the company pages. On the Australian prime minister page, most editors commenting seem to agree with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. Yes I can see from the Verifiability policy "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which I presume also extends to "the editor who incorrectly jumps the gun and talks about a change that will occur in the future, but has not yet occurred". Gfcvoice (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are incorrect as you stated, and you are correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, and for my two cents I will suggest that sometimes you might also like to consider making it clear when particular information was current, if it is the sort of thing that is likely to change. There is even a template for this: {{as of}}. So you could say something like "As of December 2016, Joe Sixpack won the US Presidential Election and is awaiting inauguration." --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist error?

I just added an article to my watchlist. The new item is listed for November the 3rd, but my time is actually a day before, November the 2nd. Wiki error, or am I just not understanding how Watchlists work? Xavier (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Times on your watchlist are GMT Thanks, Xavier. John from Idegon (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is Wikipedia time as indicated by my signatures stating the 3rd. This situation gets a little confusing for me since I mainly operate on a graveyard schedule.

Xavier (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Slightly more accurately, Wikipedia operates on Coordinated Universal Time, which is abbreviated UTC. You will see that abbreviation in the time stamps. So, it is already November 3 in London, but only 4:14 p.m. November 2 in California where I live. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. When I worked graveyard, I had my watch set on Military time (24hr vs 12hr), because I could never remember which side of noon it was when I woke up. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: You can set your time zone at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. It affects logs like those in watchlists, page histories and user contributions. Signatures will still be in UTC unless you also enable "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. If you have to mention times to others then please try to use UTC and not the time you see with your account settings. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Figures

Hi

I can't get Wiki to upload some png files even although I have given permission to use the copyright. It keeps telling me that the files exist when they have not been uploaded. What is the best way to add them as they are best used as inserts. Thanks Bentley Doggy (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bentley Doggy: Try refreshing your browsing history. Otherwise this might be a browser issue or more simply an issue involving your CPU, please make sure these potential causes are diagnosed. If you still are having trouble maybe the village pump is the place to go. Hope that helps!

--Xavier (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bentley Doggy, welcome to the Teahouse. Please give the exact name of a file the software says exists but you don't think really exists. Edits at Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are shown in different logs. Special:Contributions/Bentley Doggy shows no uploads here at the English Wikipedia but commons:Special:Contributions/Bentley Doggy shows one upload at Commons: commons:File:Figure 1 Illustrations of effectiveness.png. Is that it? Commons files can also be used in the English Wikipedia with exactly the same syntax. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sharing custom Wiki skins

Is there a group or community where I can share and discuss custom Wiki skins? Xavier (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki skins? Do you mean Wikipedia:Signatures?--3 of ♦ _{I go} ^first 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably WP:SKIN. ie: Vector, Monobook, etc RudolfRed (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Xavier. I don't know of anything directly meeting your criteria on Wikipedia. While you can customize your skin in various ways, AFAIK you can only choose from Monobook, Cologne Blue Modern and Vector as the base. There is mw:Skin projects but it looks like something that never took off at all. See also mw:Manual:Gallery of user styles, mw:Manual:Skinning/Archive, mw:Extension talk:MobileSkin. Or course there's lots of other wikis with discussion of skin customization that a simple Google search of <custom wiki skins> finds. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I use personal CSS on my common.css page. Is my custom CSS not considered a skin?

--Xavier (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're slightly bogged in terminology. I was saying our sandwich menu only offers ham & swiss, salami, PB&J or baloney but you can customize the fixings. Yes if you customize enough that that could be called a new skin (different sandwich). Anyway, I still know of no dedicated forum for sharing or your CSS tweaks. You might discuss issues at Wikipedia talk:Skin or Wikipedia talk:Customisation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Publishing of new pages

I saved my company dot com sandbox details today 02.11.2015, when shall i expect my page will be published IEleads (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You may have saved it, but you have not submitted it for review. Please return to it and click the big green button. Nothing will happen until you do.

A volunteer reviewer will review it in due course and may push it back to you for further work, or may find it unsuitable for inclusion if the org fail WP:CORP, for example Fiddle Faddle 18:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you do submit it, it will be declined. You have a conflict of interest because the article is about your company. The draft article in the sandbox also does not provide evidence of corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Declined for the reasons predicted and noted on the draft prior to submission. Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for this decline are well defined in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Xavier (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User page question

Is it against the rules to write my own short biography on my user page, granted I am not self promoting and not using pictures? All links would be purely internal and the purpose is strictly for introducing myself to the community.

I also want to create the biography in "Wiki layout fashion" so as to get some practice in for creating pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier enc (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read most of the rules and guidelines topics and have not found any mention of this behavior. --Xavier (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Most folk put something about themselves on their user page. I would not put your resumé, but I would certainly put there material that you feel comfortable with revealing to the world. Remember that search engines have ling memories.

I have some thing about me on mine, but not a huge amount, for example. Others have more detail, some have none at all. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I can see from your user page that I am not the only one who is going for this layout.

I have another question in relation to this subject. Does listing my professions and their corresponding internal links for educational purposes violate the rules and guidelines? My intention is to encourage education on a broad number of subjects through example. Seeing as how this is an Encyclopedia, only a user page seems fit for such intentions.

--Xavier (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: I think it is fine to do so. The full answer can change depending on what you put there of course. I imagine that, were you to keep a brothel and link to that brothel, purely for educational purposes, that might well be disapproved of. The answer here is to be wise. Fiddle Faddle 18:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what I expected to hear. I do not want any external links on my user page.

Thank you --Xavier (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: do the WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO pages help? Generally you are encouraged to put stuff as it relates to your editing of Wikipedia: Interests, biases, resources you have access to or services (like translations) that you can provide.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Yes these pages do. I have already read the entire article on what Wiki is and is not. Then, I read it again for posterity. The one on User pages was new for me. This really cleared things up for me. It would seem that a short Bio is acceptable as long as it contributes to Wiki's goals and of course is not self promotion.

--Xavier (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I would also like to take the time to clarify, for any other readers out there, the following point on the subject of biographies on a user page: Wikipedia is not a web host. I think this message is pretty straightforward. So in other words, if my content has excessive personal content and strays from the goals of Wikipedia, than my content might be in violation.

--Xavier (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: yes, that is right. and in most cases of "violation" what would happen is you would be asked to remove it, or someone would edit to remove inappropriate content. It is generally pretty non-controversial, particularly if the user is serious and flexible in wanting to support the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Thank you. I believe my user page currently falls under guidelines. I really just wanted to add a content box near the top to organize it better.--Xavier (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't Find Draft Article from 10/30/15

Hello there, Thank you for your availability. On 10/30/15, I created an article using Article Wizard for Gregory V. Jones, and because I wanted to review and revise before publishing, I did not SAVE. Instructions seemed that SAVE would publish the article and so release immediately, but that the draft could be available for some time. I can not find the article searching draft space. Have I lost my draft? Thank you for your help- Maureen.Mbattistella (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Saving is vital. You have lost your work. Fiddle Faddle 18:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the only edit that you have made. Saving a draft using the Article Wizard saves the article in draft space. It does not immediately submit it to Articles for Creation for review. Unfortunately, you need to re-create the draft, either using the Article Wizard or by editing directly in draft space. When you are ready to submit it for review, you can submit it for review. I know that losing your draft is frustrating. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding Libel?

I'm writing a BLP. Some sources (blogs as well as published biographies of others) describe this person's behavior in his profession as being "semi-shady" based on interviews with people who know him. IMO, no firm evidence is provided to support this conclusion. Notability is established by other accomplishments. What are my responsibilities as a writer? Can I omit this negative information and still maintain NPOV? I have no connection with this person but I feel uncomfortable about having my user ID here associated with written allegations that I can neither prove nor disprove. I don't want to be accused of libel. Thanks for your thoughts. Kekki1978 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your primary responsibility is to include only things backed up by scrupulous references in WP:RS that back up every fact you assert that is susceptible to potential challenge. I use the following to judge BLP references:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make an article clear of accusations of libel. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person or fact is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

I hope that is some assistance. Fiddle Faddle 18:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Libel is complex, as I am sure you can appreciate. If you consider something might be a potential libel then the wise course is not to include it. The challenge is compounded by the fact that even a reliable source can be accused of uttering a libel and, by reproducing that which is in the original utterance, Wikipedia can then be accused of uttering a libel.

We are not news media. We do not have to be first with the news, thus can await any new external material "Settling down" until it is relatively obvious what is and is not a potential libel. Fiddle Faddle 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, my opinion (and I am not a lawyer) is that one can say "John Doe has been reported in The FuBar Times to have (insert difficult topic here)" with a citation to The FuBar Times precisely to the article in which it is stated. Beware WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Fiddle Faddle 18:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Also things like WP:BLPCRIME come into play - we should generally wait until verdict or at least until trial before being part of the dissemination of allegations. (except maybe in those cases where the media circus about allegations itself becomes notable). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting a #redirect page

I stumbled on the Alon Waisman page while setting up a disambiguation page for the surname Waisman. If I correctly understand what happened, the single sentence that was the entire original content of the Alon Waisman page was merged into the page for radio station KFNX and then the page itself was turned into a redirect; but subsequently the reference to Waisman on the KFNX page was deleted as unimportant. (There is a comment to this effect on the KFNX Talk page.) So as things now stand there is no way for readers to know who Alon Waisman is (a radio dj) or why his page should redirect to KFNX—a pretty confusing situation! It seems to me that the Alon Waisman page should be deleted at this point since there was never enough content to support a stand-alone page, but I am not entirely clear on how merges work, so I don't know if this should just be nominated for deletion in the usual way. Suggestions? Alternatives?Alafarge (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: Thanks for stopping by and asking about this. I am going to go ahead and delete this, as your rationale makes good sense. We have a process called "speedy deletion" which is for when a deletion is so blatantly uncontroversial, it doesn't need discussions. There's a list of deletion rationales at WP:CSD: if you want to tag an article for speedy deletion, you would add the tag {{db-XX}} where db stands for "delete because" and "XX" is the speedy deletion rationale code; in this case I would have expected a tag {{db-g6}}. But I've gone ahead and deleted this one. --Jayron32 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this exactly answers my question for both the present situation and future ones.Alafarge (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32 and Alafarge: this created a copyright problem. Here it was easy to fix because there was only one user involved – so attribution could be provided by naming the contributor in the page history. This was far from an earth shattering copyright violation but please don't generalize from it; don't take this as what should have been done for "both the present situation and future ones". The default rule is that the source of merged content must never be deleted since the history of the source provides the attribution for all users involved in creating and altering the content placed in a new location. If it is deleted, copyright attribution must be provide in some other manner alongside that deletion (regardless of whether the current displayed content contains the merged material). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How to put an article to Sandbox

Hi there,

Hope you are fine. My user account is: Jimmycheung8

Can you please help? I am about to write my first article and put it on Wiki for the world to read. I believe it will be done but now I am at a loss.

How can I copy a word document with text and photos and URLs to Wiki? Should I do it in Sandbox or somewhere else?

Appreciate your help.

Regards, Jimmy

Jimmycheung8 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jimmycheung8: Text may be copied and pasted, provided you own the copyright to it by opening your sandbox and copying and pasting.

Photos must be uploaded. There is a left hand margin option "Upload file" which allows it.

You place the pictures in the file by using the menus in the edit window.

You may need more than this basic help. First have a go, then come back and ask for the extra help you need, being as precise as possible. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jimmycheung8. I suggest that you read Your first article which has lots of useful information. You need to show that your topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines the term. Your article should summarize in your own words what reliable sources have said about the topic, and should include references to those sources.

Photos are tricky for new users, since Wikipedia is much stricter about copyright than many other websites. If you took the photo yourself, and it is of something that is not itself copyrighted, then it is probably OK. You need to freely license your photo for use by anyone. But if it is a photo you found on the internet, it is probably not OK. You can use any photo on Wikimedia Commons and there are many millions of them.

I suggest that you use the Articles for Creation process, so that your article can be reviewed by an experienced editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the answers you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 402#Help me please, including about paid contributors and conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jimmycheung8. Fiddle Faddle says above "Text may be copied and pasted, provided you own the copyright to it". This is true, but with a condition. You must establish that the content has been freely licensed, so that anyone may reuse it, and that in fact you own the copyright, or that the owner has so licensed it. The procedure may be found at Donating Copyrighted Material, and you need to follow it if the content has previously been published, say on a web page. If it is just that you wrote the content in Word (or any other word processor) then simply copy text from the word processor to the edit box of your sandbox or whatever page you are trying to edit. However, be careful that special characters used by the word processor are properly converted. For example Wikipedia uses "straight quotes" not "typographic or curly quotes". It is often wise to copy to a plain text editor such as notepad first, and then go from there to Wikipedia. As explained above, images must be handled separately. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ok to edit a template?

About a week ago I posted a suggestion to add an "other_names" parameter to the infobox template for architects, on the template Talk page. I feel it is especially important for women architects, who often work under both a birth name and one or more married or professional names at different stages of their career. I do a lot of writing/editing in architecture pages and in some cases have resorted to using the generic 'person' infobox because I felt the architects' infobox was less informative. I've had no response to my query. So is it cool to just go ahead and add a parameter to an existing infobox template or is there somewhere else I should take my suggestion first?Alafarge (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, assuming you are confident that you can work with the template coding I think now you should be WP:BOLD and make your edit (carefully!). Check a few pages which use the template after making the edit to check your edit hasn't broken anything, and revert if there are any unintended consequences. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a (careful) shot when I have a little time.Alafarge (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Myrtle is in a muddle.

Dear Tea House host, I have been copyediting May 1941 Sanski Most revolt and although I think the text is now ok, the citations are a muddle of the 'ref' sort and 'sfn' sort. A little while ago I asked here about leaving the quotes in the citations and with the response I went back and made sure they are all intact. Now I need some guidance, I'm afraid, about how to achieve some consistency in the citation style or whether to leave well alone. Any help is much appreciated. Kind regards, Myrtle the uncertain. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Myrtlegroggins, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I took a quick look at the article in question and, while the combination of citation styles may not be ideal, it does seem to provide the necessary information for each citation to allow readers to verify each one for themselves should they so desire. Citing multiple page ranges in a single book is often handled better by the sfn method than by the other method. So I would advise leaving well enough alone in this instance. Thanks for copy-editing the article, and feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions you may have. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. I was so hoping you would say that :-) Happy days! Kind regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Are secondary sources in another language okay?

Hello. I'm working on a draft of an article for "Blade Arcus from Shining," a Japanese video game. It's a relatively obscure game and the secondary sources I'm finding generally come from Japanese websites. Any English source I find would reference back to those same Japanese web articles, making them tertiary sources in my understanding. Will I run into a problem with the Article For Creation process if I submit it with just Japanese sources? KwRIOT (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey KwRIOT, welcome to the Teahouse. Thankfully, you have no need to worry. WP:NOENG is part of a Wikipedia policy called Verifiability, and if you have a quick look it says that it's fine to cite non-English sources if English ones can't be found. Just make sure that if you quote a non-English source that you translate it beforehand. NottNott talk|contrib 09:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't find what I wrote.

A few hours ago, I posted (and I'm practically certain that it was here) a question asking why I could not see a record of an edit I made on my watch list (even though it was and still is listed on my changes page) or any subsequent edit(s) to that one at Balmoral Park. Now I can't find my question either! Kdammers (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Kdammers. Your previous question can be accessed via this link: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#What's happened to my article. Or you could simply search on "Southern 80" using your browser's search-within-page function (usually Ctrl-F or Cmd-F). —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that has nothing to do with the race track. Kdammers (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kdammers I looked carefully at that section where you posted earlier. You tried to ask a new question without creating a new heading, so your question did not get a response. People were responding to the question the section was about. Here is your question, which I took the liberty of moving so everything would be in one place— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved from another section— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I just went to the draft site and saw that it has been declined. While I have absolutely no background in this sport or event, at least on the surface, it seems that the sources meet the golden rule. Could other editors please take a look and see what they think? Kdammers (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Moving large portions of original article to more specific article

I am currently working on the article Agent Orange's Effects on the Vietnamese People and need to consolidate a lot of information that is currently on the Agent Orange page regarding my article's topic. Should I go ahead and cut and paste that information over or should take those resources and rewrite those same claims on my article using those same resources? Vnguyen518 (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If the content is good and usable you can cut and paste over. However, when you do so, you MUST provide copyright attribution in the edit summary by (at a minimum) stating what you are doing, together with a link to the source page you've copied from. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

UserPage to article

I made an article for Peter Kuttner but when I was moving it out of my sandbox I accidentally set it as a user instead of an article. Now I cant move it without changing my username? How can I get my article into the main space? Heres a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Kuttner Thanks! Kolvitamin (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Somebody with rollbacker rights will have to do it. I tried to move it and only succeeded in moving it to Wikipedia space, not regular article space. A rollbacker should be able to fix it though. Add: I think I successfully moved it to mainspace. It's Peter Kuttner (filmmaker). You don't have to change your username or anything. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 03:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

It seems this has been fixed now, the article is now at Peter Kuttner. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Tips on how to use Wikipedia (beyond regular use).

The main way to use Wikipedia for study is to read articles. Some other ways I know is to use the reference desk and talk pages. Also, editing probably makes you smarter. What are some other ways to use Wikipedia for self-learning purposes? Anyone have a tutorial? TheKing44 (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TheKing44, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking for a tutorial, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is probably the best one. It's interactive, and takes about an hour to complete. Have fun, and don't hesitate to return here with any further questions! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia deleted my file.

I have made a page for a record label https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Minute_Records and I was going to put an image in the infobox but they deleted it and said fair use for EN not COM. I'm confused and upset because I want the article to have as much information as it can have.Pitaascot99 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pitaascot99 and welcome to the Teahouse. I have deleted In a Minute Records as a copyright infringement of the streetsonbeats.blogspot.com/2006/01/in-minute-records_24.html page. If you want to try again, I strongly urge you to first read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article. If, after reading those, you think this is a valid topic, I urge you to use the Article Wizard and make a draft under the Articles for Creation project. That way, an experienced editor will review your draft before it goes live. Remember that all drafts and articles should be in original words, not copied from anywhere, but should be firmly based on independent reliable sources, and only "notable" topics will have articles..

As for the image, Commons does not accept copyrighted images used under a claim of Fair Use. en.Wikipedia does, in limited circumstances, but any image should wait until the article has its basic structure written and approved. DES ^(talk) 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

asian month competion

how do i sign up for this.what do i need to sign up for this.Wasimuntakim12 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Wasimuntakim12, welcome to the Teahouse. You can sign up over at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month by clicking the 'Sign up now' button at the top of the page. Be sure to read the instructions on the page so that you sign up successfully. NottNott talk|contrib 21:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Content correction

I just created an account (username and PW) and wqnt to point out contradicting dates on the Wikipedia Snakes/Serpentes page. But I can't determine where to go/hoe to get to the place to report this. Suggestions? Ecolobg (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to Talk:Snake, you can start a new discussion with the "New section" button. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

where can i make a complienet about something

I like to report a admin whose been annoying me is there a place that I can report him?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi ArabAmazigh12 the place your looking for is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - KylieTastic (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, as can happen when one avails oneself of venues like AN/I, the boomerang effect has led to ArabAmazigh12 being blocked. I notice that the template for requesting to be unblocked uses the phrasing "his or her" — I don't expect to ever need to use that template, but I wonder where I would go about proposing it be changed to some more gender-neutral wording? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The wording "his or her" is gender-neutral. Let's not stretch things any further, either with regard to templates in general or with forumshopping disruptive editors. I think that the wording is gender-neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a common misconception that "his or her" is sufficiently gender-neutral, Robert McClenon. Happily, the template has already been corrected by Checkingfax. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Earth Impact Blast of Asteroid Hit and COI

I asked a question in the Talk section of 2015 TB145. It hasn't been answered there yet. I'm asking the same question again here in case this would be a better place to ask. Hope that's ok.

I wrote a story about the near miss of 2015 TB145. As far as I know, mine is the only story to give an estimate of the crater size had the object hit the Earth. Describing the potential damage seems relevant and should be part of the Wikipedia entry. If I want to add that detail and reference my own article, how do I do that without it being a COI?

Robin Rowe (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Robinrowe, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, you don't. A "story" (which I assume means a work of fiction in this case) would pretty much never be a reliable source for such a fact in a Wikipedia article, even if you didn't have a WP:COI, which you do in citing your own work. Even if this were a non-fiction article, published by a reliable publisher so that it does constitute an RS, you should not be the one to cite it. If it doesn't constitute an RS, no one should cite it. And in general, as per WP:CRYSTAL that sort of what-if speculation is not encouraged in Wikipedia articles, although it can sometimes be used to illustrate a point or a theory. I think you should drop this idea. DES ^(talk) 17:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "story" Robinrowe linked to seems to be a "story" in the sense of "news story" rather than fiction. GoshTV, the publisher, does not appear to be a reliable source to quote in a Wikipedia article, however. For something like this, a statement by NASA would be a good source for an estimate of what size the crater might have been; but then, if NASA had provided such an estimate, it would be strange for no secondary sources (such as newspapers, magazines, or scholarly journals) to report that estimate. In any case, as DES said, even if the GoshTV piece were a reliable source, due to the conflict of interest issue you should not be the one to cite something you have written. Posting at Talk:2015 TB145 pointing out the existence of the piece you wrote was the right thing to do; in such cases, if another editor finds the source reliable, they may add the information. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this particular GoshTV source should not be considered reliable. However, our guideline on conflicts of interest does allow self citing within strict limits. The shortcut is WP:SELFCITE.

"Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

I have cited my own published writing in one Wikipedia article, and asked on an administrator's talk page for people to review what I had added. Several took a look and had no objections. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm grateful to hear everyone's suggestions. However, it was disappointing that someone felt qualified to give his opinion on the integrity of my article he obviously hadn't read.

NASA made light of the danger of asteroid 2015 TB145. Most journalists aren't scientists. If they were, the media would have calculated the blast effect themselves and caught on that the NASA press release they based their stories on had spin, that it downplayed the danger.

Two here gave the opinion that my publication is not a sufficiently reliable source to quote in a Wikipedia article. That harsh opinion was given without any explanation why, just a link to RTFM. I've written for Popular Science and many other magazines and academic journals. I write to the same standard no matter what size the publisher is. To be reliable must a source be big, that is, owned by a multinational corporation or a billionaire?

I write journalism to a high standard, as anyone who read my 2015 TB145 article can see. The facts and quotes come from authoritative sources and have links to references. It's not an opinion piece. The article is not about me. I write to the same or a higher standard than Wikipedia aspires. And, I continuously seek to do better.

If my article or publisher isn't good enough in your opinion, please tell me specifically what needs to be done to improve this article or this publisher.

I look forward to your feedback, Robin Rowe (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Robin Rowe. Wikipedia policy is that all assertions of fact should be backed up by reference to reliable sources — which Wikipedia defines as having editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Popular Science has both, but the article (I'll avoid calling it a story here for clarity's sake) wasn't published there. Unfortunately it doesn't really matter whether the "facts and quotes come from authoritative sources" if the source that published them is not a reliable one. However, if any of the sources you cited in the GoshTV source themselves gave an estimate (and are reliable sources), you could cite those sources on Wikipedia — but you could not put an estimate of the size of the crater into the Wikipedia article if it would be based solely on your extrapolation of information in such sources, because that would violate Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. If you have published articles in reliable sources such as Popular Science before, perhaps you can get such a source to publish an article containing the estimate in question. Or perhaps you can't, and in that case it may be for a good reason; I don't know enough about that kind of science to judge, which is exactly why Wikipedia requires reliable sources.

As for the misunderstanding about what kind of "story" it was you had written, please bear in mind that everyone who answers questions at the Teahouse is a volunteer, and most of us have limited time. DES may have made a mistake — we all make mistakes sometimes — but was not under any obligation to click a link to something described as a "story" which might have been linked to at Wikipedia inappropriately in order to drive clicks (i.e., spam). The reliability of GoshTV as a source is possible to evaluate without reading any specific piece published there, in any case. I haven't checked the sources cited in the GoshTV article because I don't have time to, but the general advice I gave about them should apply both to your particular case and to similar cases other Teahouse visitors might wonder about — many new editors read questions and answers here as part of learning about editing Wikipedia.

If you do someday publish an article containing the estimate in a reliable source, you are more than welcome to follow the guidelines set out in WP:SELFCITE as Cullen328 suggested, and the estimate may be included on Wikipedia at that time. There is no deadline. If, however, reliable sources are not willing to publish the estimate, it's likely that would mean it would qualify as a fringe theory, and Wikipedia does not publish those. Thank you again for visiting the Teahouse, and don't hesitate to return with any more questions you have in the future. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually GrammarFascist Wikipedia DOES publish fringe theories in some cases but clearly identifies them as such. But the point is correct, Robin Rowe. It would be unlikely in your case. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There also comes into play WP:UNDUE - giving excessive weight to a single researcher's opinion when there is a vast multitude of potential experts on the subject. Does that single commentator on the subject represent a mainstream position or is it just one guy's guess? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that point for me, Vchimpanzee. You are correct that there are some fringe theories Wikipedia covers because such theories have had their notability established by coverage in reliable sources. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

B-side with infobox song

I have seen a lot of b-side with infobox song. It is normal ? For example, I just want to make love to you (the b-side of Tell me) had a infobox song, but I changed it. Now, I'm not sure if it was a good choice because it's the case of many other songs like Send It To Me (B-side of She's So Cold) and others.

So, do I need to change it ?

And, another question : If a song was released as a single in one country (but not all), do I need to change from Infobox song to Infobox single.

93.15.231.184 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have edited the above-referenced articles, it must have been while you were logged in with a username, or else under a different IP address, because this question is the only edit that has been made under 93.15.231.184. I'm not sure I entirely understand your question; for articles about songs that use an infobox, if there was a B-side included, it can be mentioned in the infobox but does not have to be. It would be easier for Teahouse volunteers to help you if, when mentioning the name of an article, you typed (or copied and pasted from the top of the article) [[Tell Me (The Rolling Stones song)]] (which displays as Tell Me (The Rolling Stones song) ) instead of just Tell Me, since there are literally more than three dozen songs by that title listed on the disambiguation page. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we want an article for cranial ultrasound?

Hello - I'm a novice editor. Cranial ultrasound (medical technique for examining babies' brains through the fontanelle) currently only has a couple of lines in a table the "Medical Ultrasound" article. (I notice "Echocardiography" and "Carotid Ultrasound" get their own.) It's definitely accurate to classify under medical ultrasound, but it's quite a specific technique. Should I add more detail to the main article, or make a new article so that the general "Medical Ultrasound" one doesn't get unbalanced? Thank you, Dora Dorasteel (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dorasteel, and welcome to the Teahouse. That really depends on how much information on Cranial ultrasound you can find, and how well sourced it is. Creating a new article so that it is acceptable is often hard for a relatively new editor. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article to consider in general whether there is enough reliably sourced content for an article on the subject. Then read WP:MEDRS. Since this is a medical topic, that stricter sourcing guideline would apply at least in part. If you go ahead, I strongly urge you to use the Article Wizard and create a Draft under the articles for creation (AfC) project. Such a draft would be reviewed by an experienced editor before it goes live.

You could start by adding content to the main article, and then consider splitting it off into a separate article.

I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to ask any followups or other questions here. DES ^(talk) 16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote an article in a Central Kurdish Branch language (ckb.wikipedia.org/), but till now I can not find my article in Wikipedia search. This is my first article and I registered in wiki first. So, What I do?

Hi, I wrote an article in a Central Kurdish Branch language (ckb.wikipedia.org/), but till now I can not find my article in Wikipedia search. This is my first article and I registered in wiki first. So, What I do?Delshad1974 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Was it Draft:كتێبی ئامارزانی? if so then there it is. However, we cannot accept it here because this is the English language Wikipedia. Please submit it to https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/صفحهٔ_اصلی instead. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the question about Delshad1974's contributions to the ckb Wikipedia, not to enwiki? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline of Draft:Gridcoin

At Articles for Creation, I declined Draft:Gridcoin. The submitter, User:Awoodwa, asked me on my talk page how to improve the article to get it accepted. I am bringing that question here (as per the banner on my talk page) for advice from other experienced editors. How can the submitter improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I will note that the encyclopedic acceptability of an article on this subject has been a matter of question in the past. A previous article Gridcoin was deleted as per WP:Articles for deletion/Gridcoin. However, since I can’t see the deleted article, I can’t compare the declined draft with the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon I reviewed the deleted article. It was actually deleted four different times for four different reasons: A3 (empty), G11 (promotion), AfD (notability), and G12 (copyvio), but I reviewed the version just prior to the AfD deletion. There is considerable similarity to the text of the current draft. This is not surprising, as the history of the draft actually predates the deleted mainspace version, and it looks as if that started as a copy&paste move of an earlier revision of the draft. The AfD focused largely on notability, and whether the somewhat specialized sources cited at that time constituted reliable sources. The consensus was that they did not, or not sufficiently to establish notability, and there there was no substantive mainstream coverage found. I wasn't aware of this AfD, and I think that I might have disagreed with the consensus view, but I would have researched the sources more than i have yet done before I offered a view on an AfD. If you intend to work with the drafter on this, or if it will help you, I am willing to email you the wiki-text of the 5 March 2015 revision, or just the sources cited there.

As to what the drafter could do, obviously rewrite to improve the tone toward neutrality. In particular the last paragraph of the current draft's lead section, starting "This idea, to benefit humanity via crowdsourced BOINC research, ..." feels rather promotional to me. Also phrases like "much anticipated [27]Proof of Research" seem like puffery or uncited opinion.

The current draft seems (on a quick glance) better sourced than the deleted 5 March revision, but a few more mainstrream sources, if available, would help.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Awoodwa as I reviewed the draft, it appeared to be sourced almost entirely to cryptocurrency news letters/blogs/chat forums and not reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. The one source that would generally default as a reliable source , The Guardian, didnt appear to actually discuss Gridcoin at all. The Brookings Institute as an advocacy think tank would probably be OK to include as a major opinion AFTER notability has been established, but their innerworkings and finance are sufficiently opaque as to not enjoy the benefit of "independence" required to help establish notability in the first place.

Awoodwa should look for major coverage in major newspapers or academic journals. news.google.com and scholar.google.com help search to sources that are mostly appropriate (note "mostly" - not all will be acceptable and they will miss some places that would be acceptable like major magazines The Atlantic or New Yorker.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

How to add Auto Confirmed badge

I am an auto confirmed user but there is no badge on my user page. How can I add one? Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 10:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anjana Larka, welcome to the Teahouse. {{User wikipedia/Autoconfirmed}} makes a userbox. {{Autoconfirmed topicon}} makes an icon in the upper right corner but I see you already have that. I don't think there is a badge for The Wikipedia Adventure like Wikipedia:TWA/Badge/1. I see you display userboxes for autopatrolled and rollbacker but your account does not have those rights. You also claim 10,000+ edits but only have 298. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, user pages contain personal content and should be customized personally in most cases; meaning if you want to display your achievements (related to editing Wikipedia) on your user page you have to do it on your own. -- Chamith (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you copy-paste source from another userpage make sure to alter the source code so that it reflects your contributions. -- Chamith (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out PrimeHunter. I actually added them after posting this question. Found my answer somewhere searching in TeaHouse Anjana Larka^{Talk ✉} 12:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC).

Anjana Larka, Here is the code for an Autoconfirmed Userbox:

{{Template:User wikipedia/Autoconfirmed}} renders like this:

This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Cheers{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anjana Larka, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Service awards if you are interested in badges for accomplishments. You might also want to look at the Article Rescue Squadron or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors if you are looking for useful activity on the project that might earn a barnstar, as your userpage says. DES ^(talk) 13:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

wiki categories

Hi, when adding a category to a page is there a list of categories to select from? I'm ideally looking for - Athletics Club in Suffolk. Thank you Cavbex (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cavbex, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a listing of major categories at Portal:Contents/Categories. From there, you need to click through to a relevant one and then you can find sub-categories, e.g. at Category:Track and field. Often, though, I find the best way to identify relevant categories is through looking at equivalent articles (and a bit of trial and error typing "Category:..." into the search bar. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that category doesn't exist but Category:Athletics clubs in England does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry, am I right in thinking you can list more than one category and sub-categories? Cavbex (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes you can, Cavbex. Take a look at Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization for more detailed guidance on this. Just one thing to note: you normally shouldn't add an article to a main category and one of its subcategories. For instance, an article in Category:Track and field in the United Kingdom shouldn't also be categorised in Category:Track and field. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cavbex, Go to: Preferences: Gadgets: Editing: Enable "HotCat". You'll have a "+" sign at the bottom of each article page to click on. Click on the "+" sign and HotCat will do auto-complete and category-prediction based on what you start typing in. Type slow and wait for the pop-up; scroll down the choice list; if nothing there add another letter to your query. Down the road you can add a Javascript to your common.js page and rev up HotCat so it has up/down arrows for parent/child category picking. Good luck. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Thanks Checkingfax that's really helpful. My page has since been removed due to notability, not sure how to go about this, I'm reading up on it now, but any advice would be appreciated! I have looked at another athletics site and it only shows the official website, which I already had. I have some references/link that I could add, i.e: http://www.englandathletics.org/england-athletics-news/waveney-valley-ac-achieve-clubmark-accreditation?search= Cavbex (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

quotes in foreign languages

Hello kind tea house host. When copy editing, should I remove, from citations, quotes from the cited page which are not in English? Many thanks, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Myrtlegroggins and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you should not remove such quotes, at least not without a talk-page discussion. But if you can provide reliable translations to accompany them, that is a help. Ideally sourced and published translations. Failing that, your own if you are fluent in both languages and feel competent to provide a good-quality translation. Do not depend on Google translate or other automated translation. While such services are much better than they used to be, and are often good enough to get a general idea of what a text is about, they are not yet reliable enough for use in a Wikipedia article (except an article about machine translations, where examples would be relevant). DES ^(talk) 04:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Many sincere thanks for your answer. I understand and will comply with pleasure. Regards, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

HOVER LINK: HIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "_VALUE_" is not recognized

When hovering over the link to Michael Laucke, the image in the infobox is picked up fine, but the introductory page text one is accustomed to view, does not render, and reads "HIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "_VALUE_" is not recognized". The link works however. When one gets to the Michael Laucke article, the same problem occurs when hovering over Elton John. Many thanks in advance for your kind help; it is always much appreciated. --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Natalie.Desautels. I suspect that you will get more helpful answers to this over on WP:VPT. DES ^(talk) 03:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel:

Hello DESiegel Thank you so much for such an unexpectedly rapid response. I will take the pleasure to contact WP:VPT for some help on this issue. I like to say that when it comes to technical issues, we are never alone! meaning, that if it happened on the Michael Laucke page I initiated (and 13 editors have contribute to), then chances are this glitch exists elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I would be amiss not to congratulate you on your fantastic contributions to Wikipedia. I've read several of your articles and enjoyed them immensely, as well as having learned so much from them. The one on Process was just excellent.

I am multiligual and little difference exists for me between several languages, so I hope to be useful to Wikipedia in this regard as well.

Very best wishes and congratulations once again for such great work and dedication, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel: I went to check out the "WP:Process" essay which redirected me to "[[WP:Processes]]" which was totally blank. I rolled it back for you. Pinging Natalie.Desautels too. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Checkingfax, I believe the reference here is to WP:Process is important aka WP:PI, which I consider one of my more significant contributions here, although i am not the only editor, and it has not proved as persuasive as I had once hoped it would. Strictly speaking it isn't an article, of course. Natalie.Desautels, thank you very much for those kind words. DES ^(talk) 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Checkingfax:Yes, WP:Process is important was the Project page I visited, along with others. It may not have been an "article" but it sure was interesting! Although music takes precedence for me, I also have a strong interest in law and the history thereof. So this certainly grabbed my attention. The writing also was very clear, so well structured and, well, pleasing, even though English is not exactly my mother tongue (...still trying to figure out which language is : ). Thanks again for a great contribution; sorry to hear it didn't prove persuasive to some; to me it certainly was, and then some! all my very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am very pleased to hear that, Natalie.Desautels. You can follow the way this essay evolved in its history, if you are interested, and you can get at least some view of the reactions to it in the archives of its talk page. DES ^(talk) 12:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Checkingfax: Hello, User:DESiegel Indeed, I would be very interested in reading how the essay evolved, and to gain some understanding of other points of view on the subject. ...good to know I can access the archives of its talk page. Many thanks once again. very best wishes, --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"@DESiegel and Checkingfax: Hello, User:DESiegel, So now I've taken the pleasure of reading through most of archive 1 and 2 on the Talk page of WP:Process is important, skipping over what seemed the purely polemical parts of the discussion; it did help me to follow the way this essay evolved in its history, as you said. I have to reiterate that I steadfastly enjoyed your project page, found it extremely interesting and remain surprised that more traction could not be gained out of such a fine contribution. Many thanks for the tip of how to access its history and again for this very interesting work. very best wishes, Natalie --204.48.94.47 (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

fixing citation problem on article

Can someone please fix this citation error on this article, Charles, Prince of Wales, I'm unable to fix it. Thanks. (Monkelese (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Monkelese. I fixed it by using different ref names for different references.[1] I wrote the help page linked in the error message: Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key. Did you try to read it and if so, was there a particular problem? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

How to mention other articles

I've been using italics when referring to articles on Wikipedia. Is this correct? MOS:QUOTETITLE seems wrong on this. — CpiralCpiral 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Referring in which circumstances? Please post a link to an example. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Cpiral, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would usually use quotes, not italics when referring to Wikipedia articles. But in other Wikipedia articles, one usually refers to another article via a wiki-link, and no additional punctuation is needed in most such cases. Actually one is mostly referring not to the article but to the article subject. The MOS doesn't cover project pages and talk pages, the places where one is most likely to actually refer to (mention, not use) another article. There I don't think it matters too much what formatting you use, but again most often a wiki-link, at least on first mention. DES ^(talk) 01:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to most articles, like Halloween, you just put the article in brackets. But if you are referring to a short art work, like a song "Bohemian Rhapsody" or a poem "Purple Cow", then you would use "quotes". If you are referring to a long-form artwork, like War and Peace or a ship SS Edmund Fitzgerald you would use italics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

All very fine answers. Nice teahouse experience!

Unfortunately I really don't have an entirely valid question, because I don't have an example. A list of all the common situations is too much to bother with, such as when its both use and mention. At the time I wrote the question, I might easily have been failing the use-mention distinction. Now, assuming the default case of an article referencing a related article on the wiki, in a mention outside of See also section, I now think neither italics nor quotes is necessarily stylize-able in a wiki the way I've seen it in other (Encyclopedic) venues. For one, we have article stubs, and if we're to treat articles like works then stub mentions would get quotation marks, per MOS:T. So we don't treat articles like works, when it comes to italics or quotes. We treat articles like the text their link is.

The MoS now seems correct to me in not mentioning the answer to a somewhat invalid question. It's subtle because 1) wikilinks are not visible in the black and white print version, so we just ignore the fact that it is a link to an article; and 2) links are freely labeled differently than the title they link to, so if an article title equals a work, treat it like a work. — CpiralCpiral 08:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it appears you are thinking of wikilinked terms in running article text like:

"Work, Death, and Sickness" is a short story by Leo Tolstoy who also wrote War and Peace.

This is not "referring" to the articles. It is merely linking to the articles for convenience when the subject of the articles is mentioned. It should use the same styling as if there had been no wikilinks:

"Work, Death, and Sickness" is a short story by Leo Tolstoy who also wrote War and Peace.

PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Building Infobox

Hi, I created the article Walking Horse Hotel yesterday (yes, I know it's a stub, but I'm going to do more research on it tomorrow after all the good source sites remove their stuff about it being haunted for Halloween, and just talk about it in its unhaunted form). Anyway, the hotel is on the National Register of Historic Places and I'm wanting to add the template of the building infobox to the article. When I went to copy-paste it off, though, I couldn't because it was locked. I know I was logged in, but I couldn't open the edit window to copy it. Is it OK to copy the Infobox from an unlocked article about a similar subject and just replace the particulars on it with the info about the Walking Horse Hotel? White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Welcome to teahouse White Arabian mare You can copy paste from documentation where blank template is given. You need not click on edit. Copying from another article is not recommended as fields might be differently used there. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added the blank template for now. Keep the parameters you need and delete the rest. Happy editing :) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually leave the extra parameters in place so future Editors can easily fill them in. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi White Arabian mare. It's unclear to me which page you tried to copy from. You can copy a template call with blank parameters from the displayed page Template:Infobox building. Template documentation has code ready for copying without having to view the source. You can also click the "Edit" or "View source" tab on an article using the template and copy the code there for adaptation to another article. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, I didn't actually copy anything. I was going to copy the blank template from the Template:Infobox building page and paste it to the article page, but the template page was locked. I was thinking that if I couldn't copy from there I could copy the parameters from a different article, but I didn't try it. Thanks, Capankajsmilyo. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 19:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

You're welcome White Arabian mare! Again, locked or not doesn't matter. You don't have to click edit to copy. Just copy what appears on Template:Infobox building in blank template. (Y) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's a property on the NRHP then possibly a better infobox template to use is {{Infobox NRHP}}. To copy the blank template go the section Infobox NRHP#Usage and copy and paste the contents of the box titled Blank template with most common parameters - you do not need to edit the page to do this, it has been formatted to show the code needed. Nthep (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nthep, Your direct wikilink did not work so I refactored it for the convenience of White Arabian mare. If that's not right, please undo. As for the NRHP template I noticed it does not include parameters typical of a hotel, such as number of rooms. There used to be a Template:Hotel, but now we're stuck with Template:Building or Template:Restaurant. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the NRHP infobox. White Arabian mare, if you are stating the property is on the NRHP, it is important to cite that info. Wikiproject NRHP has a nifty set of tools, one of which will look up the NRHP registration number and take the data from the registration to make an infobox, containing the proper reference and a location map. John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'm not really experienced with doing articles on buildings, but I decided to do this one after seeing that it was redlinked on the Bedford County list of Historic Places. Also, it figures prominently in one of the horse articles I wrote, and I thought it needed it's own article. Thanks again to everybody for helping. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Admin Bully

Is there anything that I can do if an admin is acting biased against me? I keep getting warnings, bans and blocks. He prefer my talk page to discuss edit issues than Article's talk page. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see no particular evidence that any one admin is acting against you. It does appear that at least two admins have acted against you, and often if two or more admins think that your editing is out of line, your editing may be out of line. It appears that you have been topic-banned from edits on Indian religion under WP:ARBPIA and that you continue to make edits in violation of your topic ban. You can either abide by the scope of the topic-ban or appeal the ban at Arbitration Clarification and Amendment requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Capankajsmilyo. You have received one warning, so it's a bit soon to call it bullying; and I don't think it's relevant that the person is an admin because anyone could post that warning.. Your identification of dead links seems appropriate, but some of your other edits don't seem constructive, and that may be what the editor in question is responding to:

• this edit removes mention of his grandfather with the claim it violates WP:UNDUE (really?)
• this edit and the next one add a POV and an Update tag, but you don't explain why. Unexplained tagging is not useful - how are people supposed to fix it if you don't explain the problem?
• this edit, which hasn't been reverted yet, violates the Manual of Style for boldface (but I don't blame you for not knowing that).
• several placements of citation needed tags. One or two such tags for statements that seem dubious is reasonable, but strictly speaking citations are only needed for statements that are likely to be challenged. Also, it is better practice to attempt to fix a problem yourself; only tag it if you don't succeed. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for point by point analysis and reply RockMagnetist. It's really appreciated that at least there's someone willing to listen. Otherwise I was fed up with the attitude that whatever an admin says is final, and you won't get any explaination.

Do we really need a mention of whole lineage. Mother Father GrandMother even GreatGrandfather really? Isn't it undue?

Dead link was with a tool, is the tool defective?

I have been accused of POV for CN. Is adding cn to an article POV?

Update tags and POV tags were added because lots of present tense was used for past statements and facts have changed now. Anyways, I haven't readded them.

CN were added only for those statements which were not cited. Further no discussion was conducted on talk page prior to issue of warning and threatening of block. I have been banned already in the same manner, where my talk page is misused to discuss the edits of an article so that article contributors can't step in discussion.

When I appealed the ban to admin (for religion), I was just informed straightaway that My first option of appealing to admin has been done. No discussion nothing. Just simple blatant that my appeal is rejected and I can now go to arbitary. When I approached arbitrary, its a never ending appeal. It hasn't been concluded yet. No one comments there except those who have imposed a ban on me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that there has been plenty of explanation. Your topic ban (which is now missing from your talk page - it should be restored) not only has an extensive explanation but also links to other attempts by users to warn you and provide advice. In your appeal, there was another lengthy explanation. It seems to me that the person who needs to start listening is you. Here is my advice - stay away from tools and tagging in general and try to add good content. If a citation is missing, find one. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo: For example, I repaired those dead links you tagged. Here's how. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, as you can see, hardly anybody agrees that the mention of the great-grandfather in this instance is WP:UNDUE. The due weight needs to be decided based on a holistic understanding of the entire context and the simplistic arguments of the kind you have made are not enough. Until you get a good understanding of how this works, I suggest that you ask the experienced editors about issues of WP:WEIGHT. Let me also add that the administrators are senior editors with loads of experience, and you shouldn't dismiss their advice lightly. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

How may I set up a Wiki to use for classroom discussion/assessment?

I am new. I recently found out that instructors have used their own wiki page for classroom discussion etc. I would like to know how I may correctly address thisTammy.escalante01 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tammy.escalante01, and welcome to the teahouse. It depends a good deal on what you want to do. If you simply want to display a wiki page and perhaps how one edits it (and how easily the changes become live) then you could set up a page in your userspace, such as Tammy.escalante01/Class (or whatever name you might prefer instead of "Class"). Such a page could hold almost anything you might wish, including links to articles, and you could edit it in front of a class. If you want to have students edit Wikipedia in any significant way, then I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:School and university projects, and go through Wikipedia:Training/For educators. If you want to explain in a bit more detail what you have in mind, perhaps we could give better targeted advice. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tammy.escalante01. Personal Wikipedia pages are used for things relating to editing articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't host pages used for other things. If you want to have students interact online about their classroom assignments, as at User:Tammy.escalante01/sandbox, you will need to find another site. Many school systems have their own web pages that allow students and teachers to log in and do this. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

philosophical riddle

I tried to create an article entitled "Green Movement", to differentiate the movement from "Green Politics", which is the article that appears when one searches for "Green Movement". But describing the movement is a philosophical effort and citing assertions like "the movement influences society" is impossible... Anyway, I have to make breakfast for my kids n me now (!) so I'll keep this short. The snippet I wrote seems to have been accepted as an edit in the "Green Politics" article, which is an improvement. However, if someone thinks it valid to have a separate article, despite the awkwardness of finding authoritative references for its broad claims, that would be most helpful! jme Mccullochker (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mccullochker, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I have had to revert (undo) your edit to Green politics, because you did not cite any sources. On Wikipedia, we cannot base our writing on our own personal knowledge; every fact asserted must be cited to a reliable source. If you can find reliable sources, such as books, or articles in newspapers or magazines, to back up what you want to add to the article, then (and only then) you can make additions about the philosophy of the green movement. Feel free to return to the Teahouse if you have further questions, such as about formatting citations, or about finding reliable sources. Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Cities Most Highrise

Vandalism in Cities with the most high-rise building article. This article based in Emporis sources which is neutral sources and in English. But somebody had edited the article and put Shanghai highrise more than 14.000 based on local sources which is not neutral sources. Its impossible Shanghai highrise : Hongkong highrise + New York highrise

In this source Shanghai only had 1,232 building. Emporis data completed with list the name of the highrise so we can verified not just city claimed. Somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 higrise. But cant give the name of the building just number claimed which is cant verified. Shanghai is international city why no single foreigner report it to Emporis ?? For example in the year 2014 Emporis count the highrise in Moscow only 3000 buildings. But there is a report completed with the name of the building. So Emporis change highrise count for Moscow more than 10.000 highrise.

There is a pattern for building more than 180 metre : Hongkong had 143, New York had 100, Chicago had 50, Shanghai only had 70. For the city without height restriction there is impossible Shanghai only had 70 buildings more than 180 metre but had more than 14.000 highrise building. New York had 100 building more than 180 metre but New York only had 6.000 highrise building. Except city with height restriction such as Sao Paulo. http://www.emporis.com/statistics/skyline-ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandajovi (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
question moved from bottom of the page by GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mirandajovi, and welcome to the Teahouse. The correct article title is List of cities with the most high-rise buildings. I see that multiple IP users have been edit warring over these numbers, and that the page has therefore been protected. The correct thing to do now is to visit the article's talk page, and present your case there — which I see you have already done. Other editors will discuss what numbers should be used in the article, and, once a consensus is reached, the decision arrived at by the participants can be implemented in the article. In the meantime, you should not make any (more) edits to the article which change the numbers being questioned.

Also, please do not refer to other editors' edits as "vandalism" simply because you disagree with the information they added. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is the requirement that we each assume good faith on the part of other editors. In this case, that means assuming that the other editor(s) sincerely believe that the numbers they have added to the article are correct. Ascribing other motives to such edits is considered a personal attack.

And please remember to sign your non-article posts with ~~~~ four tildes. Thanks! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mirandajovi. I have posted at the reliable sources notice board asking if the source now cited for the Shanghai figures should be considered notable, and particularly asking to the help of an editor fluent in Japanese. You wrote above "This article based in Emporis sources...". But no article is restricted to a single source or set of sources. Other sources, including ones not in English, can be used if they are reliable. I don't know if this source is reliable, which is why I have asked for help at the notice board. DES ^(talk) 15:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont see that emporis is a reliable site. no evidence of any editorial oversight and they are purely a commercial site as opposed to the types of sources we actually prefer to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

But only Emporis had a highrise list in each cities. Not just number claimed. Emporis already had a list of 1,200 Shanghai highrise. But somebody claimed Shanghai had 14.000 highrise. So there is 13.000 highrise in Shanghai which not included in Emporis list. But why none of this 13.000 highrise reported to Emporis by people in Shanghai ? Not single of this highrise. Shanghai is big city with thousands foreigners. And none of this foreigners reported the so call 14.000 highrise in Shanghai. So somebody from other cities could claim their cities had thousands highrise based on local sources which is not neutral. Only Emporis neutral sources with list of completed highrise. I think its only China propaganda because they dont regard Hongkong as their own. Shanghai only had 70 highrise more than 180 metre compare to New York and Hongkong had more than 100 highrise up to 180 metre. So its impossible total highrise in Shanghai outnumbered New York and Hongkong. I already been to Shanghai twice and Hongkong. I saw Hongkong bigger than Shanghai--Mirandajovi (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mirandajovi, but Emporis doesn't even claim to present a complete list of high rise buildings. Its totals merely indicate the number of buildings listed with it. There is no indication of where the building data comes from, nor how it is checked, if it is checked at all. I'm afraid it cannot be considered a reliable source for these sorts of figures. DES ^(talk) 09:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing quotes

I saw something wrong in the quotes on a page "....decided that the nerves on his legs are not working as they should". I changed the "decide" word into "found" (Logically, NOBODY can decide whether someone nerves are not working) but my edit got reverted instead. If the quotes are wrongly expressed, can someone change it? Thank you Jason Sudana (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote should accurately reflect what the person being quoted actually said or wrote, not what they should have said. The Manual of Style says " the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced". --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Translating articles

I'm fluent in Eglish and my native language is German. Obviously the English Wikipedia has a lot more articles than the German one. When I come across an article, that exists in English but doesn't in German, can I just translate the English text into German in order to 'create a new article' for the German Wikipedia? Or would that violate someone's copyright or whatever?

And why should we sign 'all of our non-article posts by ending them with four tildes'?

Thanks, Gluehbirneee

Gluehbirneee (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! Seriously, this is encouraged. There is a good article covering how to do it, and some considerations to keep in mind, at Wikipedia:Translate us. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gluehbirneee, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with Gronk Oz that you're encouraged to translate articles, and that the page linked above is the best resource for information on how to do so.

About signing with four tildes on non-article pages at English Wikipedia, this is so everyone reading can tell who said what (and when). It would be very confusing to have to keep going to the page history and looking at diffs to figure out who asked a question, and which parts of the responses were left by which other editors. (Timestamps are better to have because sometimes people add their comments out of sequence.) Does that make sense? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gluehbirneee:: yes, translating articles from here to de:wp would be very useful. I would like to add one important point: Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license allows copying but requires that attribution should be given to the authors of the original content. A good way to do that is to place on the talk page of the translated article the {{translated page}} template or its local equivalent. For German Wikipedia, that would be de:Vorlage:Übersetzung. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User page hijinks

I have come across a user page which claims, among other things, that the user has checkuser, file mover, and template editor rights; is an administrator; and has been a registered user for longer, and made more edits, than they actually have. (The page also contains numerous instances of the same large image, though that seems a less serious issue.) Obviously this is against policy, but is there anything I should do other than warning the user? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, GrammarFascist. Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages says:

The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable. In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

I think this comes under that guideline. I would post to the user's talk page, asking that inaccurate indications of editing rights (admin, rolllback, etc) be removed, first double checking to make sure that they were inaccurate. I wouldn't even mention edit counts as they shouldn't matter much anyway, and the various ways of counting edits can have significant differences. If the user refuses or does not respond after some time (say a week), particularly if the user has edited elsewhere during that time, you could post at WP:AN or you could simply remove the inaccuratew statements, leaving a note on the user's talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice, DES. I wasn't sure if this was something that required a more urgent response the way, for example, copyright violations do. The user in question is very new (it doesn't seem to be just a matter of different ways of counting edits) and all of their edits to articles so far have been reverted as unconstructive (none by me — I'm a latecomer to the situation). The overall impression I get is that they're here to goof off, though of course I assume they have good-faith reasoning behind their apparently-pranking edits. I will leave a warning on their user page, since I did double-check and they do not have any of the permissions their user page is claiming, and hope that they respond appropriately. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploading a photo

I am a first time Wiki Editor. I am trying to upload a photo to the page on the composer Eric Thiman (I am the archivist of the Eric Thiman Collection). I am logged in and have successfully edited text.

(a)the photo has uploaded as far as the Media Settings box, but it is on its side, and remains so if I put it on the Thiman page itself.

(b) I do not know how to delete it from the Media Settings box in order to have a second try.

Please advise

Guy Turner

Guyscottturner (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Main EHT pic.jpg to Commons. Like many pictures, it needs rotation. Being an old-time picture editor, I have told the bot to rotate it. It might be done before you read this. You should also add Commons:Commons:Categories so other editors can easily find it. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Guyscottturner, and welcome to the Teahouse. I rotated the image while Jim.henderson was placing the rotation template, so I uploaded the rotated version and the file is now ready to use in the Eric Thiman article. To place the image, copy and paste [[File:Main EHT pic.jpg|thumb]] into the article, near the top but below any templates (a template will be in double curly brackets {{example}} like so).

I have a question about the provenance of the photo, however. You say you are the archivist of the Eric Thiman Collection above, but you also identified yourself as the creator of the image when you uploaded it. Did you actually take this photograph yourself in 1970, or should someone else be credited for doing that? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both for your help. The picture now appears the right way up in the media settings box, but still appears on its side when placed on the Wiki page itself.

The file is not actually my image but the photographer is unknown - the photograph is part of the archive - how should I proceed? I do have a photo from 1928 which would be out of copyright, but it is as an older man that Thiman is principally remembered.

Thanks

GUY Guyscottturner (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Guyscottturner. Unfortunately, Wikipedia generally can only use a photograph if the copyright holder has given permission for anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use it. Since the photo dates from circa 1970, the copyright most likely belongs to photographer (or their estate if they have died); we can't use the photo without their permission whether we know who the photographer was or not. If the photo was previously published, the publisher might know who holds the copyright, or might hold it themselves. There is a Fair Use exception for images of deceased persons (it doesn't apply to living people, because someone could go take a photo of the person and waive their copyright) but I believe that it's necessary to know the identity of the copyright holder in order to make a Fair Use claim. Perhaps you could do some research into the provenance of the photo? Or try to find another photo from Thiman's later life?

In the meantime, you could certainly upload the 1928 image even though it dates from a time before Thiman became notable. If you have similar difficulties with that image needing rotation, use the ask a question button at the top of the page again. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GrammarFascist for your help. Twenties picture went on fine, as you will see.

Guy Turner Guyscottturner (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you sign your user-name in color?

Hello, I've been on Wikipedia for about 2 months now and have learned lots of things since signing up. However upon learning, I've seen many user names with different fonts/colors/text/sizes and I always wanted to know how to do it. Can anyone help me (or give me a tutorial) on how to change my user name when signing? Adog104 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Adog104, welcome to the Teahouse. You can customize your signature through Special:Preferences. When customizing you have to use Wiki markup language which is a simplified version of HTML. If you have trouble figuring out Wiki markup this tutorial might help. When you are done make sure to check the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box. Lastly, make sure that your signature doesn't breach Wikipedia:Signatures policy. Cheers! -- Chamith (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Adog104 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Adog104 or do what I did. If you see a signature you like, copy it and make sure to replace the other person's name with yours.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it handled Vchimpanzee, thanks. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Just don't make a signature like mine, though. You cannot use images within your signature, as it disrupts the servers. 04:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoandtwoalwaysmakesafive (talk • contribs)

Adog104, my sig looks rough under the hood, but I like the way it renders. I had to use some tricky code so I could include a visible "pipe" and use "curly braces" without them rendering as a "template". When you make changes to your signature it will appear right above the change box and you can see what it will look like right away without having to use your "sandbox". I tried <font color="orange">, but I thought my sig go too "hot", so I went back to the native color. I also used a non-breaking-space so my sig does not wrap on to two lines. If you copy/paste my username with the curly braces then you can ping me easily. Do a view-source to see how to do a nbsp. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Publishing a new term where references will be added in the coming months

Good afternoon. Our startup developed a solution that introduces completely new concept to the IT & media industry. Product will be launched in March. Worldwide Press Release will be carried out in January/February. But we want to publish the term on Wikipedia already now - it is very important for us from the business perspective. Is it possible to publish a term...where the only reference is our landing page? Any suggestions what would be the best thing for us to do? I appreciate your reply and wish you a nice day. With kindest regards, Eva 2003:84:AD47:CCE8:252B:D5F6:8469:8770 (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait until there is significant coverage of this "solution" in reliable independent published sources before you try to create a Wikipedia article about it. Otherwise you will be wasting your time. Maproom (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The best, and only, thing to do is to wait until the subject becomes notable in Wikipedia's terms, and then someone else can write the article. You shouldn't do so as you have a conflict of interest, and you must not do so without declaring that you are a paid editor, as required by Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You need to realize that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish neologisms, and has absolutely no interest in what is "important for you from the business perspective". Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Although Wikipedia may include well referenced content about upcoming events, such as the next World Cup soccer competition, the next U.S. football Super Bowl, and the 2016 U.S. presidential election, this is because these upcoming events are already the subject of extensive discussion in reliable sources. This does not apply to what you say about what your business may introduce next year. That is nothing more than speculation, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You could get hit by a bus, though I hope you won't. Please read about why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Should an author's name be linked inside a citation?

Today I received notification that the Valiant Lady (radio) article was changed, with a link having been added to create a link to Gerald Nachman within a citation.

Should author's names in citations usually be linked if they have pages on Wikipedia? I have not been doing that, and I wonder whether I should begin that practice. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Teblick. The edit was [2]. Reference authors with a Wikipedia biography are often linked but it's not a rule and only done in a minority of the cases. The edit did it in a wrong way. I have changed it to the right way at Template:Cite book#Authors.[3] The link was added by the user who created Gerald Nachman (journalist) today. When users create an article it's common to look for existing mentions which can be linked to the new article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.PrimeHunter! I appreciate the feedback. I am accustomed to looking for existing mentions of subjects when I create articles, but I had not considered the possibility of linking within a reference. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is is good practice to link to an article on the author if there is one, because it lets the reader check the credibility of the citation. I often forget... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Find link, a tool written by Edward Betts for wikipedia, to make wikilinks on existing pages to a new page, was used so that Gerald Nachman (journalist) is no longer an orphan page. I didn't notice the {{cite book|author-link= ...}} parameter... Also, there are two Jerry Nachmans, Gerald Nachman and Jerome Nachman, and there is probably a better way to name and link the network of related pages through moving/editing pages such as Nachman and Gerald Nachman. I had vaguely remembered there was a person with a similar career and similar sounding name while deciding on the name of Gerald Nachman, but did not ascertain Jerome Nachman until the middle of web research. Any suggestions the best way to name and link these pages ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk)

• The idea is to help most readers get to the page they are looking for as quickly as possible. In this case, a quick web search indicates that if they are looking for "Jerry Nachman" they are most likely (50% or more) to be looking for the MSNBC one, so the Jerry Nachman article has the right title, and the pointer at the top of that article to the other journalist is right too. Gerald Nachman (journalist) is an o.k. title for the SF journalist, but Gerald Nachman may be better, since it is shorter. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerald Nachman redirects to Gerald Nachman (journalist) so a move would probably make things simpler. Would a "move" update all links currently pointing to Gerald Nachman (journalist) ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Help

I just moved the article How Deep Is Your Love to How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song) as Calvin Harris has this song title too. I just want someone to help fixing all the links because I forgot the gadget to fix it. Thanks! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nahnah4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately the changes you made (moving How Deep Is Your Love to How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song), and removing the hatnote from the top of the article) were incorrect and I have undone them.

On Wikipedia, when there is more than one article which could reasonably be referred to by the same title, all but one such articles have a (parenthetical) at the end of their titles to disambiguate which subject they are about. If one subject is by far the most likely article readers would be looking for when typing in the main part of the article title, then that article — as with "How Deep Is Your Love" — uses the subject title without a parenthetical after it. Incidentally, there are several songs listed on the "How Deep Is Your Love" disambiguation page, not just the one by Calvin Harris.

Removing the hatnote from the top of the article would have been the wrong thing to do even if the move had been correct. Maybe you removed the hatnote simply because the page move broke the hatnote and you couldn't figure out how to fix it? But hatnotes are essential for helping readers find the articles they are looking for. It would almost never be correct to remove one, unless it implied there were articles on topics with similar names and those articles didn't exist... and even then, it might be a case of another editor leaving a redlink to indicate where an article didn't yet exist, but one should. Thanks again for trying to help. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Ok, so what I meant was that the article should have been moved as there are songs with the same title, and so the article should have been How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song), not How Deep Is Your Love. My initial plan is to make the article How Deep Is Your Love to a redirect to the disambiguation page, but I knew that all the links must have been fixed and that is why I came here, but yet you keep on emphasising on the hatnote instead. I removed it, as I was wanting to redirect the page to the disambiguation, but change the links first. That is why I did that. I wasn't asking about hatnotes. I wanted people to use WikiEd to fix the link (or what the gadgets are called, I forgot) to fix the links. Thank you. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, Nahnah4, but the article title being simply How Deep Is Your Love, not How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song), was already correct, for the reasons I explained above. I mentioned the hatnote because you deleted the hatnote entirely (rather than changing it) and created a situation where readers had no way of getting from the article about the bee Gees song to either the disambiguation page or any of the other articles about other songs with the same name. If you feel strongly that the disambiguation page is the page that should have the title How Deep Is Your Love, then what you should do is propose that change at Talk:How Deep Is Your Love and see whether the consensus that develops among other editors supports such a move. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 08:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Ok, I will do that. By the way, if the move is suggested, what is the gadget used to fix all the links? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How did a fake user on TWA hide the title from his page?

Resolved

This page has no title. I've checked the source and copied the magic word but it doesn't work. TWA also created a page, User:Imfrankliu/TWA for me, which is now deleted, but when it existed it had no title either. How is this achieved? Frank (User Page) (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be the "margin: -6.5em " which enables the black background to be drawn over the top of the title. I don't believe that User:Imfrankliu/TWA has ever existed, but User talk:Imfrankliu/TWA does. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

the User:WillKomen page was created by User:Ocaasi and then protected, which seems very odd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are five fictitious users at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure/Index#Characters. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh, Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you've just discovered some of the 'behind the scenes' of The Wikipedia Adventure. You can read all about it here: WP:TWA/Story. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:@TheRedPenOfDoom: User_talk:Imfrankliu/TWA HAS NO TITLE. There is a display: none attribute in the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. @Ocaasi (WMF): Hi, I couldn't find anything about how did WMF hide the title in your page. (I scaned through it several times but it's only like reports and reports). Frank (User Page) (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not true to say that "User_talk:Imfrankliu/TWA HAS NO TITLE" (even if you SHOUT it). The "display:none" does not prevent the page title being displayed (in any of the 3 browsers which I have tried with my current preferences). You can see by changing the value of the margin parameter. If you change the margin from -7.5em to 7.5em, for example, then the page title is visible. You can experiment in your sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, since 2013 it is not possible to hide part or all of the title with <span style="display:none;">...</span>. The rendered html for User talk:Imfrankliu/TWA says <span style="/* attempt to bypass $wgRestrictDisplayTitle */">User talk:Imfrankliu/TWA</span>. See mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle. The Wikipedia Adventure is originally from 2011 where display:none; was allowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:@TheRedPenOfDoom: This is how I see the title of User_talk:Imfrankliu/TWA (with "Inspect Element"): <h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading" lang="en"> <span style="/* attempt to bypass $wgRestrictDisplayTitle */">User talk:Imfrankliu/TWA</span> </h1>

Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I just saw PrimeHunter's notes. Okay. Thanks. Frank (User Page) (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls?

On the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Party_%28UK,_1999%29 , user Emeraude has taken it upon himself to defame the party as a far-right organisation, and refuses to accept evidence to the contrary. He has demonstrated behaviour that in any other context, would be considered trolling and/or slander. What can be done about this? I have previously tried discussing this issue with him, but without success. Rhialto (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you to discuss on the article talk page. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Also, assume good faith and please do not characterize differences of opinion as trolling. If discussion on the talk page does not resolve the matter, the dispute resolution policy identifies several venues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find a reliable source describing the party's politics and use an inline citation for any changes you make to the infobox. Or are inline citations recommended against when inside infoboxes? (I haven't been a serious editor in a long time, but I'm thinking of coming back, but my knowledge of style and policy is probably rusty.) (And of course, other editors are expected to always provide verifiable citations as well.) 72.204.168.159 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rhialto. When you accuse another editor of serious misconduct, as you have regarding Emeraude here, you should inform that person. I have just done so, because it is important for any editor to know when they are being attacked. The issue is how to accurately describe a tiny political party that has received only a handful of votes in a few elections. It may be that no source which is reliable for evaluating political ideologies has commented on the ideology of this party, since it is so small. It seems clear that many of the individual leaders of this party have "far right" backgrounds. The question is whether or not that is sufficient to describe the ideology of the party itself that way. In my opinion, that is not sufficient, and a reliable source stating that explicitly is needed. I am inviting Carrite, an editor with lots of experience working on political party articles, to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jim and all. To find an answer to this matter I popped by the fascist website Stormfront.org and ran a little search of their message board archive, which ultimately led me to THIS piece on the NLP. It's a National Front splinter, so "Far Right" is an accurate description, but seem to favor a multi-cultural ethnic-nationalism-for-all approach that needs to be considered seriously. My advice is to accept the nominal identification but to really work to explain the group's ideology, which seems to be more complex than run-of-the-mill White Nationalism. Hope this helps, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly true that, many years ago, a couple of the individuals involved in the party had far-right associations. However, that was before the party was even founded. This is comparable to, for example, describing the German Nazi party as a far-left party due to a historical association with some left-wing movements. It might be "technically correct", but it gives an entirely wrong impression of what they were about and what they did. Emeraude has chosen to disregard evidence such as the party's "shop local" campaigns and statements in the party's manifesto, as well as adding entirely unsourced statements to claim the party is elitist, monarchist, and anti-Russian. It is telling that almost half of the entire article discusses events that happened before the party even existed.

I have tried on more than one occasion to add cited references to the article, but as Emneraude has reverted them each time, it became an exercise in futility. Rhialto (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late - I've been travelling and away from Wikipedia for a few days, so to come back with spurious allegations of trolling and slander is somewhat disturbing. Neither is accurate, and to accuse someone of slander is to accuse them of a criminal offence! Never mind. More worrying is the accusations of what I am supposed to have added to the article, particulaly "adding entirely unsourced statements to claim the party is elitist, monarchist, and anti-Russian". I have done no such thing. All I have done is revert my accuser's unfounded assertions that the party is not of the far right and have made no comment on any other position. If reverting this person's edits brings back these issues, so be it but that is entirely incidental. If they think these are inaccuarate descriptors they should be taken up with the editor who added them, which the history shows was 180.242.130.169 on 2 October 2015, and not me.

User:Rhialto claims to have "tried on more than one occasion to add cited references to the article". This is not true. I can only see one occasion on which a cited reference was added (Revision as of 19:37, 11 August 2015), and that was a link to the party website and its statement of principles. Not an independent reliable source, of course. More importantly, this was added to support an edit that changed Third Position to Third Way, with the rationale "They are not fascists". Seeing as the link makes no mention of Third Position, Third Way or fascism, it is of no relevance. Equally, the link makes no mention of centre or centre-left. It is, as used, completely useless.

I note that Carrite agrees with my edit rationales. User:Rhialto writes that "It's certainly true that, many years ago, a couple of the individuals involved in the party had far-right associations." This is not entirely accurate. Firstly, it was not "many years ago" and, more significantly, those involved include " former deputy chairman of the National Front (NF) and a member of the executive of the British National Party (BNP)-supported "trade union" Solidarity", "BNP leader Nick Griffin's European Parliament staff manager and a former leading figure in the NF, and general secretary of Solidarity" and its General Secretary is "himself a former NF member". (Italic quotes from the article.) That cannot be described as mere "associatons". Incidentaly, it might be useful to invite Keresaspa who originated this page and is a noted expert on far right political groupings. Emeraude (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What's happened to my article

I wrote an article, titled "Southern 80", a few weeks ago, but now I'm not sure what's happened to it. I believe I submitted it for checking and then publishing, and it said it might take a few days, but I'm not sure what's happened - and I'm finding the Wikipedia user interface a bit awkward to use/overwhelming. So hoping someone can point me in the right directionJminchin80 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jminchin80. It's here. --John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jminchin80! For future reference, you can always access your contributions list by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top-right of every page. In this case, your contributions are viewable at Special:Contributions/Jminchin80. As John mentioned, your article draft appears to be here — and it doesn't look like you've submitted it for review. You can do so by placing {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it has not been submitted for review. If I were reviewing it in its current state, I would not accept it. It's quite well written, but unfortunately good prose is not what qualifies an article for publication. You need reliable, independent sources writing about it in detail. Your sources are not that. The sponsoring club is not independent, and a magazine published by an insurance company is of dubious reliability. What you need are magazine (mainstream magazines, not trade or advertising publications) or newspaper stories. Water skiing a couple miles killed me, even as a teen. Can't imagine doing it for a hundred miles. Good luck. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks very much for your feedback. I did have that concern when I submitted the article, regarding references. For a niche activity like this, which does not feature in mainstream media, nor for which there are any books published, how would you suggest I find some reliable sources? I can try to use the newspaper from the town which the water-skiing event is held, but apart from this sources do not exist. Look forward to your response, and thanks again for the help. Jminchin80 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, coverage in mainstream media is pretty much what qualifies a subject for an article. Lacking coverage in magazines, books, newspapers, tv & radio news, or trusted academic journals, a subject just doesn't qualify for an article. For certain subjects, and events are one, that coverage has to be from a widespread area. So Altho adding things from the local paper will not hurt, it may not get you over the hurdle either. FYI, I did decline your article, and in the process of reviewing it, moved it to Draft:Southern 80. John from Idegon (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just resubmitted my first article, titled "Southern 80". I have tried to find better quality sources, as requested. I'm just a little unsure if it's been submitted for correction properly - still getting used to things on Wikipedia. Hoping someone might be able to check for me? Jminchin80 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jminchin80, as the pink box at the top now says: "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review." It has been properly submitted for review. I see that you added a number of source citations. I haven't reviewed those in detail, but the AfC reviewer should do so. DES ^(talk) 01:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The draft has been approved and the article can now be found at Southern 80. Thank you for contributing an article to Wikipedia! Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any future questions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)