Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231

How to make a Suggestion/Request for Feature to Wikipedia

Hi dear Teahouse, I was thinking about a maybe new feature in Wikipedia and was wondering where I can drop it? It may even be available already and I don't know about. Any suggestions (pun intended) is really appreciated. Thanks Alireza1357 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alireza1357: I'm not a mentor or official answerer here at the Teahouse, but it'll probably be a lot easier to get your question answered if you describe what the new feature is that you're interested in establishing. --Thnidu (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alireza1357 the Idea lab is a good place to start. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Thnidu and User:Dodger67,

Thanks for your comments. I was thinking about a light weight popup mechanism in Wikipedia that users can turn on or off. The popups will show after x ms of hovering over a word in Wikipedia that is linked to another page on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a lot and when reading a page, I don't like to open many other pages just to find out what a word means in an article. I was thinking about how Google scrapes the introduction section of a page from Wikipedia and shows it on its search result pages, Wikipedia could give us the ability to have the short definition of a subject just by hovering over it when reading something here.

I was about to submit this to the Idea Lab, but thought it may be helpful to check it first with you guys.

Hope that makes sense. Alireza1357 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alireza1357: This actually already exists! See WP:POPUPS for instructions on how to turn it on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Seraphimblade It actually hurts to be such a know-nothing newbie, but the Teah House is a really good place to ask questions. That was exactly what I was looking for. Cheers and good luck! Alireza1357 (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alireza1357! It's so natural that people aren't aware of all features provided by Wikipedia, because there's just tons of them. It takes time (a lot, actually). So, don't feel for it.

In case you find Navigation popups to be showing a lot of information than you need and if you're interested in trying out Beta features, you may find Hover cards as a good replacement. In case you're stuck somewhere trying to enable it, feel free to ask me in my talk page. Happy Reading! Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kaartic Love to you and the nice ppl here in Tea House. Alireza1357 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, welcomes you ;) Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 09:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have a uniform writing style?

I notice that many of the articles on this site have a general tone and prose to them that is pretty seamless. Many newspapers and other similar publications encourage their contributors to adopt a standard form of writing so that the publication maintains a certain "image". Does Wikipedia have such guidelines? Should we avoid or embrace particular writing conventions when contributing to articles?Truthslayer89 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a manual of style that concerns small things like grammar and punctuation but there's nothing affecting writer's voice beyond that. Beyond that, articles work on the same principle as choirs -- frequently read articles have hundreds of editors, making it nearly impossible to pick out inconsistencies. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages do have particular guidelines that are usually noted on the talk page - for example, some pages use British English. In cases where an article has an established style for citation or British/American english, it is a good idea to adhere to that style unless there is consensus for a change. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthslayer89. Take a look at Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Information style and tone as well as the rest of that article. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great discussion, Ian.thomson Some editors edit in different areas. For example, I am a medical content writer. So for those of us create content and edit on medical topids, we follow WP:MEDMOS which is a manual of style for medical articles. Having said this, there are lots of reasons to NOT follow a manual of style, but editors decide that on their own. If you deviate significantly from a consensus-derived-style, you will hear about it from other editors or they may just edit your content to match what they think is the 'proper' style. I used to be insulted, but I don't care anymore. With my tongue in my cheek, I can say that if I didn't make errors in my prose and style, some editors wouldn't have anything to do!

Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 22:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold in lead section?

Hi, I was wondering if I should use '''bold''' or the {{strong|strong}} in the lead section? There seems to be conflicting information. In Template:Strong it says "In the lead section of an article, the article's title and its synonyms should be emphasized with {{strong}}", but MOS:BOLD says "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section […] HTML's <strong>...</strong> emphasis (which usually renders as boldface) is generally not appropriate in article text, though it is common in project pages, template documentation, talk page discussions and other non-article contexts."

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Scannability it seems like I should be using {{strong}}, yeah? I just want to confirm. Umimmak (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Umimmak, and welcome to the Teahouse. Either will do. I personally have been using wiki markup for bold for over 10 years, and plan to keep doing so. The MOS in my view takes precedence over any template's or project's documentation. If you like you could raise this at WT:Manual of Style/Text formatting or WT:MOS and suggest that these various sources of documentation be brought into agreement. DES ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, DESiegel, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding something. It took me a while to learn I should be using {{lang}} and when to use {{em}} over ''italics'', so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something big by not using {{strong}}. Thanks Umimmak (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umimmak, I just reread that MOS page, and it covers in some detail when to use and when not to use {{strong}} and {{em}}. Bold, not {{strong}}, should be used for the title and related terms in the lead section. If there is reason to use boldface in the artticle body (usually there isn't) the strong template may well be the best method. DES ^(talk) 02:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers for multiple citations of a single academic article

Hi, I'm using a journal article (via JSTOR) to cite several points and want to know if I can put in page number references, or should I put the citation at the end of all quotes? Gsnerd (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to log off so I have made the edit as a single citation at the end of the quotes at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortifacient&oldid=777918551 . If this is the wrong way please leave a message and I will add the page numbers tomorrow. Gsnerd (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gsnerd and welcome to the Teahouse. It is best to provide as much information as possible so that a reader who wants to verify or further explore a source can find the exact passage beign cited. Page numbers should be provided when they are available. To provide separate citations to different pages of the same source without repeating the entire bibliographic data for the source, you can create a basic cite for the source without page numbers, use it multiple times as specified in WP:REFNAME, and then use {{rp}} to specify the page number for each individual citation. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 03:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DES! That was a very useful explanation, the article is now fixed. Gsnerd (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse, Gsnerd. I also use a lot of journal citations. I enter the full citation with the right parameters the first time I use the source. Whenever the source needs to be used to support content from the same source but from a different page, I reference the second occurence like this: {{sfn|Jones|page = 10}} . It is good thing to ask questions at the Teahouse because there are probably plenty of other new editors that have the same question but are afraid to ask. Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring the truth is used

I have a problem, on the page 'Jenny Cockell' one pivotal fact keeps being removed. There is also a misdirection that keeps being added. It is about naming the village of Malahide

Cockell first indicated and named Malahide as the location of her past life memory whilst at primary school and drew maps of the village from memory. It was pivotal to the research. Unless Malahide had been named in childhood there would have been no research and there would be no page named Jenny Cockell on Wikipedia. Researchers from the BBC and from the Society for Psychical Research interviewed witnesses who Cockell spoke to in childhood to confirm that the memories and Malahide were mentioned in childhood.

How do I ensure that this pivotal and well documented fact remains on the page? Jonparkyn Jonparkyn (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonparkyn. The first step you should take is to communicate with the other editors about your concerns. I see one editor, MjolnirPants, has already tried to communicate with you about the article here: Talk:Jenny Cockell#edit warring. You should discuss your concerns with them on the article's talk page. — Gestrid (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input-someone has corrected the error now. I am leaving Wikipedia and will no longer edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonparkyn (talk • contribs) 07:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kisan devta mandir

Worlds first kisan devta mandir is in Saray mahesh patti pratapgarh 230135 Uttar pradesh India Its a very big news boost it all over the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpoot saksham (talk • contribs) 05:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news channel. Are you suggesting a new article? Dbfirs 06:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article using these two sources

If I write an article about Ahrix, using these two sources [1][2], would it survive deletion (AFD/CSD)? The first source is an interview (significant coverage) and the second one is a chart showing the artist meets the notability for musicians criteria (WP:MUSICBIO). I couldn't find any other sources about this topic. - TheMagnificentist 09:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheMagnificentist, and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that interviews generally fall under the heading of "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves," and so contribute little to notability. The chart entry might be enough to establish notability, it should be enough to avoid an A7 CSD. But with nothing to say beyond what is in those two sources, it would be a very short article at best. I would advise waiting until additional reliable sources can be found. If Ahrix is truly notable, more will be written about him if it hasn't already been. DES ^(talk) 14:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay thanks! - TheMagnificentist 14:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

On checking Columbidae with earwig, it shows above 90 percentage confidence with such websites, which are seemingly wikimirrors. So, how to circumvent it for GA? Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that reviewers can be relied on to disregard demonstrably false positives, such as those caused by mirror sites.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, people like me who spend a lot of time researching and deleting copyright violations are thoroughly aware of mirrors and backwards copyvios, and never rely on Earwig's tool or any others without checking the source and if it was actually first such as by using the Wayback Machine, looking in the article history to see whether content developed slowly over time or was adding in large swaths and related methods.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do i reply

How do i reply to someone who gives me the answer to the question???Monkey88888888 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating a new section, you find the section where the message is and hit "edit" next to that section. You use one or more colons ( : ) to indent your post, which goes below the message you are replying to. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natural News.Com

Wikipedia is not the place to promote pet theories.

Good Day,

The description on this page regarding vaccines is inaccurate. It is published science that vaccines, especially the MMR causes a higher rate of Autism than unvaccinated children. Especially in young African-American males under 36 months of age. Check Pubmed.gov or the CDC. Thanks2602:306:306C:6960:ECFD:D6EE:B0B7:F4EE (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could give a reference for this controversial research? Dbfirs 11:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But not just any references, the cited source must comply with the specific standard for sources about medical claims. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is "published science" that autism's connection to vaccination is thoroughly debunked, pseudoscientific bunk that all has its origins in a "1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the later discredited claim...", and that people like you who still glom onto and perniciously spread this—maybe yourself not vaccinating your children, but causing other credulous and ill-informed people not to vaccinate—kill people, by causing holes in the vaccinated population so that vulnerable innocents like infants, people with compromised immune systems, and the like who can't be immunized, end up being exposed and dying from a pathogen that would otherwise not be as prevalent or would be mostly eradicated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, my science doesn't agree with an ip address. Creeper Ninja (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page throwing error for wrong infobox

Hello! Doc James and I are trying to figure out why Cerebral palsy is throwing an unknown parameter error for the complications field in Template:Infobox medical condition even through it's actually using Template:Infobox medical condition (new), which does support complications. And the parameter works just fine! Anyone know how to fix this? Thanks! – 𝕘wendy | ☎ 16:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC) -->[reply]

Hi Gwendy. {{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|...}} in {{Infobox medical condition (new)}} must list all known parameters. Other parameters are assume to be unknown. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter I am not sure what you mean? How does one fix this false warning? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Edit {{Infobox medical condition (new)}}. Look for {{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|...}} near the end, add complications and any other known parameters to the list of known parameters there, and change "Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters" to the real name of the template. Detection of unknown parameters is unfortunately not automatic. You have to provide a list of all known parameters. It's not checked whether the list corresponds to the actual code of the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:PrimeHunter It worked :-) Many many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I have seen your edit [3] and removed [4] complication (singular) since it's not currently a known parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing user name

When I created my wikipedia user, I was not aware of the fact that the login name would be the same as the display name. I created my account with the user name Jpkent, thinking I would be able to use my full name Jean-Pierre Kent later as a display name. When I discovered this was not the case, I looked for a way to correct this, and I chose the function Move. The result is a mess. The Jpkent signature produced by the four tildes now sends you to User:Jean-Pierre Kent where I used it before the move, but to User:Jpkent for the more recent cases. What must I do now to obtain a signature that reads Jean-Pierre Kent and redirects to User:Jean-Pierre Kent, without breaking the links from the older signatures?

Jpkent (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpkent, welcome to the Teahouse. The user page should be at the name of the account so I have moved commons:User:Jean-Pierre Kent back to commons:User:Jpkent. You have two options. One is to enter Jean-Pierre Kent in the "Signature" field at Special:Preferences (don't make a checkmark below it). Then your signature will say "Jean-Pierre Kent (talk)", displaying "Jean-Pierre Kent" but linking to User:Jpkent. Repeat this at commons:Special:Preferences and other wikis you edit in the future. The signature field only affects the signature. If you want to be called Jean-Pierre Kent elsewhere, for example at top of your user page and in page histories, then you must use another option: Making a request at Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jpkent, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page User:Jean-Pierre Kent does not exist, and should not, because no one has registered that as a user name. Your signature now seems to be linking to User:Jpkent, as it should.

What you can most easily do is use a customn signature as detailed in WP:CUSTOMSIG That could include your full name, if you wish. If you wish to go farther you could create a valid alternate account of the sort known as a Doppelgänger account, and then redirect [[User:Jean-Pierre Kent] to User:Jpkent. If you want more detailed advice on how to do this, or assitance, please say so. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 17:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to a template dont display on articles its used at

Hello, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia so there is a lot I don't understand. One being that changes I did to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ornithodira by adding extra characters do not display on (likely) all articles this template is used at. I read about templates, did things such as clearing my browser cache and checking edits from different computer, but the issue is still there. I tried the trick of editing source and then clicking save changes without doing anything on some pages. But I found that time consuming, especially because I don't know how to search for every article that has this template. Much help and tips for me to keep in mind from now on is much appreciated! WikiEditorMax (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiEditorMax, welcome to the Teahouse. When a template is edited, pages using the template are placed in a job queue and will eventually be updated automatically but it varies how long it takes. You can force an update of a specific page with the trick you mention but it's usually fine to just wait for the job queue which uses less server resources. You can click "What links here" under "Tools" in the left pane of a template to find pages using the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, WikiEditorMax, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may need to wait until the automated behind the scenes processing catches up. Note that the null edit needs to be performed on the article that transcludes the template, not the template itself. You can find a list of articles that use the template by going to the template page Template:Ornithodira, and clicking "what links here", On most skins this is in the list of tools and other links on the left of the page. It seems that there are between 50 and 100 such articles.

I note that in thjis edit you removed a group from the template, the Marasuchidae. Was this your intention? DES ^(talk) 17:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Now that this is clear for me I'd rather wait than force that change to all those pages. And yes, it was my intention to remove that group. WikiEditorMax (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Replication doubt

I created an article Trashigang Dzong. However as I was working on expanding the article, I noticed that a 1 line stub article which probably refers to the same monastery already exists at Trashigang Nunnery. Is there someway I can save my article or is it useless to expand it anymore as the article will be deleted soon.Jupitus Smart 17:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jupitus Smart. Your work need not be lost. If these two articles are about the same monastery, they can be merged. You can suggest this by using the templates {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} appropriately. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC) I hope this is helpful, Jupitus Smart. DES ^(talk) 17:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DES. I have acted upon your suggestion. Let us see how it transpires now.Jupitus Smart 17:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Would it be improper if I just redirected the original Trashigang Nunnery page to Trashigang Dzong. Trashigang Dzong is the commonly used name, and there is nothing in the original article to merit a merge anyway. Jupitus Smart 17:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: If it's the same place then it seems clear one of the articles should be redirected to the other. Trashigang Nunnery gives me the impression it's a current monastery. If that's true then Trashigang Dzong should mention it. If you redirect the Nunnery article then please update the link in {{Buddhist monasteries in Bhutan}}. Articles don't have to update links. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: The dzong is indeed a current monastery and I have added that to the new article. I have also redirected the original page as per the suggestions. Thank You. Jupitus Smart 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Translate or not?

Hello, I have recently translated an article into Dutch "Blue Air bestemmingen", but it was marked for speedy deletion as it was seen as a duplication on the English article. I have maintained the same format as the English article. I don't understand; Why is my translated article removed, I thought I would contribute by translating the article...?Leo 0607 51 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leo 0607 5, and welcome to the Teahouse. Translations of Wikipedia articles can indeed be helpful, but you must understand how to use them. This is the English-language edition of Wikipedia: all articles here should be in English. Articles from other language editions of Wikipedia may be translated and added here. Articles from the en-Wikipedia may be translated and added to the appropriate version of Wikipedia, in this case the Dutch-language edition, Each edition of Wikipedia has its own local customs and procedures, and you must conform with those. I confess that I do not know the details of any formats that the Dutch-language Wikipedia might use. But in any case, your translation should not be posted to the English-language Wikipedia, but to the Dutch-language one. See Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Translate us for more details. If you need a copy of your translated text for that purpose, let me know and I will email it to you. DES ^(talk) 17:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DES, thank you for your reply. If posting my translation to the wrong section/departement of Wikipedia is the source of my issue, then the issue is solved, since I might just messed up the posting . Leo 0607 51 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leo 0607 51. I see you translated Blue Air destinations to nl:Blue Air bestemmingen at the Dutch Wikipedia so you did post it in the right place and parts of the first reply don't apply. But Wikipedia languages are edited independently and have different policies. I don't know Dutch but the Dutch Wikipedia did apparently not want a list of airline destinations. Based on Google Translate they didn't complain it was translated from the English Wikipedia but said it belonged on the official website of the airline itself. The English Wikipedia also thinks some things only belong on an official website and not Wikipedia, but in English we do allow lists of airline destinations. We have a big Category:Lists of airline destinations but I notice it has no interlanguage link to the Dutch Wikipedia which may not have such pages. Issues with the Dutch Wikipedia should be brought up there. This Teahouse is only for the English Wikipedia. DES and I are only administrators at the English Wikipedia so we cannot access deleted pages at the Dutch Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PrimeHunter, thank you for your reply and for your time to take a dive into the history of the page. I guess I will do some other improvement tasks on the English and Dutch Wikipedia and I will link to the official website rather than translating such articles in the future. Cheers Leo 0607 51 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter thank you for finding the page that was posted on the Dutch Wikipedia. I was basing my comment on the page Blue Air bestemmingen, which was posted here on en by Leo 0607 5, and deleted by Alexf under CSD A10. The standards for what kinds of articles are accepted do vary between the different language editions of Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

introduction for trajectory of water jetz

i want a intoduction about trajectory of water jet in the fluid mechanics 185.56.193.147 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. You might find what you need in the article fluid mechanics; or else I suggest you ask at the Science section of the Wikipedia reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple rejection despite major rewrite, no specific reason given.

Hi, I'm still trying to get this article published after many months, but repeated generic 'feedback' like 'This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article." is at best subjective, at worst lazy.

If I'm to make any progress with this I need specific feedback, ie this (quote) reads like an essay not an encyclopedia article, because...

If the reviewer can't do this, then the fault cannot be as glaring as the dismissal implies. I've even asked a colleague who is an English teacher to read over this, and he's at a loss as to how to direct me as well. As a native English speaker and teacher of English for over 30 years, I'm utterly stymied at this point. If I'd known trying to contribute to the amazing body of knowledge that is Wikipedia would be this frustrating, I never would have started. MisterMcHugh (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you provide a link to the article? Bennv3771 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't hard to look at his contributions or talk page and see he is talking about Draft:Digital Literacy Coach. ~ GB fan 12:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to provide the same link, but stopped to read the essay. It's a good essay, which is what teachers of English are trained to write, but it is not written as an encyclopaedia article. Despite many references to related matters, it still looks like WP:Original research to me. If your aim is to " put out to a wider community to invite a wider discussion" then possibly you need to publish the material elsewhere. Dbfirs 12:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone cite a specific instance of its 'essay like nature', to say it look like OR makes no sense, I've gone out of my way to back up everything with sources, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." My main purpose to add to the body of knowledge that is Wikipedia, anything else is a bonus. Nothing in Wikipedia describes what this role is. MisterMcHugh (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us to one reliable source on the subject of Digital Literacy Coach? Your aim seems to be to publicise this term. I agree that it has been used in a small number of contexts, but not yet widely. Dbfirs 12:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references aren't available online, which isn't itself a problem, but neither of the two which I could read (refs 2 and 19) use the term "Digital Literacy Coach". We need references which talk specifically about the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, many of the peer reviewed sources will be behind a pay wall. It's not so much the nomenclature, as the many derivatives that relate to it, as mentioned in the article, eg 'ICT Coordinator'. If you Google 'Digital Literacy Coach' you'll see many educational institutions who use this term or the related terms in the article, eg 'Tech Coach' etc. Do I need to change the title of the article to 'ICT Coordinator' which is cited by peer reviewed journals? How authoritative does the use of the term need to be? These schools all seem to use the term, and that's not including its derivatives:

https://www.uwcsea.edu.sg/Learning/Technology http://solutions.asf.edu.mx/jobapplication/Admin/Files/2017%20-%202018%20Digital%20Literacy%20Coach%20announcement.pdf http://manaraacademy.org/jobs/digital-literacy-technology-coach/ http://www.langleyteachers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Digital-Literacy-Coach-flyer-final-2013.pdf https://www.cis.edu.sg/learning/digital-literacy

These peer reviewed journals also use/refer to the term, so do I need to add these to my sources? O'Connor, D. L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2003). Today's Coaches Prepare Tomorrow's Mentors: Sustaining the Results of Professional Development. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482676 Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J., Cramer, J. E. F. F. R. Y., Hanson, L. A. U. R. A., Huang, W., Lee, Y. E. K. Y. U. N. G., ... & Um, E. J. (2005). Professional development coaches: Perceptions of critical characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 15(1), 52-75. https://books.google.com.sg/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VpYjBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA52&dq=%22digital+literacy+coach%22&ots=idt-SWfzn6&sig=FrDtkuqb6_1P0nqkACFLjs6QpR8 Trainin, G., & Friedrich, L. A. (2014). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in teacher preparation: Impact of coaching professional development and mobile devices. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsgpirw/29/ MisterMcHugh (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be helpful to look at a featured article about a profession to see how one can write such an article in encyclopedic style, rather than in the style of an essay. . I know of only one, Actuary. Mduvekot (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mduvekot I've been doing precisely this, but using this article based on the teaching profession. I can't for the life of me see a stark difference! Again, I seek a specific example, the fact the none has been forthcoming surely shows that the distinction is not as obvious as is implied by the constant rejection of this article... MisterMcHugh (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Mistermchugh. I hope that I can be of some help to you. One thing that is needed is sources to show that the term Digital Literacy Coach is in reasonably wide use. The sources you note above, plus such items as https://conference.iste.org//2015/?id=94325430 and https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/coaching-for-digital-literacy/id608805196?mt=11 and http://solutions.asf.edu.mx/jobapplication/Admin/Files/2017%20-%202018%20Digital%20Literacy%20Coach%20announcement.pdf will help with that. The issue of the tone of the draft is also important, and harder to explain. To say that it is "essay-like" is perhaps not very helpful -- clearly you have not found it so. Perhaps it would be better top say that the draft currently is prescriptive and exhortive, rather than descriptive. A Wikipedia article should describe something, as objectivly and neutrally as possible. It should not tell people how to do something, nor try to forward a point of view. For example the draft now says: "This approach should not only focus on the use of digital tools but should equally emphasise the importance of the use digital tools to teach curriculum content using pedagogical approaches that support learning and teaching" This is telling people how to be a DLC, not describing what a DLC is and what a DLC does. When the draft says "A DLC must consider the curricular goals..." it again feels more instructional than descriptive. "All interventions led by a DLC should be pedagogically centred..." has a similar feeling". Changing the draft so that it is as purely descriptivev in tone and content as possible should help a lot.

I also notice a possible problem in sourcing. The sentence "The provision of skills training onsite to teachers in the use digital tools can be difficult to achieve, due to conflicting demands on time and space." is supported by a cited source, one of the few that is online. But this source, or at least its abstract, does not mention any "difficulties". It describes a study of how providing such support worked, and perhaps the body of the source describes such difficulties. The quote= parameter of the citation templates can be used to provide a short supporting quote from a source. This is very helpful when the source is offline, or behind a paywall.

I alos see a few grammer issues, such as "... using information communication technologies (ICTs) or digital tools, such as laptops or tablets, effectively to enhance teaching and learning" and "some institutions choose to utilise some expenses,..." but these can be handled by normal editing. I think this draft can be made into a useful and aceptable Wikipedia Article, with some work. DES ^(talk) 14:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DES Thanks for this, this is the kind of feedback I was hoping for, now I have work to do! I'm still not sure why your feel those are grammatical issues? Is it because I've used British spelling? Sorry if it's obvious to you, but I'm not seeing the error? --MisterMcHugh (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistermchugh No not spelling issues at all. I would think that "effectively to enhance teaching " should be "to effectively enhance teaching" or better just "to enhance teaching". As for "some institutions choose to utilise some expenses" one does not use expenses, one spends them, or uses funds, and "use" is almost always better than "utilise" in my view. But those are details and can be addressed by cooperative editing. DES ^(talk) 14:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine navy

A pleasant afternoon to you all. I am just trying to remove some certain parts at the page, particularly at the "future of the philippine navy" part. As far as the filipino people are concerned, the ones I am trying to remove are pertaining to already commissioned ships and assets of the navy. So there's no reason to include an item which is presently active in the navy to the portion talking about its "future". If this is a policy of the wiki management to revert it all over and over again, please ask the editors first who only volunteer on doing this before bringing the article back to its redudant state. I've seen some similar changes in the philipine air force page which I am trying to emulate in the philippine navy page, particularly about taking out the portions talking about already commissioned assets in the future assets portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmiccomrade15th (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cosmiccomrade15th, and welcome to the TeaHouse. I see that you have bele en removing entire sourced sections of the article Philippine Navy that with the announced future plans of that navy. It is appropriate for a broad article such as Philippine Navy to cover future activities, when those are supported by cited reliable sources. If you think that specific facts do not belong in the article, or should go in a different section, I urge you to discuss this at Talk:Philippine Navy, particularly after another editor has reverted your changes. Please follow the Bold, revert, discuss pattern. DES ^(talk) 14:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Cosmiccomrade15th, You gave a clear reason for your changes here. However you didn't explain it when you made the edits. You can often avoid having your edits reverted simply by providing an edit summary explaining the reason for your changes. (& in this case possibly providing a link to a source that backs up your contention that the items are no longer 'future') See WP:Help:Edit_summary. Gab4gab (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a row in an existing table

I am very very new to this, and finding it quite difficult! But I thought I'd try adding an item to the Timeline of Maltese History, in which I am interested. I failed at the first hurdlIe; couldn't work out how to add a row to the existing table, to insert my new item. Any guidance, please? GiovanniGozo (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've taken a look at the page, and it's using a Year / Date / Event layout. So in the area that you're looking to make an addition, simply add the line: | XX || YY || ZZ

where XX is the year of the event, YY is the specific date, if one exists, and ZZ is the description for the event. Hope that helps. (*if you make the change and it's not coming out as you'd like, give me a shout*) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, GiovanniGozo! Could you provide the exact name of the article you're referring to? We don't seem to have one called Timeline of Maltese History, and there's no record of your editing any similar article under your current username. (For general advice on tables, Help:Table/Introduction to tables may be helpful, by the way.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a casing issue there... lol Timeline of Maltese history vs "History". - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 16:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these edits wrong ?

My initial edits on Wikipedia began as appealing for few articles for undeletion at Request for undeletion form. As I am new, I was not aware of the aftermaths, I did some mistakes I think. One admin named, tokyogirl placed some warrant on my talk page as well giving me a strict warning in a polite way that I may be representing some company or I am a paid editor. But that is not the case. All I want to work is on suggested and deleted articles and stub and under developed articles or articles which still need some improvement. So is it a good or a bad step for a new user to start right away with deleted articles asked to be undeleted and asking for their improvement ? I am feeling a little scary as well as I just saw my name in some spi case which I cannot understand what is it all about. Conflictoreditor (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Conflictoreditor, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is a bit unusual for a new editor to start off by asking for deleted articles to be restored, but there is nothing wrong in doing so. It may raise a suspicion that you are not as new as you say, but are instead an old editor under a new name. But if that is not so, if you truly think you can improve a deleted article so that it is s suitable for Wikipedia, that is a good intention. Some articles will not be restored, of course, such as copyright violations and attack pages. If pages are restored, it may well be in the Draft: namespace.

I do wonder how you happened to know of specific deleted pages that you are interested in working on. Would you care to let us know that? DES ^(talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to AGF, but I had the same question.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on User talk:Conflictoreditor this user writes: "I picked up random articles from deletion log and started working on it" and again "I am a new user on Wikipedia and had randomly requested for undeletion of few articles." I don't think I have heard of anyone doing that before but it is perfectly possible. DES ^(talk) 00:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, DES ^(talk). The names of the articles were from deletion log. I picked up many pages, searched on them and then came up with some pages which I thought can be restored and I started with only few. I was not aware that these things will happen after requesting at undeletion for. I again apologize for that. Conflictoreditor (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error when I try to post

Hello everyone,

I've tried updating several pages today and keep getting this red error message when I try to post:

"Error Saving Data to Server. Empty Server Response".

I've tried refreshing, relaunching my browser, nothing seems to help? Thanks!

Winter.cat (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that I can successfully post changes if I don't include a citation to a news article. Odd? What am I doing wrong? Winter.cat (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Winter.cat. I'm not sure what is going on, but it seems there's a glitch and you're not the only person experiencing it. See Wikipedia:Help desk#I can't save my edits, which secondarily refers to another report at Commons:Commons:Help desk#ERROR MESSAGE WHEN SAVING. The place where the tech gurus/developers hang out is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It might be useful to post there. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winter.cat: Looks like this problem should now be resolved, thanks for reporting it! Sam Walton (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, guys! Most appreciated for the updates. Winter.cat (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a page about an event coordinated by someone I know personally.

I wanted to write an article about an annual charity music event that raises money generally for nonprofits local to the Baltimore area. I want to write about the event, mentioning its history - how it came about and ongoing . I personally know who started the event.

I do not plan on writing the page to promote the event, the beneficiaries of the event, or the person responsible for initiating the event. It is merely to add to the musical history of Baltimore, and I think I might have enough content and existing references to warrant for the event to have its own page.

The event has been covered by newspaper, radio, and television in the Baltimore and Ocean Pines areas of Maryland. Further, it has recurred every year since 2013, and will do so indefinitely. The event is overseen by a 501(c)(3) charity. Essentially, it is a charity that raises funds for other charities.

Since I know the person who started the event, am I too "close" to create a Wikipedia page about the event? By knowing the person, it does help me gather information more easily, but I would write it objectively. Would it be in danger of deletion if I created the page?

By the way, I have never written an article for Wikipedia before, but I have limited experience with editing existing pages.

Smstuckey (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smstuckey. You do have a conflict of interest, which doesn't mean you can't write it, but it does mean your creation of it and edits about it are subject to heightened scrutiny. The fact that you're asking about it rather than just doing it is itself a very good sign.

The first consideration is whether or not sufficient reliable, secondary and independent published sources exist and contain substantive detail about the topic (not just mere mentions – think two of three dedicated paragraphs) upon which the article can be based, and in order to demonstrate it is a notable topic that warrants a stand-alone article. Gather your sources first and only write if that standard is met—because if sources of that type and depth don't exist, you will be wasting your own time.

If that hurdle is a go, and you are intent on writing this, cite those sources transparently as you go, and include nothing in the article that is not verified in them (the sources are cited to verify the information, but you must write in your own words).

Include no original research. What you know, but can't verify in a reliable, published source, cannot be included. I mention this because you sort of imply by saying you "personally know who started the event", that maybe that is not a published fact.

Further, please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, the neutral point of view policy and WP:PEACOCK. I know I've thrown a lot of links at you. The thing is, vast numbers of people start articles without basic due diligence about how and whether to write an article, often starting ones that cannot remain for myriad reasons, and so we end up deleting a few thousand pages every day as written in a blatantly promotional manner, as failing to credibly indicate any importance, as copyright violations, etc. This is not ideal for anyone involved. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted New Workers' Voice but it got speedily deleted. why

I posted about my new online magazine New Workers' Voice newworkersvoice.com but it got speedily deleted. why and when I first started publishing in 2001 I had posted back then and it got deleted too. I noticed many other media and magazines listed in wiki. Why would mine get deleted?? Jethro Cull (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jethro Cull. There is some text on your user talk page explaining why the article was deleted, including many blue links to pages which explain terms and policy in more detail. Not being an administrator, I can't look at the text that was deleted, so I can't tell you specifically what was not acceptable; but in general I can say that Wikipedia (which is not called "wiki", by the way: there are thousands of wikis on the internet) does not contain articles about everything, but only about subjects which are notable in Wikipedia's special sense, which means that people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write substantial material about the subject, published in a reliable place such as a major newspaper or a book from a reputable publisher. If your magazine is new, it is unlikely to meet that criterion.

If your magazine is notable in that sense, then there may be an article: this must be neutrally written, based almost entirely on what those reliable independent sources say about it. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about itself, and absolutely no interest in how a subject wishes to be written about. As the proprietor of the magazine, you have a conflict of interest, which may make it difficult for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way, so you are discouraged from writing about it.

We have many articles about magazines (which are, or should be, more than "listings"). Ideally they are all high quality articles about notable topics; but among our five million articles there are unfortunately some low quality articles, and some which should never have been written (typically they were created long ago, when we were less diligent than we are now). Please don't compare your work with an article which might be poor: if you want an article to compare with, look through category:Featured articles for one on a suitable subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submission of 1st article

Hello sir/mam,

i am trying to submit my first article about a political figure. it was deleted as i submitted it twice . kindly help 123shob123 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 123shob123, and welcome to the Teahouse. User:123shob123/sandbox/Haji Anayat Ali was deleted by RHaworth with the note: "This draft appears to be a (slightly) outdated version of Draft:Haji Anayat Ali, both this page and that draft were created by the same account." Is that incorrect? Was this intended to be a different article? DES ^(talk) 00:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The duplicate draft in your sandbox was deleted because the draft at Draft:Haji Anayat Ali had earlier been submitted for review, but I notice that in this edit you removed the submission template. Did you deliberately remove it from the review process? I have added a template which will allow you (or another user) to submit the draft for review again when it is ready. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit out irrelevant information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction#China

I want to edit out

"Treatment for the patients, most of whom have been forced to attend by parents or government officials, include various forms of pain including shock therapy.[30][31] In August 2009, Deng Sanshan was reportedly beaten to death in a correctional facility for video game and Web addiction.[32]"

This is an inforamtion from gossip websites from 2007. I don't understand how a crime is releveant to addiction treatment. I think it has no relevance to the topic. Should I edit this out? How should I do it? Ogomemnon (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ogomemnon. Welcome to the Teahouse. I only glanced at it quickly, but it looks as if the sources there include the Guardian and Wired—not quite what I'd call gossip websites. I'm not so sure that a named patient/victim belongs, but the rest of it does seem at least somewhat relevant. These things are usually best discussed at an article's talk page, though, so that the various editors who watch the article can reach consensus. You might want to start a new thread at Talk:Video game addiction and see where consensus lies. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a brand name to the Indian brands page? Thanks

Hi,

I would like to add a brand names to the list of indian brands page. Kindly help me how to do it.

Thanks

(Srinu7j (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (Srinu7j, welcome to the Teahouse. Which brand and which list? If you refer to Category:Indian brands then categories are only for subjects with Wikipedia articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for quick reply, yes I was referring to Category:Indian brands.. So how do I go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinu7j (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Srinu7j]], does the brand you want to add have a Wikipedia article? If it does al you need to do is add [[Category:Indian brands]] to the bottom of the page. If it does not it is more complicated. ~ GB fan 10:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks for your reply. No, it doesnot have a wikipedia article at present. It would be great if you can let me know how can I do it?

Srinu7j (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Srinu7j. For an introduction to the difficult task of creating a new Wikipedia article (whether about a brand or anything else), please study your first article. Please understand that Wikipedia may not be used for advertising, and if you have any connection with the brand in question you need to be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create an article for a musician and approve it?

My aunty, Ms.Bela Sulakhe is a Playback singer. She had a wikipedia page a while ago but somehow got deleted. I wish to make a new one with a proper and honest information about her. Please Guide me. Kimaya Sulakhe (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kimaya Sulakhe: You will need to find multiple reliable sources created independently of her that discuss her in significant depth, to demonstrate notability. If those references exist, make sure to stick only to facts the references actually verify, not use any personal knowledge not verified by references, and ensure that the article is neutral in tone. Since you're close to the subject and that can make it hard to maintain neutrality, you might consider using the draft and articles for creation processes to get feedback rather than trying to write the article directly into the encyclopedia. If substantial amounts of independent and reliable reference material about her don't exist, I'm afraid she wouldn't be an appropriate subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks A lot ! It was Very Helpful.

Kimaya Sulakhe (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De-Indexing Talk Page

Hello,

I recently participated in the creation of a Wiki entry for Gryphon Investors. The page was approved for publication and is now indexed in search engines. I notice that the associated Talk page is also indexed in search engines. Do Talk pages always index automatically? Should they be de-indexed and is there a way to do this? Thank you. Enjoying contributing to Wikipedia and appreciate your help.

Arsenl2017 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arsenl2017 and welcoem back to the Teahouse. You might want to read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. By default, article talk pages are subject to indexing by search engines. Is there a reason why you would want Talk:Gryphon Investors not to be indexed? DES ^(talk) 15:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your answer. No special reason. I just saw that the listings come up together in Google and was wondering why there would be two different associated pages listed for the Wiki entry. Thank you. Arsenl2017 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, now I can't seem to find the gryphon investors site in Google, just the Talk page. Arsenl2017 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I note that I wrote the article on behalf of someone as non-paid hired help?

I previously wrote a Wikipedia article that was deleted due to it falling under the guidelines of being written by hired help. I was told that I am required to note my affiliation to the subject matter in the article, but I have not found any reference that shows how to do this. I have rewritten the article for review and wanted to make sure that I do not run into this issue again. I was asked to write the article as a favor for a friend. The article can be found here: Draft:Martin H. Hiller

Thanks, Jameswhunt (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jameswhunt. You probably have already been told that undisclosed paid editing is forbidden. Nonetheless, even if you are not compensated for your editing, you have a conflict of interest which you are encouraged to disclose, see WP:DISCLOSE for multiple ways to do so.

No article submission should be deleted just because the main author has a conflict of interest. However, any article needs to be written in a neutral point of view which means overly promotional content will be deleted. I have no access to the deleted content, but I can guess what happened from the logs: a reviewer (SwisterTwister) reviewed your article, and (I guess) proposed it for deletion with a rationale that was IMO incorrect ("smells like paid editing") but was understood by the deleting administrator (Explicit) as implying a correct rationale ("is promotional").

I "pinged" both involved editors to bring their attention here, but for the record, if you have issues with any editor, it is usually best to discuss it with them before coming to another forum. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan Thank you for the response. Unfortunately I am still learning Wiki so my work is mostly trial and error. The concern attached to my deleted article states: "History shows all the signs of either a paid advertisement or hired help, both of which are needed to be openly noted by our policies or else it's a violation of the basic expectations of WP:What Wikipedia is not."

I was unaware that I needed to disclose my relationship with the subject matter, but I have no problem doing so. I am friends with the subject matter's Executive Assistant. She reached out to me because of my computer and writing background. I am more than happy to disclose what ever is required! :) Jameswhunt (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James, the article, Martin H. Hiller was deleted using the WP:PROD process. That process is very easy to remove the page and very easy to get it back. If you want the content of the original article you wrote, let me know and I will restore it. ~ GB fan 15:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GB fan that would be great. Thank you very much! Jameswhunt (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jameswhunt the article has been restored. There is a possibility that it might be nominated for deletion, so you should work on it to clear up any problems. ~ GB fan 17:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page: Lambeau Field; should I edit the following information?

Hi I am working on the Lambeau Field article and noticed that it doesn't have "Holiday Events." Do you think I should add the following information? If so, where exactly in the article?

A Halloween celebration, “Spooktacular Fun,” that includes live music, food, and performances from the like of magicians, clowns, and jugglers. http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-press-release/article-1/Lambeau-Field-Atrium-to-host-14th-annual-Spooktacular-Oct-1/919d798a-6e56-49f4-8b57-543b2e7559f8

A December themed occasion, Festival of Lights, that highlights a visit from Santa Claus, decorating cookies, choirs signing, and many festive lights. http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-press-release/article-1/Eleventh-annual-Festival-of-Lights-at-Lambeau-Field-set-for-Dec-3/57c51db9-99c4-4a02-97b5-71209f9e343c

“Project Play 60” is a day in March that concentrates on getting kids out of the house to appreciate non-strenuous physical movement. More than 20,000 people attend the Atrium and enjoy activities. http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-press-release/article-1/Project-Play-60-set-for-March-4-in-Lambeau-Field-Atrium/93ed658c-7890-4027-a529-4735b1783311

Looking forward to hearing thoughts!

Jmparr (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jmparr. In my view, that information is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. In any case, I would not include these events unless you can find an independent source which talks about them, and is not just a listing or based on a press release. The thing to understand is that, as with any article, Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which they Packers say or want to say about their stadium: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the place have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References Question

is it better to have more citations and references than less, if submitting a new wiki article?Zack198 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to have the right number − enough to verify every statement in the article, but particularly any that are likely to be challenged. However, quality matters more than quality. At present, every reference in Skaz One gives a 404 message. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All references were badly misformatted. I have fixed enough to make them render with working links.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

linking of user pages among different wikipedias

respected Sir, i want to try my User page across various wikipedias such as the english wikipedia , simple english wikipedia wikibooks ,wikmedia etc. i had tried linking and redirecting but none of them seems to work kindly help. Nitianabhigyan (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nitianabhigyan, welcome to the Teahouse. Code like [[simple:User:Nitianabhigyan]] in User:Nitianabhigyan will link to simple:User:Nitianabhigyan under "Languages" in the left pane. Code like [[:simple:User:Nitianabhigyan]] with a colon on front will make the link where the code is placed. You can create a global user page which will be displayed at all wikis where you don't have a local page. See meta:Global user pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter:Thank you sir for your suggestions but can you suggest me a way to create a link within the man page itself (whether a hyperlink internal or external or redirect) of simple wikipedia and other to link the user pages to my main wikipedia user page on en.wikipedia.org Nitianabhigyan (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't understand

All I've ever wanted to do on Wikipedia was to create a page for Brian Giffey, but there is now some problem about my own page which I never intentionally created; it is just a byproduct created by your system. I have just filled the space with some content which you don't seem to like. However, my person is not important here and if you want to delete my page, I don't mind in the least. All I want to know is when are you going to publish the page/article about Brian Giffey, please?Tinatamman (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm confused by your question -- the page for Brian Giffey is already up and going. Are you maybe seeing a cached version of it or something? - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 20:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page User:Tinatamman was deleted after your post. You created it 2 April 2017. You never had to create it. It's optional to have a user page. You created the article Brian Giffey 30 March 2017‎ and it has been a published part of Wikipedia since then. You don't say why you think otherwise but I guess it's because external search engines like Google don't show it. New articles get the noindex tag for 30 days or until they are patrolled by a user with the required user right. noindex tells search engines to not index the page. The page has not been patrolled but is now more than 30 days old so it no longer has the noindex tag. It varies how long it takes search engines to index a page. They only had a few days after noindex was removed and they must visit the page to detect it's no longer noindexed. You just have to wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

whats the easiest way to insert images into an article submission? Ive tried the upload form, but do i need the file name from my computer? I'm clueless to this, someone just break it down for me and I will be forever grateful. Because however it is done, I'm having a lot of trouble figuring it out. Thanks Zack198 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed to provide information about a free software produce?

Hi,

I am new to this. I have an educational piece of software I am wanting to provide information on via Wikipedia. Use of the software at a basic level is free. There is a more advanced paid for configuration but that will be advertsised at the site.

Is this allowed on Wikipedia? I have seen many other articles about software so I assumed it would be ok.

Thanks Ian Ian.armstrong (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ian.armstrong and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, the answer is "no, unless the software is notable", that is unless it has been discussed in some detail in multiple independent (of the creator and publisher) published reliable sources. If you are the author of the software, you have a conflict of interest, and are discouraged from writing about it. If it is truly notable someone else will do so sooner or later. DES ^(talk) 00:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Audio on dyk

Is it possible on a dyk nomination, instead of (pictured) within the hook, could you have (listen here) with a link to an audio? Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mramoeba. It is. See Template:Did you know as of October 3, 2008. That's the only one I found upon searching the talk page for mentions of the word "audio", but there may have been others. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well found Fuhghettaboutit, thanks! Mramoeba (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mramoeba: Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

Can someone please add these deals back in the "Production deals" section on Warner Bros.?

Extended detail of content requested to be added back

Active producer/distributor deals: *[[Amblin Entertainment]] (1984–)<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=QvElDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=HVygqYMVP2wC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529</ref>; *[[Atlas Entertainment]] (1995–)<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-02/business/fi-29044_1_dawn-steel</ref><ref>http://deadline.com/2014/12/charles-roven-atlas-artists-dave-fleming-1201315611/</ref>; *[[Greg Berlanti|Berlanti Productions]] (2010–)<ref>http://www.feelguide.com/2011/03/03/greg-berlanti-hollywoods-sexiest-and-most-powerful-gay-exec-scores-massive-warner-bothers-deal/</ref><ref>http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/greg-berlanti-lands-major-deal-extension-with-warner-bros-tv-exclusive-1200706123/</ref>; *[[Steve Carell|Carousel Productions]] (2013–)<ref>http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/movies/index.ssf/2008/10/steve_carell_gets_his_own_prod.html</ref><ref>http://variety.com/2009/scene/markets-festivals/steve-carell-s-carousel-forms-tv-arm-1117998469/</ref><ref>http://www.tvguide.com/news/steve-carell-starts-1001612/</ref><ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/steve-carell-jessica-biel-ink-686418</ref><ref>http://deadline.com/2014/03/universal-cable-prods-signs-deals-with-steve-carell-jessica-biels-companies-694456/</ref>; *[[Cruel and Unusual Films]] (2007–)<ref>{{cite news|url= http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961772.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1|last= McClintock |first= Pamela|title= Warner, Snyders enlist in new 'Army'|work= [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date= March 25, 2009 |accessdate= July 28, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url = http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117958298.html|title = WB makes Unusual deal |last =McClintock|first =Pamela|work = [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date = January 29, 2007|accessdate = 23 July 2010}}</ref>; *[[Heyday Films]] (1999–)<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-heyman-man-behind-the-magic-2305637.html</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=63y9jREP6QEC&pg=PT553</ref>; *[[Kennedy Miller Mitchell]] (1982–)<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-how-george-miller-rebooted-794780</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20061229friday.html</ref><ref>http://variety.com/2015/film/news/mad-max-george-miller-announces-more-movies-mad-max-the-wasteland-1201499904/</ref><ref>http://www.tracking-board.com/george-miller-confirms-two-sequels-to-mad-max-fury-road-in-the-works/</ref>; *[[Chuck Lorre|Life's Too Short]] (2000–)<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/chuck-lorre-warner-bros-television-overall-deal-film-cable-drama-368132</ref><ref>http://deadline.com/2012/09/chuck-lorre-closes-new-deal-with-warner-bros-tv-will-expand-into-drama-features-329738/</ref><ref>http://uproxx.com/hitfix/two-and-a-half-men-creator-chuck-lorre-signs-overall-deal-with-warner-bros-tv/</ref>; *[[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] (2012–)<ref>{{cite news|author=Ben Fritz |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/01/warner-bros-to-handle-hobbit-in-most-overseas-markets-advance-mgms-half-of-budget.html|title=Warner Bros. to handle 'Hobbit' in most overseas markets, fund MGM's half of budget - Los Angeles Times |publisher=Latimes.com |date=January 6, 2011 |accessdate=February 22, 2017}}</ref><ref>http://collider.com/creed-synopsis-new-rocky-movie/</ref><ref>http://www.phillymag.com/ticket/2015/02/25/warner-bros-releases-creed-synopsis-release-date/</ref><ref>http://variety.com/2015/film/news/tomb-raider-reboot-warner-bros-joins-mgm-1201441601/</ref><ref name="cinemacon" /><ref name="cinemacon2" /><ref name="blair" /><ref name="blair2" />

Former producer deals: *[[Cartoon Network Studios]] (2002-2015); *[[Jerry Weintraub|J.W. Productions]] (2001–2016)<ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jerry-weintraub-dead-producer-dies-806941</ref<ref>http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jerry-weintraub-oceans-eleven-producer-former-ua-chief-dies-at-77-1201534603/</ref><ref>http://deadline.com/2015/07/jerry-weintraub-dead-hollywood-super-producer-1201471319/</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Weintraub|first=Jerry|title=When I stop talking you'll know I'm dead|year=2010|publisher=Twelve (and e-book)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117955802?refCatId=13|title='Tarzan' on vine for Warner Bros.|author=Mike Fleming|work=Variety|date=December 14, 2006}}</ref>; *[[Mirage Studios]] (2007); *[[Richard D. Zanuck|The Zanuck Company]] (1989–2012)<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/entertainment/la-et-mn-with-hidden-richard-zanuck-kept-working-till-the-end-20120713</ref><ref>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/richard-zanucks-death-hollywood-remembers-349107</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/business/media/richard-zanuck-producer-of-blockbusters-dies-at-77.html</ref>; *Joint Effort Productions with [[Todd Phillips]] and [[Bradley Cooper]] (2014–2016)<ref name="thewrap">{{cite news|last1=Shaw|first1=Lucas|title=Bradley Cooper, Todd Phillips Merge Production Companies at Warner Bros.|url=http://www.thewrap.com/bradley-cooper-todd-phillips-form-warner-bros-based-production-company/|accessdate=October 30, 2014|work=The Wrap|date=May 16, 2014}}</ref>; **[[Todd Phillips|Green Hat Films]] (2005–2014)<ref name="thewrap" />; **[[Bradley Cooper|22nd & Indiana Pictures]] (2012–2014)<ref name="thewrap" />

Former distributor deals: *[[Cartoon Network Studios]] (2002–2015); *[[CBS Theatrical Films]] (1981–1985)<ref>{{cite news|last=Lumenick|first=Lou|title=CBS And Theatrical Films: If At First You Don't Succeed...|url=http://nypost.com/2009/05/16/cbs-and-theatrical-films-if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/|accessdate=27 July 2012|newspaper=NY Post.com|date=May 16, 2009}}</ref>

Media Fan 244 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Media Fan 244: Please post this request on the talk page of the article along with the template {{Edit semiprotected}}. This will add your request to the list of edit requests. RudolfRed (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: I already posted the request there, but they kept removing it. That's why I posted it here and on my own talk page instead. How about you do it? Media Fan 244 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Media Fan 244 At Talk:Warner Bros.#Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017 yI have re-invoked your request since the rejection basis was invalid as you were not then (and are still not now) autoconfirmed (though you will be soon). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk page history, many previous similar requests were removed because of apparent sockpuppetry; perhaps see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

How Can Make A Template Float To The Left(Or any Direction)? SwagGangster (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can click and drag the particular template and paste it onto your left hand side.Abishe (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wondering if this page would be appropriate?

I want to create an article about a famous person she is famous on Instagram with about 3 million followers she is the author of a meme account and is a makeup guru would an article on her be appropriate? Fukbithes (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who a person is or what they do really doesn't matter -- what matters is: are there multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not affiliated with her but are still specifically about her?. We really do not care at all how many Instagram followers someone has or how many memes a person has made. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by WikiVisually?

There isn't any article related with WikiVisually.Is this a part of Wikipedia.Some times if I search any information related to sports etc.I often see articles copied from Wikipedia to WikiVisually [for example:http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Kasun_Jayasuriya]Abishe (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivisually is independent of Wikipedia. It copies content from Wikipedia, acknowledging it with a clear statement. This is all legal, and welcomed by Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom:, Wikivisually is a blatant copyright infringer of our content. They do not link to our articles where the page history is available, nor link to the page history, nor provide a list of authors – and thereby do not comply with our copyright licenses. The main promise of our licenses is suitable credit to the copyright owners, which are the authors of our articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:, at the top of each article they say "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Is that not a sufficient acknowledgement? It identifies the source, and allows a reader to find Wikipedia's version. I am interested because I have, for my own purposes, copied images from Wikimedia Commons and used them on my web pages with statements like "The image above, and the two below, are copied from Wikipedia." Would it be enough if I put the URL of each copied image into hover text? Maproom (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: No, it's woefully short of sufficient acknowledgment, because Wikipedia does not own the copyright, we do, and the copyright licenses that we give to our copyrighted expression contain two promises and legal obligations for re-users: suitable credit to the authors, and the posting of the license of the work. When you contribute to an article (and so long as what you contribute is sufficiently artistic that it it is copyrightable) you own that content – you personally – that is, you, and not the Wikimedia Foundation.

If you are a major contributor to an article, and someone like Wikivisually does not comply with their legal obligation by giving you (and other authors) suitable credit, you could sue for copyright infringement (again, you personally, not Wikipedia or Wikimedia). The heart of our license is credit to the authors and credit is all about access to the page history where our identities are provided. A re-user can provide a hyperlink to the page history, or they can provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article (which has been interpreted as sufficient credit because from there a person can directly access the page history where the authors are listed), or, if they don't want to link, they can list each and every author. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. What Wikivisually is doing is both illegal and ethically bankrupt. We put in our thousands and thousands of hour of sweat equity writing content and then have people like this use our writing without giving us the credit we are promised.

As to your website, it depends on the license of the images. Many images at the Commons are in the public domain. For those, you do not have to provide credit. Many others are under free copyright licenses, but not necessarily CC BY-SA-3.0. If CC BY-SA-3.0, or many Creative Commons licenses, yes, what you are doing is copyright infringement. Read the re-use pages I linked. You must link to the image page and link the applicable license(s), or list all of the authors and provide the full text of the license(s). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Living people pages are seldom accurate and constantly changing so that even correct information morphs into a mixture of truth and nonsense over time. Some pages seem to get most of the detail right some of the time, but each time an alteration is made and then corrected by someone else misunderstanding seem to create ever increasing errors of detail which can remain indefinitely. Would it be possible to ensure that pages about living people are periodically edited by asking the living people directly for first hand information and confirmation because even published interviews can be misreported or written with bias? I have heard a lot of complaints about misrepresentation from people on pages and a number have asked for their pages to be removed altogether because the information is so inaccurate and potentially damaging. This process appears to take about six month to achieve. Would it be possible for deletion of a page at the request of the person the page is about to be performed much more rapidly so as to reduce offense? Highfunctioningautistic (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are doubts about the accuracy of a biography of a living person, our first priority should be to remove anything that is both unreferenced and defamatory. Then facts can be checked, and content added, using reliable independent sources. We should disregard what the person wants said about themself, unless they can supply such sources. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My page deletion.

Dear Sir, my page with the title 'Abdullahi Suleiman Otiwe' has been deleted for so long and I am very happy for that because I don't want that particular page to be found online again but anytime I make a search about it, I can still find it. Please could you help me to delete the page finally from your website? This is the link to what I am complaining about: http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Abdullahi_Suleiman_Otiwe In short, I want you to disable that page by deleting it as as not to appear on search engine again. Thanks for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asokogi (talk • contribs) 10:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think the page you have linked to is affiliated with Wikipedia. It seems to be a wiki that preserves speedy deleted pages. I'm not entirely sure but you would probably have to communicate with that website regarding your issue. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, speedydeletion.wikia is a site which we here at Wikipedia have no control over. But it does say here, "We do delete articles about kids and private citizens." So if you write to them explaining that you are Abdullahi Suleiman Otiwe, and a private citizen, and you want the page deleted, they will probably oblige. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to change the title of an article, what is the usual procedure? For instance do I engage in a discussion with the person who started the article or do I just change it?

If I want to change the title of an article, what is the usual procedure? For instance do I engage in a discussion with the person who started the article or do I just change it?Ériugena (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ériugena, and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the circumstance, but the most usual procedure is to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. If there is a consensus to move the article, or if no one comments in, say a week or more, you may move it. Or you may make use of the Requested moves page. See WP:MOVE for more details. DES ^(talk) 12:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting your proposal, and your reasoning, on the Talk page and then waiting a few days to see if anyone comments, would be a most reasonable way of approaching the change, particularly if you aren't fully confident of your proposal. However, in the spirit of being bold it is also reasonable to make the change without engaging in discussion, particularly if you see the current title as inaccurate, mis-spelled, or seriously inappropriate. Dolphin (t) 12:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Article Dilesh Mehta

Can anyone explain that what is the thing that makes the article promotional in Draft:Dilesh_Mehta. Also please explain what are the resources which seems self published, i just picked all the resources from internet randomly. Wikibaji (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source cited is a listing, and lacks significant third-party discussion of the subject. The other seven sources all include quotations of statements from the subject, and so are not independent (they look as if they're based on press releases). If your internet search did not find any reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject, then she probably isn't notable. Maproom (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikbaji,

Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

first article - wikipedia reverted some points of my work

So hello to everyone! I would like to ask you some questions... Firstly, i had posted some external links on the article i Uploaded. These external links , are work of mine and papers that i have published to many national and scientific magazines! Unfortunately , site doesn't know this ,so how can i prove it? Or how can i upload without the fear of being deleted... Also, i am trying to use find link tool for any suggestions and anything is happening ...what can i do? Thanks a lot!! Ioannisgeo (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ioannisgeo. Unfortunately, you have done what a lot of people do, and joined Wikipedia and immediately started trying to do one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, which is to create a new article. Have you read your first article? That has a lot of useful information.

Looking quickly at your draft, I notice that the second paragraph uses the word "innovative". No Wikipedia article should ever use evaluative language like this about its subject, unless possible it is directly quoting a reliable published source independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not interested, at all in what you think about a subject (or what I think about it), and it is also not interested in what the subject of an article, or people associated with that subject, think about it. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have published about that subject.

And this leads to the larger point. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion, period. It makes no difference whether the subject is commercial or not: an article must neutrally summarise what independent published sources have said about a subject. Since you appear to be the inventor of this technique, you have a conflict of interest which will probably make it difficult for you to write neutrally about it, so you are discouraged from writing about it at all.

I have just moved the article into Draft space for you (it is now at Draft:IPG DET Technique), where it can be worked on with less risk of being summarily deleted. I suggest that, after studying Your first article (linked above) you decide whether the subject is notable, and if so, declare your conflict of interest and work on writing it according to what the sources unconnected with you say about it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create article with COI

Hi

Several of my friends have helped creating an article that I would now like to post. The problem is I'm currently working with the subject of the article. How do I best proceed with this conflict of interest? The page is written in a neutral voice but I wish to post the article, in a way that enables me to request help from the community to make further edits and suggestions to improve it. There seemes to be several options available, which one is the best in order to receive some support on this from the community?

Thankful for any advice! 89.157.176.141 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I suggest submitting the article as a draft for review, via the link at Wikipedia:Your first article. You can add a note to the draft when you submit it, explaining your conflict of interest. See also WP:COI, if you haven't already read that. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cordless Larry (if that's how you tag someone). I'm the IP editor who asked the question earlier. Thank you so much for your advice on this, it was very helpful!

I have uploaded a first draft of the article and I (think) I have added a note as well as written about my COI on the talk page. What would you say is a good way to get someone else from the Wikipedia community with more experience to engage and edit so as to improve the page and hopefully turn it from a draft to a real article? Thanks, I'm grateful for any advice and guidance. MatildeZ (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, MatildeZ. I've added a button to Draft:Simon Cohen (communication expert) that you can press to submit the draft for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Oh great, thanks a lot Cordless Larry! MatildeZ (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia, how can I create a table of contents?

How can I create a table of contents for my article? 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V lainez (talk • contribs)

Once there are enough (maybe 3?) section headers, the table of contents will appear automatically. Maproom (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least 4 sections, see WP:TOC. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how do i add tags?

I also dont really know what to put on my page Unoriginalkid (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of tags are you looking to add? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of pages

Would it be a violation of copyright if i translate a page already existing on another wiki but in any other language to english and create the page..??? Nitianabhigyan (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitianabhigyan:. No, it's not a copyright infringement, but you must credit the original article. See Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia local editor/compiler?

At times my internet access is spotty or, for a variety of reasons, I may choose not to connect to the Internet or to the Wikipedia site ;-). However, I would like to be able to edit files locally before I post it in my sandbox for peer review. I would like to edit/draft files and look at them right away locally. Not having to two-step the editing. All such a piece of software would do is the matching/translating of markup from the Wikipedia brackets and tildes to plain html. Is there, at least, such an official lookup table? How do wikipedians do that? Albretch Mueller (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Albretch Mueller and welcome to the Teahouse. To hte best of my knowledge there is no locally-installable software that would properly render wiki-code into the displayed HTML, short of installing a full local copy of MediWiki with all the extensions used by Wikipedia, and copying the entire template namespace at least. That would be a huge overkill for your purpose.

What I do is start an edit, and copy the wiki-code from the edit window to a local text editor such as notepad++ (or even plain notepad). Then I mark the page with {{inuse}} or {{underConstruction}} depending on how long I expect to be and save it. Then I can edit in the local editor as long as i want. I won't see previews, I will be editing raw wiki-code. When I am ready, I start an edit again (edit source if you are using the visual editor by default, which i personally don't) and paste my edited wiki-code into the edit box. This works fairly well, but you do need to be a little aware of wiki-code markup. But then that is always a good idea in any case -- the visual editor simply does not handle everything correctly. I hope this method will be useful to you. I know that many editors follow it. DES ^(talk) 21:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one note about wiki-code. When you start a line/paragraph with a leading space, it renders the text inside an HTML <PRE> tag, so it is formatted with no wrapping, a light background color, and a mono-spaced font, as if it were a source code excerpt. I have removed the leading spaces from your question above. DES ^(talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't see previews

but this is what I need. Anyone could go monkey and work as you describe ;-). In a sense I am amazed that not so many people have such a need, it seems Albretch Mueller (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are citation lists ok?

Is it frowned upon to have a long-ish list of citations after a sentence? Say 10 citations after a sentence.

I write a sentence like "many people have studied [subject A]. [citations]" or something similar. It seems that in this case, I have three choices:

(1) add ten or so citations to studies of subject A; (2) choose one or two such studies to cite; or (3) cite a survey.

Option 1 is what I would do in academic writing and seems best to me, but I haven't seen it on Wikipedia. Option 2 works if some studies stand out in some way, but often they don't. Option 3 doesn't seem so bad, but often there is no ideal survey, but instead surveys that either cover something more general than subject A; a subfield of subject A; or some slight variant of subject A.

NoahSD (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NoahSD: Welcome to the the Teahouse. Ten citations would usually be considered Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Per that essay, it would be better to add a couple of well-chosen ones (your Option 2). Funcrunch (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funcrunch (talk) Thanks! NoahSD (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNoahSD another alternative, depending on the details of the sources, might be something like:

"many people have studied [subject A]. [2-3 citations]. Some have concentrated on [aspect B],[1-2 citations] while others have stressed aspect C.[1-2 citations] Jones discovered (or first mentioned) the important point that <details>.[cite Jones] Smith responded to Jones's work by asserting <rejoinder>[cite smith]"

In short when you have more useful citations than seem reasonable at the end of a single sentence, provide additional detail that specific citations support. You can also use bundled notes to make multiple citations less oppressive. Using list defined references reduces the impact on the wiki-text, and so makes multiple citations less of an obstacle to editing the text, although the trade off is that editing the citations themselves needs an extr edit or an edit to the whole article. Which techniques work best depend on the nature of the article, but are partly a matter of taste and style. DES ^(talk) 23:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to achieve an objective description of a person

Dear Editor,

How do you best add information which is accurate and referenced, when others remove it constantly? I tried to add accurate information, which I referenced very carefully to a page, which in my mind has been vandalized multiple times by individuals who use incomplete information to create a sensation.

What are the venues to add accurate material to the page of a living person when another user keeps calling this effort "branding" and removes it w/o other explanation.

Thank you so much.... Hypaattia (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypaattia. What you are doing is edit warring. Wikipedia works on consensus. Insisting that you are right and the other person is wrong is not conducive to reaching consensus. Nor is accusing another editor of vandalism because they disagree with you about how an article should look. You need to read about dispute resolution, and follow its guidance. But I recommend starting with a little humility. (Note, I am not saying that you are wrong, or that you are right: I haven't looked in detail at the edit war going on at Linda Katehi. I am addressing how you are pursuing your goal, not the content that you favour.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hypaattia. I see you've moved to discussing it at Talk:Linda Katehi. Good—that's the right way to go, instead of edit warring. ColinFine is correct about consensus. Without consensus, Wikipedia would be nothing. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hypaattia. I have weighed in at Talk:Linda Katehi#Edit warring, but I want to say briefly that I quite agree with what ColinFine wrote above. I hope that a more productive discussion can start at Talk:Linda Katehi. DES ^(talk) 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the advice. I will try to engage in a discussion. The question is how to best do so. If I try to add text appropriately referenced, and the text is removed by another user for whatever reason, should I try to engage the other user in a discussion while my text is removed? What happens if there is no middle ground? I am sorry for the many questions but I would like to do this appropriately. Thank you so much.Hypaattia (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, give your reasons on the talk page, possibly including links to diffs of your edits or those of other editors, or links to sources, or cites to sources. Do not simply re-revert. This is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Remember to assume good faith. Do not imply that other editors are trying to make the page worse, or favor a particular point of view. Instead explain why you think edits you disagree with have that effect, despite the good intentions of other editors. If there are starkly opposed views that cannot be compromised, eventually a rough consensus of editors will chose one, but in the vast majority of cases there is some middle ground. DES ^(talk) 00:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which type of improvements should I do?

Hey, please guide me which type of improvements should I do so my article can get published on wikipedia?

Article Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Abdullah_Muzaffar Itszaib (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some advice about improvements at the top of the draft. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about images and copyright

Hi, so I'm confused about images and copyright

I want to use an image similar to the one which can be found here (image source) (I would take my own photo of an example in the book not use that exact image). This is the notation system of a book which I don't think is in the public domain (published in England in 1931, authors died 1949 and 1939), but I was thinking it might be possible to use an image as a "quotation".

It's not an issue to quote from works which are still copyrighted, as in I could do something like

· ‾ · ·_◝.

hi fɛlt ɪn ɪz pɒkɪt

--Armstrong & Ward 1931 The Intonation of English 2nd edition. Cambridge. page 36

But doing so isn't clear or fully accurate with the way they've written it. Since the book doesn't treat this as an image, if I take a photo of the text and the way they've written it out am I the copyright holder? Or is the copyright holder the authors of the text?

Thanks for any advice, I hope I was clear. Umimmak (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that, just as you can copy a short piece of copyrighted text verbatim so long as you attribute it and make it clear that it's a quotation, so you can do something similar with a small excerpt of a copyrighted image. But I've never seen it done in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would I upload my image of the text/typesetting to Wikipedia commons and say I'm the source of the image? Or would I upload it to Wikipedia and have to fill out a Fair Use Rationale?

edit: I just noticed this "It is too simple to be eligible for copyright. This typically applies only to graphics that consist solely of simple geometric shapes and/or a few letters or words, or to items such as mathematical or chemical formulae. It may apply to some very simple logos that do not contain complex pictorial elements. It never applies to photographs!"

So maybe copyright doesn't apply if I create an image of a few words they transcribed? Umimmak (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I tried it here [and here — Umimmak (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)] with a similar situation -- does this look okay? I would imagine the process would be the same if I did it with an example with intonation diacritics above the text as well. Umimmak (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to I add Pictures in my article?

I've been trying to add pictures in my wikipedia article but i cant make it. how do i add picture from my computer data to wikipedia? Please guide me. Kimaya Sulakhe (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, {{U|Kimaya Sulakhe]] and welcome to the Teahouse. Use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard for this purpose. You will also want to read Help:Viewing media. DES ^(talk) 13:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an article for a person when another article with same name exists

Hello, I wish to know how to create article for a person named 'Surendra Pratap Singh', who is an Indian author when a Wikipedia page with the same name exists for an Indian journalist. Larissaddn (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. The most common way of doing what you suggest is to add what is called a disambiguation to the title of the article, in this case, that could be "Surendra Pratap Singh (journalist)". 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @331dot Larissaddn (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

problems with uploading pics

can you pls tell me how can I upload pics...

Thanks Muthumukkom (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This link, Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, is where you start to upload images. ~ GB fan 12:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muthumukkom: The link above will load images into the English Wikipedia. Please be aware that while fair use images need to be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, in almost all cases, a free image should be uploaded to common so that it can be used anywhere. Commons Upload.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How Do You Put Contents Boxes? Boeing329 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boeing329, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean a table of contents it is added automatically for any article or page that has four or more section headings. See the linked page for more detail. DES ^(talk) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pdf link

How can I add an external link for a PDF?Mollyzbell (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mollyzbell. External links are generally added with this markup: [https://www.google.com Name to display], which results in Name to display. However, links in citations might include the same type of link, but might instead be provided through a citation template, using a parameter like |url=http://.... A few other rules of thumb: external links, placed as "external links", rather than in citations, must meet the external links policy. You must not link to a site that hosts copyright violations anywhere (including in citations—see WP:ELNEVER, and the footnote to that section). When not appearing in a citation, external links are never placed in the body of any article, but typically only in a dedicated external links section. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mollyzbell. I would add to the above that if you are doing a citation using a citation template, most citation templates include a "format=" parameter, which can take a value of "PDF", to indicate to the reader that the link is to a PDF file. DES ^(talk) 17:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender segregation in categories

Where can I find more information about guidelines in using gendered categories? Thx MassiveEartha (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and welcome to the Teahouse, MassiveEartha. I am glad that you stopped by. I am not sure what you mean by 'gendered categories'. I often work with categories and I am not familiar with your term. Do you mean something like [[Category:Women microbiologists]]?

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bfpage and thanks for responding. Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Thanks again, MassiveEartha (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline that addresses gendered categorization at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality Mduvekot (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! The first thing to do is to find out if the category in which you have interest already exists. This can be time-consuming, but maybe not. To see if the category you are already looking for already exists, you enter it into the search box on the top right hand corner of any WP page. You would type in Category:Women musicians. If it takes you to a category page with articles listed that are contained in that category, then obviously the category already exists and you won't have to create it. If it doesn't exist, then come back here and I will tell you how to create a gendered category. It is a funny thing, believe me I know because I have a talent for getting categories that I create deleted. There is a strategy in creating a category. and basically it involves very fast editing. If you are not able to set aside a block of time in which you add articles to your category, it will be quickly deleted. You have to populate the category to at least about 30 articles. In addition, you can use an editing tool that you install into your wikipedia preferences and hidden coding page attached to your username (is your head spinning yet) that quickly adds categories to articles. One thing that surprised me when I first started editing and explained the high edit counts of many editors is their use of editing tools. Even if you are a very new editor, the tool for adding categories is the simplest one to install and use. So come back to leave a message and we can get a gendered category up and running for you. Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 23:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happens after you've created an article?

Sorry, it's been literally a couple of years since I last created an article, and I don't remember the specific steps after an article has been submitted. I have already added categories and defaultsort to the article. Is there anything else that I need to add to it? Lupine453 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lupine453, and welcome to the Teahouse! Next, editors will look for problems in the article and its citations and tag or fix them as necessary. Also, a New Page Reviewer may come through and review the page. If they don't find any problems with the article, they will mark the page as reviewed and it will then be able to be indexed by search engines. If they do find problems, they will try to tag and fix them. If they don't get to it, it will automatically be able to be indexed within 30 days of its creation. Note that this does not mean it will be indexed immediately when it's able to be. Wikipedia does not control when search engines index its pages, just if they can. — Gestrid (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gestrid Lupine453 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything wrong?...

Hello! I'm a new comer in Wikipedia English, I'm already contibuting in French; I'm wondering why my first article in English posted on April 10th, entitled Grand Prix of Literary Associations, is not still appearing in Google search when typing the title. Is there anything wrong? I'd be grateful to everyone who can help me understand. --Morgoko (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morgoko, welcome to the Teahouse. New articles in the English Wikipedia automatically get the noindex tag for 30 days or until they are patrolled by a user with the required permission. The article still has noindex, meaning external search engines are asked to not index it. It varies how long it takes search engines to index an article after noindex is removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PrimeHunter, for getting me informed. --Morgoko (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply PrimeHunter because I have always wondered about that connection between Google and WP. I actually sometimes see my articles appear in Google four hours after it was created - but since I am autopatrolled, this explains the reason for that. Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 22:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relatively new feature from October 2016: phab:T147544. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find the article I created

Hello. I created an article regarding Diamond View Studios, but I can't seem to find it in my drafts, or anywhere else. I also have not received any feedback advising that my article was deleted, etc. Can you please assist? Thank you:)Jonohickson (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonohickson, welcome to the Teahouse. This question is the only edit your current account has saved. A draft was created at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Diamond View Studios in February 2013. Was that you? It was declined the same month and deleted in January 2014. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PrimeHunter. Thank you. I am guessing that I failed to save the article if it is not showing up. I will try again. The other article you reference was not me. Thank you for your assistance:)Jonohickson (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonohickson. When I am concerned that a draft or content from a sandbox may disappear, I always save a copy of my work offline on my own computer. There have been times when an article or draft has disappeared for whatever reason and I have been able to create it over with additional content and sources to have it become a new article. Save your work. Best Regards,

Bfpage _{let's talk...} 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Question

Is there any bot or script that can replace redirects and deleted / updated pages on Index of Jainism-related articles? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page issues

Hello Teahouse,

During my first few months as an editor on Wikipedia, I've noticed that numerous pages come with a Page issues banner. However, I am unaware of how to create them for appropriate pages, or how to remove them when appropriate. Any advice on this would be helpful.

Oh, and one more thing…what are the criteria for an article to achieve Good status?

Thank you for creating such a good experience for Wikipedians!

Best, Liam Gibson (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Liam Gibson: Welcome to the Teahouse!

Those page issue banners are what we call maintenance/cleanup templates. You can see the list of all these templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup (and there are a lot). When you recognize a problem with an article, and you cannot tend to the matter at the time, you can find the relevant cleanup template and add its tag (e.g. {{cleanup}}) to the top of the page. Likewise, if you see a cleanup template that seems to have been resolved, you are free to remove it; when doing so, it's not a bad idea to briefly mention the reason for removal in your edit summary.
The criteria for good articles is available at Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

Let us know if you have any other questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liam Gibson. Regarding removal of the maintenance templates, most of the maintenance templates you see will have a message in them "(Learn how and when to remove this template message)", which links to Help:Maintenance template removal. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upload

Imran088 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Hello, I wanted to donate a few of my own works in Wikipedia. I also uploaded a few going through the upload file section. I have added a photo of Abbotts Babbler Juvenile in the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott%27s_babbler[reply]

link of my image is:

I went through the edit source section and uploaded the image. Kindly guide me whether it was an authentic way of uploading images. If not, please guide me the procedure through which I can upload my own works. Imran088 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imran088, thank you for uploading your images. This will allow them to be used in English-language Wikipedia, and we appreciate it. It would be even better if you uploaded your images to Wikimedia Commons. Commons is a collection of images and other resources which are available for use not only on English Wikipedia, but on French, Russian, Chinese etc. Wikipedias, and other Wikimedia projects. Maproom (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article protocol

Hi, I think I'm almost done with my first article, Lilias Armstrong and I think it meets the standards for a "Good Article". Before I nominate it, I was wondering if it was typical for people to ask for second opinions from outside the nomination process. E.g., maybe post in a relevant Wikiprojects' talk pages and ask "Hey this article I wrote is up for GA nomination, can I get any feedback from project members?" Most talk pages are pretty dead, but the GA review length can apparently take months as well.

Or do most people just place the template in their article's talk page without much fuss?

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Umimmak. I have asked for a second opinion before going for an FA but not for GAs. Looking at the article, you are plainly a proficient writer and have learned the ropes necessary to pen a "contender", that might result in points to address upon the GA review, but is obviously not a "quick fail", so I would go for it. As you intimate, it may take months to be looked at, so be patient. I think my last GA took about 3.5 months before being reviewed. On the other hand, if you really want to try a secondary process first (maybe thinking about the longer road to an FA) you could ask for a peer review. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm right in saying that it used to be the case that a peer review was recommended (or even required?) prior to nominating an article for GA status (or is that just FA status?). Anyway, a couple of years ago, I submitted Gateway Protection Programme for peer review prior to a planned FA nomination, but it was never reviewed. In fact, the subsequent FA review got archived through inactivity. The article got there in the end thanks to a repeat nomination, but that experience really highlighted to me how lacking we are in volunteers working to review articles. My suggestion would be the same as Fuhghettaboutit's - that you should just go ahead with the GA nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What action is to be taken on an article whose content is not useful ?

I recently came across the Matrix decomposition article. It seems that the article's content is so vague and isn't so useful to readers in it's current form. It just seems to be listing the various types and a little information about each and seems to miss the most crucial information about how to perform the operation. Shortly it doesn't cover the main picture and thus is not so helpful for readers who come to read the article without much knowledge about the method (I guess that's the majority)

There's another article titled Non-negative matrix factorization. On skimming through it, I could see that it has more background information than the Matrix decomposition article. What should be done to make the article more readable ? Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Matrix decomposition article is not much use in itself, but is useful in directing readers to an article on the kind of matrix decomposition they are looking for. Maybe it should be retained, but reorganised to make it clearer that it's what I think is called a "set index" (like Inkcap). Maproom (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing wording that's promotive of the subject

Hi dear Wikipedians

I'm new to Wikipedia and I would greatly appreciate some help on editing my very first page 'Simon Cohen (communication expert)'. I would like to learn how to make improvements to make sure the page is written in a neutral and objective voice.

I alone have not written the article but I'm responsible for posting it, and I have a conflict of interest since I'm currently working together with the subject of the page. I hope that some of you more experiences members of the Wikipedia community can help me to edit the article so that it is well written and provides information in a relevant manner. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted suggested updates/edits on Talk pages for two subjects with COI

I posted suggested edits to two Wikipedia pages that are in need of updates/editing. I posted these suggested edits on the talk pages under COI, following the rules of Wikipedia. These edits were posted on April 4, 2017. Does anyone know how long it typically takes for COI edits to be reviewed? Thank you in advance for any insight someone can provide. BluebirdHill5 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BluebirdHill5. Thank you for using the talk pages. Note also Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You refer to Talk:Hemispherx Biopharma and Talk:Rintatolimod. I see you did not advertise the requests with {{Request edit}} but used {{coi}} instead. That is the wrong template for requested edits so it could have taken years before somebody stumbled on the requests and answered them. We have five million articles. I have added {{Request edit}} instead. This adds the requests to Category:Requested edits where editors can find them. There is a backlog so it may still take months as the dated list shows. I don't know what is typical. Editors are volunteers, they don't have to start at the oldest requests, and they may skip requests which look difficult to evaluate. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

translation

I´d like to help to translate articles from portuguese and spanis wikipedia to english wikipedia, I am a new editor, I have just finished the tutorial Earth Game Adventure. I don´t know how to do it.Miskito89 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Miskito89. There are fairly detailed instructions at Wikipedia:Translate, which I suspect you have not read yet; if you still have questions, you can come back here. The two most important parts are that (1) you should not rely on machine translation for the finished product; (2) you should provide attribution saying that you translated the original page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety

I would like to know what is notoriety in the sense of an article being refused. the said new article (although small) User:Boopolo/Star_Apple_Foundation, has only two cited links (which can be improved on), but both are from top news organizations in countries published 13,000 km apart. The manila Times is one of the top newspapers in The Philippines, and the Leinster Leader is the top News outlet in the province of Leinster in Ireland. The latter cite refers to the winning of the Kildare International Charity award of 2014 which was on Irish TV on Sky. The second article i want to create is a bigger charity organization, with more cites, but I need some help, because I do not want to waste my time. I am not an experienced Wiki editor, but I am in fact a member since 2008. I have deleted a lot of vandalism whilst I was not even logged in. Boopolo (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boopolo: Hello; are you referring to notability when you say "notoriety"? 331dot (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. sorry. Spellcheck's fault Boopolo (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: The reason I am spending a bit of time on this is because almost all the good charities that were in the 'list of Charities in The Philippines' were removed due to having no article written about them. It is different over here, where most information comes from social media.Boopolo (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing your draft, it appears that you have two sources that only mention something the organization you are writing about did(one of which is basically a plug/advertisement for the organization). The organization notability guidelines (please click to review) state "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."

I think this organization could potentially merit an article, but it would need more sources that discuss the organization itself, that don't serve to promote it. That's my opinion, at least. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I have twice tried to reply, but my reply is not showing. You mention one cite when in act there are two. All the other stuff I lost, I will resend in the morning. Boopolo (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved Post: @331dot Thank you for your feedback. The second organization I want to write an article for can have more cites. It is PREDA.ORG, whom I have contact with the founder. I hope that is not a problem. His name is Father Shay Cullen, and he has been on TV many time You can google him. Otherwise I am totally wasting my time, as Wiki has only 5 Filipino based charities, with 2 of them with less than two cites. This is not reality. Maybe the 'List of Charities in The Philippines' article (please check out the edit pattern) should be deleted totally, seeing as one editor can come in and 'skull' it down to 4 or 5. Boopolo (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC) + @331dot[reply]

− Wiki is supposed to be an International Encyclopedia. Boopolo (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boopolo: Yes, that's true. It's also true that there are systemic bias issues which affect what subjects are written about, that includes bias issues not just on Wikipedia, but in things like outside media. However, that doesn't change the need to have independent reliable sources supporting content. It is sometimes hard to do.

I don't think it is a big problem merely to have contact with the founder of a charity; it would only be a problem if you worked for the charity, or if the founder asked you to edit Wikipedia for them about their charity. If that was the case, it would be a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact versus it's wrong tag

Usually when I find incorrect info on Wikipedia I fix it and add a reliable source for the correct information. However, this is not possible on the microscope article which is frequently hit with misinformation by non-technical editors, who then demand the info be kept while being discussed. I usually add a fact needed tag. However, what I really want to add is a "this is wrong" tag. This article gets over 5000 visitors a day, and misinformation should be removed quickly. Still, that won't happen. So, is there such a misinformation tag? "Fact" makes it seem like it's fine info, just needs a source. (Please post the get a user name wall of text on my talk page rather than here.) 2601:648:8503:4467:29A3:AE8B:4BD0:8C1B (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 6 Any ideas? Thanks! --2601:648:8503:4467:29A3:AE8B:4BD0:8C1B (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2601:648:8503:4467:29A3:AE8B:4BD0:8C1B (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello [[Anonymous and welcome to the Teahouse.

You might like to try the {{disputed inline}} template in situations like this. The template includes a place to refer to the talk page section where the issue may be discussed and hopefully resolved. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You aren't required to edit with a username, though doing so does provide some benefits(namely no one can track you by your IP address). That's all I will say about it. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

newbie here

Hello fellow editor I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to create a page for a artist and was wondering if anyone can help me to create one.