Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ENKWMS (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 16 November 2017 (→‎Amadeus American Producer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

David notMD, a Teahouse 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.

Hi I added {dubious} to a statement, can't make it link to Talk#section, only to Talk page, instructions in [WP:Template:Dubious#Usage] inscrutable. This is minor and I'm sure that I'm missing something simple, but I like to do it correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twins_in_mythology&oldid=809668032

Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit – The talk# part is unnecessary in this case, since the talk page is the only place you would be linking to anyway. Regards, Dairy {talk} 00:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dairy, Thank you. GeeBee60 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I correct a wrong information in a secure article in Wikipedia?

How do I correct a wrong information in a secure article in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.44.236 (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. By "secure", I assume that you mean an article that is protected due to disruptive editing. Every article has a talk page, which you can reach by clicking the "Talk" tab at the upper left menu of the page. Open a new section and describe exactly what you want to change and furnish the new language that you want to add. Provide links to reliable sources that verify the new content. Add the following template to your post:
{{request edit}}
That will signal editors able to evaluate your request, and if appropriate, make the change for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are on the mobile version of the site which has no "Talk" tab. You can start by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom of the page, but after that it is easier to click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a template

Hey, could someone please tell me how to make a template — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMN81 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TMN81 - welcome to the Teahouse. Creating templates is not for the faint-hearted, but a good place to start learning how to use and create them would be this introductory page: Help:A quick guide to templates, plus this set of links to more detailed help and technical advice: Wikipedia:Templates. It's quite possible that a template already exists for whatever it is you're trying to do. If you want to tell us more about what you want to achieve, somebody here may be able to offer further advice. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi need help

I am few months old on Wikipedia I am struggling with Wikipedia guidelines whenever I create new page some people put 'speedy deletetion request' it's very hard for me right now to go ahead as a free Wikipedia volunteer it's feel like losing my time on Wikipedia because here on Wikipedia people don't respect eachother contribution they just delete. :( 🤒Sumitmpsd (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumitmpsd: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you have not had a good experience here. I will say that writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. Looking at your user talk page it appears that you have had at least one article successfully enter the main encyclopedia(Mahendra Mewati) and another moved to Draft space so you can work on it more(Draft:Regular.li). Whenever you create a new article or edit an existing article, it will be mercilessly evaluated and possibly changed by others. It's just the way Wikipedia works. I see that in some cases where articles you created were tagged for speedy deletion, it was removed by someone else who disagreed with the criteria.
In some cases I think you have confused deletion tags with maintenance tags; the maintenance tags are in yellow and merely indicate an issue that needs to be resolved. Deletion tags are in red. It's important to understand that most users cannot delete pages by themselves. Only administrators can delete pages, and only within the process indicated by the deletion tag(either as the result of a discussion, a valid speedy deletion criteria, or an unexpired, uncontroversial Proposed Deletion). 331dot (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ya now i am felling little bit positive thanks 331dot you are the first one who can understand my situation thanks again and again:( :) Sumitmpsd (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can't find reveal button

I have written the article and want to post. Yet don't know where the 'reveal' button to actually release it Mj kim (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HI Mj kim - welcome. Firstly, there is currently a trial in progress limiting page creation by brand new accounts like yours. You need to have been around for a few more days and to have made a few more edits. Secondly, your article is not ready to be published yet. The draft in your sandbox does not demonstrate with references that "Connected Car Commerce" is actually a widely accepted and used term, mentioned in depth by reliable sources. And thirdly, there is already an article on Connected car, and to avoid disappointment you would be better off adding a new section within that page. When/if you do think you are ready (and most editors here start off by learning how to edit by making small changes to existing articles), I would advise you to submit any new article with the Article for Creation wizard. Those who get turned down at their first submission do receive helpful feedback as to the things that need addressing to make it acceptable for submission. Doing it that route avoids the new editor restrictions currently in place, and you could simply copy from your sandbox over into the new 'Draft' that the wizard makes for you. Hope this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: I see your sandbox draft has used text you have copy/pasted from elsewhere. Be aware that you must always use you own wording to write articles, and not copy others. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get my article approved?

Hi there,

How can I get my article approved? Draft: Clyde Space

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clyde_Space

I've updated it with further content and links, used unbiased language based on feedback that was given and included greater information in comparison to similar Wikipedia articles on very similar subjects &/companies:

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


Any help is greatly appreciated as I truly believe this is a notable subject.

Many thanks, LIbby.Hoban (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libby.Hoban. You can resubmit your draft for review using the "Resubmit" button. I have not studied the draft to see whether or not it would be acceptable in its current form; but I will caution that comparing with other articles is not a fruitful endeavour, because unfortunately many of our five million articles are substandard, and we don't want to encourage more. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia adventure issues , repeating same messages when i have completes tasks

in the wikipedia adventure i have done everything asked of me but it keeps repeating the same message. need to complete it for a college assignment please help Redrobinwedding (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrobinwedding. Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you tell us what the message is that keeps repeating, please? Sometimes you have to scroll down to see the next action to follow. I should also point out that at the start of the Adventure there's a warning noticeon the page saying that it's not supported on mobiles or tablets, or if Javascript is not enabled, or if you're using an earlier browser version earier than IE10. Perhaps you could also tell us what device you're using, please? I can see you had two goes at getting started as you've got duplicate messages on your talk page. (These can be removed later on if you wish). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hon to add references?

I am trying to add references in in my sandbox (to be copied later in the page I created) ... but I failed. I do not get the use of templates Where do I find help? Thank you Mtl-371 (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtl-371: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on how to cite sources can be found by clicking WP:CITE. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What type of citation do you want to create? Book. Academic journal? Newspaper? Website? David notMD (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does referencing for beginners help, Mtl-371? --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quoting an entire 1940 obituary

This obit is in a University of Toronto newsletter (University of Toronto Monthly, Volume 40, Issue 7, 1940). Would I need permission to quote/reprint it and if so (if you might happen to know) from whom? 

Information at this link appears not to be copyrighted.

https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-90100-107986129/university-of-toronto-presidents-report-for-the-year-ended-june?trp=&trn=organic_google&trl= Mosesos (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a bit complicated. Whether or not it says it's copyright is irrelevant, as material is copyright unless it's explicitly released into the public domain. If it's Crown Copyright as a publication by a government institution, then the copyright has now expired; likewise if it's genuinely impossible to identify the author the copyright has now expired. If it's possible to identify the authors and it doesn't fall under Crown Copyright, then it potentially is still in copyright as copyright will expire 50 years after the death of the last identifiable author. Providing you're just quoting small parts of it, copyright doesn't really matter here as this will fall under fair use, so provided you attribute the quotes correctly and don't quote an unreasonable amount of it (the usual rule of thumb is 10%) you won't get in trouble. ‑ Iridescent 11:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mosesos Following on from the above answer, I might suggest you keep it simple. Just rewrite the bits of the obituary that are most relevant in your own words, and cut out any trivia. (I'm afraid I couldn't view the article in the link you supplied, it appeared just to be a long list of donors). We are always wary of copy and paste edits here, and, to be frank, if people want to read the whole obituary, the link you include as a reference would do. On a personal interest note, it's fantastic to see you working on a biography of a botanist. I suggest you do as much research and reading around his work as possible. You need to start your draft with a simple sentence saying who he was and why he is of importance. Use his full first name in the article title, then expand into his work, contributions to science, awards, etc, referring to sources that have written about him or his work, rather than quoting his own studies. We have notability guidelines here which seem to let every popular fictional film character under the sun become worthy of a page, whilst scientists working away in the background do have a high hurdle to get over - you can read more at WP:ACADEMIC. Do test your writing aginst the rationale explained there. You may wish to start your editing life here on Wikipedia by adding material to other articles - such as a history of ecological exploration section for Bruce Peninsula itself? Feel free to discuss botanical matters further on my talk page, or visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I apologize for the wrong link. I think this will work.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15j8N8nAwWMLRMZ-J4Kn382gCHSBmzycI Thank you for your response Iridescent.Mosesos (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick Moyes. I have had an initial look at WP:ACADEMIC. Krotkov was only in Canada for 10 or 12 years. His academic credentials were from Russia and appear from his obit to have been quite extensive. Given the perceived difficulty of obtaining proof of credentials from Russia, could there be some consideration taken into account due to that probability or perhaps is Wikipedia alive and well in Russia? I am also considering the article as better being presented as a biography (WP:BIO) "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It is more of a story about the person rather than a listing of achievements and honours. As well his fame does not extend to the national level (here in Canada anyway) but is rather localized to the Bruce Peninsula. Your suggestion of adding a history of ecological exploration section to the Bruce Peninsula page is an excellent one. I will visit your talk page Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants soon.Mosesos (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Signature

When I use my (unedited) signature by typing 4 tildes, the link doesn't appear and the signature is sometimes duplicated. Help!

Nebulous Nanuqsaurus 13:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nebulous Nanuqsaurus. Welcome to the Teahouse. That's a weird problem. Are you actually typing the wavy line without spaces?, i.e.: ~~~~ Some keyboard language settings generate different characters when that key is hit. Have you tried hitting the four tildes next to "Sign your posts on talk pages" at the bottom of this page whilst editing it. Once you save the edit that should insert your signature and date stamp, with a link to your Userpage and to your Talk page, rather than the plain text I'm seeing above. If you type 5 tildes, you just get a time stamp. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a standard signature then remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. This is the default setting and will automatically link your user and talk page like my signature. See more at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come back and say the same thing, having just done a test with the box checked, like this: Nick Moyes 13:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

noindex/patrolling

From what I’ve read I keep getting more confused, so figured I would ask.

Helped edit a Wikipedia article (now over 30 days old) and noticed it has <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow">

How long does it usually take before it’s removed from the article?

  • >30 days?
  • >30 days and patrolled?
  • >90 days?
  • >90 days and patrolled?

Also, is there any way to check if an article has been patrolled / or request for it to be patrolled?

Wiki nV (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki nV, welcome to the Teahouse. It's 90 days or patrolled, whatever comes first. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Indexing of articles ("mainspace"). It was increased from 30 to 90 days in June 2017. If you click "View history" and then "View logs for this page" at the top then there are options to show the patrol and review log. There is no procedure to request it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for the quick response. Wiki nV (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query re drop-down minor edit menu

I’m referring to the two drop-down menus of common editorial summaries. The first minor one says “spelling/grammar correction”. I would like to get punctuation added, as punctuation is important (see the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves) and I correct a lot of it. So it would be Spelling/grammar/punctuation. To whom or where do I direct this request? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe. The feature is enabled with "Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries" under the Editing heading (not the tab) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The code is in MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js. You can make suggestions on the talk page. User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets is supposed to let you choose your own summaries but User:Equazcion/CustomSummaryPresets.js hasn't been edited since 2012 and doesn't work for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect rendering of this page

The “Ask a Question” box I can’t use, as the Ask My Question button is always greyed out. Also, text from the left column displays on top of the box. This is on my iPad Pro in Safari and iOS 11.0.3. To whose attention do I bring this?

Thanks deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe. It's a gadget enabled by default with 'Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature' under Browsing at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. The code is in MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js which calls MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. The latter's talk page looks more active. The "Ask my question" button is supposed to start working when you have added a signature. The button works for me in Firefox but I haven't tried with an iPad. I do see a problem with text in the left column. For me the box is transparent over the left column and the text there can be seen behind the text in the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding signature doesn’t work (button doesn’t change). Same with Join this discussion. For me, the text is over the box and can make the left of it almost illegible. Where do I request a fix? deisenbe (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: You can try MediaWiki talk:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. The feature is only used on this page and normal editing works so making the script work on all platforms may be low priority. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Test

hey Pepper135 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navbox

Hi, I was wondering where the source code is. I want to import it to Wikia. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artix Kreiger: the source code is at Module:Navbox but I'm pretty certain this module is already in Wikia. Nthep (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Artix Kreiger, welcome to the Teahouse. If you preview wikitext then the bottom of the window links to the transcluded pages at "Templates used in this preview". {{Navbox}} with no parameters gives:
Certain parameters may require additional pages. The rendering is also affected by JavaScript and CSS files like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css. All module pages require that mw:Extension:Scribunto is installed at the wiki, meaning Scribunto must be listed at the local Special:Version. Wikia has a lot of wikis. I don't know whether they have access to some common pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my article keep getting declined?

Hello, I have attempted to post an entry for a company called AutoBuy, but it keeps getting declined. At first, the reason was that it was too promotional, and the second time, the editor cited notoriety. This company has been referenced in news articles, so I am happy to provide the sources. Is there anyone who can help me? Many thanks. Crystalhartwell (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystalhartwell: Welcome to the Teahouse. I can't find anything related to AutoBuy in your edit history. Did you use a different account? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That will be because Draft:AutoBuy has been deleted, RockMagnetist. Crystalhartwell, it's hard for me to comment as I can't see the deleted draft, but establishing notability (N.B. not "notoriety") requires significant coverage in independent sources, not just mentions. Could that be the issue here? Perhaps you could post the two or three best sources you have found here, and we can help judge whether they satisfy the criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

badge info

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. Where to find out about what badge I received?Milkyway001 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Milkyway001. Welcome to both Wikipedia and the Teahouse, where we're happy to answer questions about editing the encyclopaedia. Your badges have been automatically added to your userpage whilst you were doing the Wikipedia Adventure, and you can find them all at your own personal User Page (Click this link: User:Milkyway001), and I see you've also got a message on your own Talk Page about having started the Wikipedia Adventure. Did you complete it all? It looks like you've got a load of new badges, and maybe a couple more Missions and a few more badges still left to collect. It'll be great to have you editing articles on science and music, if these are your interests - I do hope you enjoy the experience. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions?

Hello hello hellooo

I was just wondering about the "Random Article" link. And thinking it could be more useful if we were able to set some criteria for articles it pulls op. e.g. in a specific category.

If I were to code it and send a patch or pull request or something would it be likely to be accepted, or is this kind of thing not done?

Cheerio Aethalides (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aethalides, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Random for existing tools including Special:RandomInCategory. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But in answer to your general question, Aethalides: that kind of question is better suited to WP:VPT, rather than here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

contacting an editor

Is there any way to contact another Wikipedia editor privately, i.e., send them a message they can read via their user page?

DrowningEnglishDrowningEnglish (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrowningEnglish. Welcome to the Teahouse. Messages sent to any editor's Talk Page can always be seen by other editors. Even if that editor has deleted the remarks, it always remains accessible via their Page History. You can contact some editors by email directly, which only they can see, but only if those editors have selected this as an option in their User Preferences. If I wanted to email you directly, I would go to your user page, then look for the Tab marked "User" at the top of the page and look for the drop down option of "Email user". Bear in mind that inappropriate/offensive messages sent to another user can still be used as evidence of inappropriate behaviour, which can lead to editors being indefinitely blocked. For more information, see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DrowningEnglish. I'd like to add a couple things here, one of which is strictly my opinion, but one I feel many share. First, email is an option and many editors have opted out of it. Second, using email to communicate should be only a rare choice. Wikipedia is an open collaberative community. If you have concerns about a specific article, post on that article's talk page. If you have concerns about a broad group of articles, post on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page. If you need technical help, post here. If you have a question about a specific editor's actions, post a polite enquiry on their talk page. If you have a sensitive question about something (usually another editor's conduct after you've tried to resolve it yourself), then perhaps you may want to make an email enquiry of a third party (like an admin or an experienced editor you know has dealt with similar issues). I can only speak for myself, but I'm here to edit Wikipedia. I'm not here to chat, although a little playful banter can sometimes help ease the tensions. So in short, email should only be used to make enquiries that are too sensitive to be in public view. The guidance above about policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA applying to email is sound. John from Idegon (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template like citation needed, but for outdated references?

Is there an in-text template like [citation needed], but for old references? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or for dead references that don't work? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VerifiedCactus: You can mark it as a dead link, but it is preferred you update the reference to point to an archived version if it is available. See WP:LINKROT RudolfRed (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 02:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic reminder?

I was wondering if there was any tool available in order to set a reminder for a certain amount of time (maybe to check on a merge proposal after a month, for example). I looked, but couldn't find anything. Thanks! --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deacon Vorbis. I'm not aware of any such automated facility, as useful as it would be. However, if you're up for installing scripts, I've found the PageCollector script is very helpful reminder tool (See User:קיפודנחש/pageCollector). It lets you create one or more lists of pages at the touch of a drop-down button. I have one set to record pages I simply want to check up on later, and another list of pages I specifically intend to edit myself at some point in the future. There's no automated reminder, or anything, but it's a good way of creating what is, in effect, a couple of extra Watchlists for a specific purpose. See full list of available scripts at WP:US/L. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for the info! --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make reference

How we will make reference??? Appu man123 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 01:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Appu man123: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can learn about how to do references here: WP:REFB. After you read that, please feel free to come back here if you have more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

I left a message on User talk:Rayshree regarding an article they created which has no citations of RSs. They removed my message from their talk page and did not message me back. Can I propose an article deletion?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quisqualis and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.
Removing a talk page message is generally accepted as an indication that the message has been read, but it's not a response.
If you are a follower of the Cullen philosophy, your goal should be to find sources and rescue the article. Only if there's a clear case to be made that the subject of the article is not now and is very unlikely ever to become notable, would you consider proposing for deletion.
You've used the word "proposed", which is usually taken to mean the PROD method of deletion. If you place a PROD tag on an article for which the primary contributor is still active, you may expect that they will simply remove it. This is something they are perfectly within their rights to do and you are not supposed to tag the article again.
In some cases, an article may be eligible for speedy deletion, but referencing problems are not a good reason. That would leave you with starting an Articles for deletion discussion, which opens up a broader discussion, but it has to be about the notability of the subject, whether the current article can be rescued, etc and does not generally get into a discussion of the behavior of other editors. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Rayamajhi? That article looks like it has been a mess for a very long time, this is not Rayshree's fault. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that it's not Rayshree's fault. It was Rayshree who created the article without citing any sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After an article has been here for a few years, I don't like blaming the insufficiencies of the article on just the person who generously created the article in the first place. There have been plenty of people who have touched the article in the meantime, so we are all collectively in some sense "at fault". — But to be honest, I didn't look far enough back in the history to see that Rayshree originated the article. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am a trifle honored by jmcgnh referring to some "Cullen philosophy", I am of the opinion that all productive editors should place the highest priority on maintaining and improving legitimate encyclopedic content, and I would never apologize for that. That is the Wikipedia philosophy as I see it, and is the philosophy of many editors more experienced than I. On the other hand, I am far from a blind inclusionist, and very often advocate deleting (and myself often delete) non-encyclopedic content. I support deleting articles all the time, but when I run across one that I sincerely believe ought to be kept, I work vigorously to that end. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant to hold you up as an exemplar of excellence, one of the most outspoken advocates of saving indedquate articles about notable subjects. And I also have to confess I was writing blind, having not yet figured out which article was being referred to (once I figured it out, I made some suggestions on Talk:Rayamajhi). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I am honored by your comments, jmcgnh, and I appreciate your efforts to improve that article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to contact other involved editors to have refs included. I feel unqualified (linguistically and culturally) to improve the article myself.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see mswiki from enwiki

Sorry. Why is it that some page in enwiki can't see the mswiki counterpart on the sidebar languages option eventhough it has been link and the mswiki can see the enwiki counterpart? For example this page MT_Orkim_Harmony and ms:MT_Orkim_Harmony. Hayate891 (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, Hayate891. Since interwiki links are now handled externally by Wikidata, it's possible for things to get out of step, so I have purged the page, and now the link appears. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). It's there now Hayate891 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How should I report a dubious insertion?

The article on Stockwell (London UK) seens to have a short paragraph in need of moderation:

"Stockwell have a history to be known as a war zone, esepically near the tube station where plenty of shootings have taken place, from the so called opposition. The opposition are known to be another area like Brixton boys who dislike Stockwells boys so decide to try come to the area of Stockwell and cause trouble,"

Unlike the rest of the article, it seems to have various issues (grammar, personal viewpoint, no references, poor context). However, it may hint at an interesting story to be told about Stockwell. Rather than simply deleting it, I'd like to know the right way to report something like this.

Regards, Vic Joseph Vic joseph (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vic joseph: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unless that line is supported by an independent reliable source, and that's exactly what the reliable source says, in my opinion that line should be removed or at least changed to match what the sources state. If you don't wish to do that yet, you can post your concerns on the article talk page and attempt to discuss them with others that follow that article first. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks for pointing this out, Vic joseph. I have removed the vandalism (which was inserted by IP user 193.63.44.141 seven minutes after they introduced the even more obvious bit of vandalism "The famous Vincent Van Gogh grew up in the area of Stockwell, producing his fine art." Another IP had removed that, but not the one you found.) The answer to your last question is that if you can find a reliable published source that says it, then the article could contain a summary (in different words) of what the source says: especially an emotive phrase like "war zone" should not be there unless a reliable source has explicitly described it that way. But the text as entered is clearly tendentious, and is unsourced, as well as being misspelt and not in encyclopaedic tone, and I had no hesitation in removing it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia competition

Hello, I would like to encourage (a) English language (b) architecture-related Wikipedia articles about (c) Sweden. So I thought to start a competition. Competitions and contests already exist on Wikipedia, e.g. Wiki loves Earth.

1) Could I have a competition independent of Wikipedia? I.e. I institute 20x100 EUR prizes and select winning articles myself?

2) Could I donate some money to Wikipedia specifically "earmarked" for prizes in the competition?

37.0.124.57 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For (1), check your local laws, I am no lawyer etc. but I doubt the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else is going to have issues with you doing what you want with your money. The only potential problem is WP:PAID: if some people start editing articles specifically with an eye on the prize pool, they may need to disclose it.
For (2), I am not aware of a way to do so, but you can always ask the WMF directly. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is one of many wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation. See wmf:Donations FAQ#Can I give you a targeted or restricted donation to be used for something very specific? I doubt they want the complications and possible controversies of a donation earmarked for editor prizes unless the amount is very substantial and the scope is more general. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, a lot of editing competitions are organised by external organisations without the WMF being directly involved. If you wanted to do something like that (and it sounds like a great idea!) I think your first step would be to get in touch with one of the relevant WikiProjects, i.e. WikiProject Architecture or WikiProject Sweden, who could help you set up and promote it. Wikimedia Sverige, the Swedish chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, might also be able to help facilitate. – Joe (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Contests and the old meta:Learning and Evaluation/Evaluation reports/2013/On-wiki writing contests and Wikipedia:Bounty board. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useful contributions?

Hypothetically, if a useful edit was reverted, what would I do? Iqra Ali (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iqra Ali: You can look at the article history to see who did the revert. You can ask them on their talk page to explain the revert, or you can raise the question on the article's talk page and work to gain consensus on the changes. Do not engage in an edit war. You can also read WP:BRD for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I will definitely remember it as I expand my knowledge on this site.

Iqra Ali (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On religion articles

Shouldn't articles about religions (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam) be protected so that only admins can edit it? Vandals could easily write anti-religious text! Please respond to this ASAP!!!! GermanGamer77 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more than articles about political parties and a host of other articles. The current policies backed by bots that quickly delete totally unsuitable material are fine. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GermanGamer77. Articles are generally only protected to avoid ongoing and imminent disruption, most often to prevent repeated vandalism or edit warring. If there is an article where this type of disruption is ongoing, it is certainly possible to have to article protected, but we generally do not protect articles simply because they deal with sensitive subject matter. GMGtalk 21:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I see. Thanks! GermanGamer77 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Locking down an article so that only 'admins' could edit it would be counter to the entire project as a whole. First of all, the admin staff already have enough on their plates - adding the upkeep of specific pages to their task list isn't optimal. Secondly, we as a community should always be on the lookout for vandalism, no matter what the article is. Always assume good faith, but never fear being bold in dealing with vandalism. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an administrator, I agree with the views of GreenMeansGo and NsTaGaTr. A large majority of our articles about religion are relatively stable and any editor is completely free to edit them, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Many of these articles have some problems with neutrality, which any diligent editor can help correct. But ordinary content shortcomings are not a reason to protect an article. On the contrary. We should encourage improvements. Protection is only appropriate when ongoing disruptive editing is taking place. Blocking chronically disruptive editors is also a tool for protecting the encyclopedia. But those tools should be used sparingly and of short duration in most cases. Wikipedia's success comes from the fact that anyone can edit 99+% of our articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth mentioning that, currently, there are only 531 active administrators on English Wikipedia, and most of them are preoccupied with administrative tasks. So, full-protecting an article means the window to improve that article will be minuscule, which would hamper our goal of building an encyclopedia. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On signatures

Can someone tell me how to make my signature black, red, and yellow, and also put a couple images on the sides like Vami IV does? GermanGamer77 (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GermanGamer77. Guidance on customizing your signature can be found at WP:CUSTOMSIG. GMGtalk 21:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense of the article. Can you please just tell me what to put in the "signature" field? So here's the directions: 3 horizontal stripes over the entire signature Top stripe black, middle stripe red, bottom stripe yellow. Thanks in advance, and yes, I am kind of lazy. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures can contain at most 255 bytes of code, and images from files are not allowed by Wikipedia:Signatures#Images. This limits what is possible. Vami IV uses the Unicode character ✠ from dingbat. If you want to use the colors of the German flag then would you consider something like this: GermanGamer77. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GermanGamer77: go to preferences and copy PH's code (ie this: [[User:GermanGamer77|<span style="color:black">German</span>]][[User talk:GermanGamer77|<span style="color:red">Gamer</span>]][[Special:Contributions/GermanGamer77|<span style="color:gold">77</span>]]). I hope to see it soon! –Sb2001 00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your own signature code could be shortened 39 characters to this: –Sb2001. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, PrimeHunter. Very observant of you. I was probably annoyed by the time I did the colour; the fonts on a Mac are completely different to those on Windows computers—I never know how my signature looks to half of our editors, and I had just worked out one I thought worked. Your knowledge of personalised signatures amuses me, since yours is the default. (With your new code ...) –Sb2001 01:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give me his code and tell me where to put it please. [[User:GermanGamer77|<span style="color:black">German</span>]][[User talk:GermanGamer77|<span style="color:red">Gamer</span>]][[Special:Contributions/GermanGamer77|<span style="color:gold">77</span>]] (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanGamer77: You put the code in the right place at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal but you also have to enable "Treat the above as wiki markup". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add the crosses to each side of my signature? GermanGamer77 21:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my page deleted?

Hi, I have created two wikipedia pages but they were all taken down. I looked up similar personnel on Wikipedia and used same code and similar word structure but it did not work out. How do I successfully create a Wikipedia account pleaseReal Mcf (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Real Mcf and welcome to the Teahouse.
I'm sorry that your efforts at creating Wikipedia pages were not entirely successful. I hope it's not out-of-line to suggest that you read the helpful advice at your first article.
One thing that often confounds newcomers to Wikipedia is the community's stance on notability. It is not the wording or coding of a page that determines notability; that's established by in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Real Mcf, in general when you have a question about a page it's strongly advisable to specify it, e.g., "I created added accurate, useful data to [[Article So-and-so]] and it was reverted", "I created article So-and-so and it was deleted". That may not apply in this case but in general it's the way to go. Good luck in your growth as a Wikipedian. --Thnidu (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if a subject merits an entry

The actor Josh O'Connor does not have an entry, and I'm unsure whether to draft one. I haven't written an entry before. Thank youP. Tobie B. (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I easily found sources like these,[1][2][3][4] , so I´d say you have a fair shot per WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Now I just have to figure out all the coding stuff, LOL. Not sure if I can do it, but I'll try. P. Tobie B. (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey P. Tobie B.. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, which can hopefully explain a lot and make things much easier. GMGtalk 15:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Go Green. I did look at those instructions, which is why I have a feeling I won't be able to figure it out :-) Will try, though, as I think Josh deserves an entry. P. Tobie B. (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for Wikipedia to house an archive of photographs?

I am on the board of a historical society and we are looking for a way to display photographs from our archives. Is there a way to do this through Wikipedia? Shawnbgreene (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Wikipedia itself, as photos we host need to be in use on Wikipedia articles. Our sister project Wikimedia Commons will be happy to host them provided they're of potential use to someone (see Commons:Category:Images from the German Federal Archive for an example of Commons doing large-scale hosting of a historical photo archive), but only if you're willing to release them under a Creative Commons license or into the public domain, meaning that any organization has the right to re-use them in future for any purpose, even commercially. (Depending on the age of the photographs and who took them, you may not have the right to release the photos, as the license will potentially still belong to the photographers.) ‑ Iridescent 07:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Shawnbgreene. This depends entirely on the copyright status of each specific photo. Copyright is extremely complex. To simplify a bit, if a photo was published in the United States before 1923, then its copyright has expired and it can be used freely. Contemporary photos are almost certainly covered by copyright and cannot be freely shared on Wikimedia projects. There are countless borderline cases between those two extremes. If your historical society legally owns the copyright to certain photos, then you can choose to freely license those photos under an acceptable Creative Commons license for use by anyone for any purpose. Wikimedia Commons is our sister project that serves as a repository for freely available media files. They now have over 50 million files that can be used by anyone without permission. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May i know how this page is surveying on Wikipedia because ?

as i can see this page does't have reliable references as per Wikipedia guidelines and it's look like advertisement of that company so why it is on our Wikipedia page link is given below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinhardt_Group Randomlike (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted as unambiguous spam written by an obvious paid editor. In future, if you find obvious spam articles put {{db-spam}} at the top of the article, which will tag them for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is a user sock puppeting if his previous account is blocked indefinitely?

How does Wikipedia deal with a user who is blocked indefinitely previously? Do I report an account for sock puppeting if I suspect it belongs to a user who is blocked indefinitely previously, even if there is no clear evidence of transgression in the new account? Is Wikipedia able to prevent a user from re-registering a new account after he is blocked? Jane Dawson (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jane Dawson: Hello and welcome. Blocks are on the person, not the username. If a blocked user registers a new username(which as I understand it is very difficult to prevent totally) that user is evading their block and should be blocked under their new name regardless of their new behavior(if the original block is active). If they wish to be unblocked, they need to properly appeal their block under their original username. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you for the quick response! Jane Dawson (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, if you suspect that a user is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, you should report it at WP:SPI so an admin can investigate and block the account if necessary. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Thank you for the quick response! Jane Dawson (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting re-review since 36 days.

Hi, I have created a new article who was declined, and after that I improved a lot my article, however I have been waiting for 36 days for someone to approve my new article... What should I do? Article link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Civic_id Regards, Benjamin Benjamin75006 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjamin75006: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there isn't much you can do to speed up the process, as this whole website is a volunteer effort where people do what they can when they can. It appears that you properly resubmitted it so it will be reviewed at some point. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks :/ Benjamin75006 (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benjamin75006. I see that your article has been rejected again because it reads more like an advert for the company, and it has far too many spam links. Wikipedia articles should not contain links like that in the body of the article. They would be better in a separate external links section. You need to rewrite the whole article, starting by saying what the company actually does. (Am I correct in thinking that its main product is identity theft protection?) Perhaps someone else familiar with the subject could help you with the layout and the English? Dbfirs 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supressing archived content

Can someone help me to 1. add noindex 2.Cleaneup the red link

3.Completely supress

Section 1.10 and 1.11 of the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2014_June_13

41.81.101.49 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will be done based on your request here. It's unusual to change archived content; there has to be a pretty good reason. You could check WP:OVERSIGHT for situations where extra or even extraordinary efforts are taken to remove potentially damaging personal information from the records and history, but this doesn't seem to be an example of that. Merely having a username, whether or not it is your real name, appear would not normally be something to be suppressed. At best, you might apply at WP:DISAPPEAR. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit a page if the information is just your knowledge of the subject?

I looked up my hometown, Piedmont, WV on Wikipedia to see if I could find something to edit. I did a couple simple edits in the history section; one in the notable residents and changed a name from New Page Corporation to Verso Luke Mill (why did this turn red instead of blue?) I also added a high school section. My question is: Can you edit something that you personally know if you don't have a citation for it. I did cite the changes I edited.129.71.94.54 (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would be considered original research. How could we be sure you weren't making things up? I'm not saying you are, but that's what WP:V is for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to amplify Jasper Deng's answer: I had the same exact idea about improving the article on my hometown when I first began editing Wikipedia. It'a a natural thought to want to contribute first-hand information. But Wikipedia works because the information in it is verifiable. This is a key concept, and once you consider it I think you'll agree that without it, the online encyclopedia would not be as useful as it is. I'm sure the information you contributed is true. And most likely, if you look around, you can find a written source that will back up your claim. Adding that source as a citation will enable others to trust that you have improved the article. Please read more about this on the Verifiability page. Good luck! Jmatazzoni (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Wikipedia relies on article information being verifiable and referenced through third-party sources (*WP:RS*). In regards to the red link, this signifies that the subject does not currently have a Wikipedia article. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side note - are you Pboggs61? If so, please be sure to log in before making changes to articles. The use of multiple accounts, especially while editing the same article, is greatly frowned upon. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too great at copyright, but if I were to extract a picture of Roland Borhek on this page to upload on Wikipedia, would it be considered Public domain? The book is over 100 years old, but again I'm not entirely sure how this works. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one was published in the US, so it's no problem. While copyright is horribly complicated, "anything which was published in the United States before 1923 is out of copyright in the US even if it's still in copyright elsewhere" is a hard-and-fast rule. The licensing tag you need to use when you upload it is {{PD-US-1923}}. If there's any possibility that it's still in copyright elsewhere—that is, that the creator potentially died less than 70 years ago—make sure you upload it to Wikipedia itself, not to Wikimedia Commons. ‑ Iridescent 18:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the help, Iridescent. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus American Producer

Hello i have have trouble adding notable people to Wikipedia. Recently an article i contributed was deemed as paid editing. This was not true. How can i correctly add information? ENKWMS (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ENKWMS, that is not true. You've been accused of having a confict of interest and possibly being a paid editor and there is an active thread at WP:COIN on that subject, but the article was deleted for lack of notability per this AfD discussion. So the short answer is, unless you have significant new reliable sources that are totally independent of the subject and discuss the subject in detail, you can't. John from Idegon (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: moved from WT:TEAHOUSE. John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon so He needs another article to verify his article? is that what you're saying?

Can't change credentials

An hour ago I got a notification of a failed login attempt from a machine I have not used and was advised to change my pw, and was sent to the Change credentials special page. I chose a new, long pw, entered it in both fields, and tapped "Change credentials". The fields cleared but I was on the same page. Repeat several times, same result. Type new pw into text app, copy, and paste into both fields. Same. Maybe it doesn't like pasting the 2d copy? Paste to field 1, type carefully into field 2. Same. Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Help me change my pw! Please {{ping }} me to reply. --Thnidu (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

promotional user page?

Is this user page improperly promotional? See Talk:Hyperthyroidism# Hyperthyroidism. Please {{ ping }} me to reply. --Thnidu (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promotional to me, including a promotional edit elsewhere. Putting in one's mobile phone number is always a problem.
Had they not made the edit at Talk:Hyperthyroidism#Hyperthyroidism I could imagine it being a slam-dunk for CSD U5, but problematic edits in both cases because they could be seen as largely self-promotional. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page got rejected

Hello everyone,

My page Kornelija Slunjski got rejected and I don’t understand why- I’d like to hear some specifics & constructive advice in how to fix the issue to have it published!

Thank you,

TheGalaxyMan (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=810557798"