Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help

Wikipedia

help with tagged page

since May 2018 a page, I contributed quite a bit, contains an {{Excessive citations}} tag. I have no idea how to handle this and added some questions about it on the talk page, but I don't know how to draw a little bit more attention to it. Treutwein (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Treutwein and welcome to the Teahouse. You may read Wikipedia:Citation overkill#How to trim excessive citations. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 13:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@AE: thanks for the pointer. I do not see any necessity for removing citations. My opinion and the opinion of another contributor to the page is that this tag given by Accoun1, who has no talk page and appears to be a tag bomber, can be ignored. In the meantime the other contributor deleted the tag. Treutwein (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Accoun1 was active between May/9th and July/27,2018 and no more contributions since then.Treutwein (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Many edits?

If I'm making heavy editing on an article, can I make many edits or is it better to do just 1 or two edits? AGF (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Agf2: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While it's personal preference, you should save periodically to make sure the edits are saved, especially if there is heavy editing by other users on the article as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 22:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AGF (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agf2, two further thoughts: 1) making lot of small edits can also help if disagreements arise. It makes it clearer what your thinking was (through edit summaries) and if you do get reverted, it will be a small part of your work, not the whole thing. 2) Your user name happens to be very similar to a commonly cited Wikipedia guideline, AGF. Your signature looks confusing because of that. Might you consider picking a different name, or at least changing your signature to include the 2? Welcome to Wikipedia, and all the best. › Mortee _talk 23:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme example, but in effort to bring Luna moth to Good Article status, about 100 edits before the review started and 100 after. David notMD (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Agf2: While I would encourage newer editors to make small edits while they learn their way around Wikipedia, it's really a matter of personal preference between making small or large edits. One consideration when making a major overhaul or expansion of an article is that the intermediary stages may be a bit messy, disorganized, or contradictory. This may lead to edit conflicts as other editors try to clean up the intermediary stages while you're still working on the article. One solution is to put a template like {{under construction}} or {{in use}} at the top of the article (or section) so readers and editors will know you're working on it and that it may not not be entirely accurate moment-to-moment. Another solution is to do the editing in a sandbox, moving it to the article when you're finished. With the sandbox approach, you can also invite other editors to check your work and build consensus for the changes, if they might be controversial.

I hope this helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all answers, I got it clearly. AGF (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Excessive non-notable list

It is becoming obvious that there is a COI at this article: Sally Struthers in the section Stage. Not every appearance is notable; and now that the BLP's career has been reduced to "summer stock" at a theater in Maine (Ogunquit), someone keeps listing every show she does there. I'd like to clean up this section (and maybe the other 2 as well); but would like the WP policy to support cleaning up the unnecessary listings. Not sure if it is simply undue weight? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists. You can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS, but before you do either you might want to take a look at WP:LSC for general guidance and also check to see if this has been previously discussed at Talk:Sally Struthers (you may need to dig through the archives if there are any). If a consensus has been previously established to include all of these mentions, then you should be CAUTIOUS and try to establish a new one if you feel there's a need. A consensus can change over time per WP:CCC, but you shouldn't just unilaterally decide to void it without a really strong policy/guideline based reason for doing so. At the same time, if all of this information has been just recently added without really any discussion, then maybe being BOLD is best. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit sum explaining why (best to cite a relevant policy or guideline if possible) and then possibly following up with a talk page post as well. If another editor comes along and reverts your change, follow WP:DR and avoid edit warring no matter how right you think you are. Sometimes a good place to ask about these kinds of things are on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, so you might want to try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, etc. for opinions. Even better would be to use {{Please see}} so as to keep all relevant discussion on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly Wow. Thanks so much for taking the time to explain all this. I will certainly take your advice and study my options before proceeding. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

New Article after deletion

I have just created a new article of child prodigy Zidane Hamid after its previous draft deletion. I want to know its status that how much time it will take to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionary Muslim (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Missionary Muslim and welcome to the Teahouse. Since it is in the mainspace, it is considered "published" as an article. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

But i dont find it in google search when i type article name and wikipedia. And it is not found in wikipedia search suggestion when i type inside wikipedia search. When it will be visible in google results and wikipedia search suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionary Muslim (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Missionary Muslim It takes time for search engines to index pages. Please be patient. Is there a particular reason you are eager for the article to be seen? 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes because the subject of article is such an exceptional kid who is being searched in wikipedia frequently.

Please sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. What 333.dot was hinting at was whether you have any connection to Zidane Hamid. Do you know the child personally? Are you a family member or manager/promoter? David notMD (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no personal connection. I found on search engine this keyword has been searched frequently like Zidane Hamid Biohraphy, Zidane hamid Wiki, that's why I created this article when i thoroughly searched about him Missionary Muslim (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have created an article of child prodigy Zidane Hamid who is notable for wikipedia biography. It was published yesterday, now it has been nominated for deletion. I want to know its reason and suggestions for its improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missionary Muslim (talk • contribs) 08:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Missionary Muslim The user who nominated the page for deletion gave their reason in the deletion discussion. Please contribute to the discussion if you have questions. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

On High School Consolidations

So, let's say there are two high schools in a district... let's call them School A and School B. Now let's say that School A is shut down and consolidated into School B to make School C. Would you modify School B's article to make it about School C and mention that it used to be School B before the consolidation somewhere on the article, or would School C get its own, separate article? I've seen instances of both on here, so I'm unsure of what the general rule for this is. Finchwidget (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Finchwidget: The question you have could be asked more generally in many situations of name change or topic scope change. The answer, to my knowledge, is that it depends. I would say that if the articles involved are short enough, and schools A/B do not have outstanding history, the first option (with a redirect from A/B to C) is probably best (e.g. Areva is a redirect to Orano, the new name of the company). On the other hand, if the articles are long enough to warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT, or if the topic is significantly different for some reason, then multiple articles are warranted (e.g. Rhodesia contains the details of a period of the history of the country Zimbabwe). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I put a forum on the user page?

The Wikipedia article on what Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia Article talk pages are not to be used as forums, however the talk page on South African farm attacks is becoming a debate. I was thinking I could move the debate sections to another page, but WP:NOTFORUM does not allow that. then I looked on the user page article, and it does not have WP:NOTFORUM under what should not go there. Could I move this discussion to a user page?Billster156234781 (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Billster156234781, welcome to Teahouse. It looks like the debate is about what to do with the article. That belongs on the article talk page. Besides, there are several people involved - whose talk page would you move it to? If it morphs into an argument about the situation itself, not what sources say and, on that basis, what to write, that could be a problem, but having the same discussion elsewhere won't improve it. It might be best to leave them to it for a while. This edit and this, your third and fourth edits on the encyclopedia, are your two comments there so far. It's difficult to resolve an argument between other people (though not impossible), especially when you're new to the project and its policies. Why not find something else to work on for a while, come back in a day or two and see if it's calmed down? If it has, perhaps whatever you'd like to contribute to the discussion will be easier then. If a conversation you are involved with really gets out of hand, see WP:Dispute resolution. › Mortee _talk 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've posted a question regarding this article to Wikipedia:Help desk. This is an ongoing and very charged discussion and may require admin involvement. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I admit i did make some comments about the tucker carlson show on the page, but it might be something to continue on a forum type site, like reddit.Billster156234781 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've started a discussion regarding the talk page here on the administrators' noticeboard. Also, Teahouse editors, let me know if I'm wrong here, but Reddit does not seem to be an appropriate place to continue the debate, or even continue the attacks regarding the article at all. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 02:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Error on the page Asian Paints ltd

On the right hand side summary table , erroneously founders Founders are given as 'Bhupendra Nagrakar,shantam Arora,natu lawda'

while in the history , the correct version is given - The company was started in a garage in Mumbai by four friends Champaklal Choksey, Chimanlal Choksi, Suryakant Dani and Arvind Vakil in February 1945.

An obvious error! needs to be corrected 04:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)165.225.106.65 (talk)

 Done Only edit by an unregistered user. In the future you can always make changes like this yourself, or, if you have a Conflict of Interest, request changes on the article's Talk Page. Rojomoke (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Help for resubmitting my article for "Lilium" (the VOTL company from Munich)

I recently submitted an article on Lilium, an eVOTL aviation company from Munich, but unfortunately it was denied. I'm into sustainable companies and trying to expand my skill set by learning how to be a wiki writer and I was wondering what I could do to improve the article so it gets approved next time around. There is already an approved article for the 'Lilium Jet' in German and similar products/companies have an approved Wikipedia page, so this is a topic gaining attention. Basically, the reviewer said it sounded like advertising. I've taken out the section for 'awards & nominations' and information about the team to make it completely neutral. Other than that I'm not sure what to improve and would like some tips about writing about a company/product so it is informative and not promoting the company. Please help! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huytheca (talk • contribs) 07:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huytheca: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources in the draft seem to largely be press releases or basic announcements, and not in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases and announcements are not appropriate for establishing notability per the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. The fact that you use the term "gaining attention" and (in the draft)"startup" suggests to me it is too soon for an article on this company. Companies must already be well known and established in order to merit an article here; Wikipedia cannot be used to increase the visibility of a business.

I would add that other language versions of Wikipedia(such as the German one) are separate projects with their own guidelines and policies, and a subject meriting an article on one does not necessarily mean it will here, too. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thank you for your insight!

Huytheca I'll note that an article about the same subject already exists, as Lilium Jet. What typically happens is that an article that duplicates an existing topic is converted into a redirect. Sometimes the content is merged. I would add that as a reader, I find the aircraft far more interesting than the company. Perhaps you could focus on that. Vexations (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why I cant create article ?

Hello every one I want create my article but wikipedia dont allow me to do this. Why reason ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukan1400 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bukan1400: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. New users must wait until they are what is called autoconfirmed in order to create articles; your account must be at least four days old and have at least 10 edits. You only have three edits that were all today. You may use Articles for Creation to submit drafts for review until then, or you may edit existing articles in areas that interest you and wait the four days. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If the article which you are trying to create is Draft:Kurdish Shepherd Dog, you need to realise that references need to be placed in the article text, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I revised the one image gallery at the bottom to two galleries (photos of dogs; photos of bas-relief art), but the referencing still needs to be fixed per David Biddulph's recommendation. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Change Article Title

I am working on behalf of a journal to update it's wikipedia and the article title only uses its former name before it was changed. How do I change the main title of the article?

Hello Shalaineduffy and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you continue to edit, please review WP:COI. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia and will usually result in your changes being reverted by another editor upon discovering that you have a conflict of interest. Please don't edit articles where you have these conflicts, as it makes edits to be article impossible to reflect a neutral point of view and will result in inadvertent and unpremeditated bias being added regardless of intent. However, you are welcome to propose changes on the article's talk page. Do you mean Thorax (journal)? —AE (talk • contributions) 08:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. No it was no Thorax but another. I will not change any articles that I have those conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalaineduffy (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shalaineduffy: Tobacco Control (journal), Open Heart (journal), Heart (journal) or Injury Prevention (journal)? —AE (talk • contributions) 09:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The title of the journal is Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care and the new title is BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalaineduffy (talk • contribs) 09:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No subject

I am having difficulty getting to saved downloads. right now, i am looking for parapsycholoy relaing to the use nuclear weapons by insecure heads of governmemt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chander perkash (talk • contribs) 08:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Umm...Chander perkash...What? GMG^talk 22:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Methionine Sulfoximine wrong phosphorylation mechanism

Hi guys, In my research I came upon the "Methionine Sulfoximine" page of wikipedia and noticed something strange in the phosphorylation mechanism (the only picture of the artile). I checked the reference (reference 2, Krajewski, W. W.; Jones, T. A.; Mowbray, S. L. (18 July 2005).) and could confirm that the displayed mechanism of phosphorylation is wrong (A small mistake, but to someone in the field it makes a big difference). I made a correct picture and tried to put in on the "Methionine Sulfoximine" article, but can't overwrite the old picture. I just created a Wikipedia account and never edited anything before. When I just try to upload a picture (google "wikipedia edit picture", first enty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload/Replace_this_image), it says "Permission Error" since I am not an Autoconfirmed user, Administrator or Confirmed user. Can anyone help me to correct the mistake on the article? Thaks for the help! PatrickP94 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickP94 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• @PatrickP94: Thank you for your (attempted) contribution. Short version: you should have tried at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Methionine_Sulfoximine.PNG&wpForReUpload=1, but there is better to do!

Long version: You met an admittedly confusing problem of image files, which is that there are two mechanisms to upload them depending on the copyright status. The image in the article is actually hosted at our sister project Wikimedia Commons, where you can upload a new version (on Commons, you can upload as long as you are logged in, no special permissions are needed). What you tried to do was upload locally on the English Wikipedia itself; this should be done only for files which are not freely-licensed (but only for those verifying a long list of criteria).

However, this is the procedure to replace a image with the same format. The old image is in .png format, that is, raster graphics. As the image is a diagram, it would be better to upload it as a vector graphics, in .svg format, if the software you used allows to export it as such. To do so:

1. Upload the .svg image to Wikimedia Commons (follow the instructions at [1]) under a new title (for instance Methionine sulfoximine phosphorylation mechanism.svg)
2. Change the image used in the Wikipedia article. To do so, go to Methionine sulfoximine, click "edit" next to the relevant section (here "Mechanism of action"), and find the image-placing wikicode: right now it is [[File:Methionine Sulfoximine.PNG|300px|thumb|left|Phosphorylation of MSO by glutamine synthetase.]]. The first part of that code is what tells the software which name the image has, so replace it by the name you gave when uploading: [[File:Methionine Sulfoximine.PNG(whatever you named your file at upload.svg)|300px|thumb|left|Phosphorylation of MSO by glutamine synthetase.]]

Please let us know if you have further issues, and feel free to give a look at the image tutorial. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Tigraan: I followed your instructions and uploaded the .svg picture. Happy to have fixed the mechanistic mistake. Thank your for the quick response and detailed answer!

  @PatrickP94: Great! A few other pointers if you intend to stick around: you should sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end, and have a look at indent to understand how to typeset your posts to indicate who you are answering to. You might also want to take a quick look at Template:Re and/or WP:PING to know how to grab someone's attention (you almost managed to do in the above post, but it did not work due to your failure to sign the post). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues trying to clean up article

I've tried to clean up some of the issues at People's Mujahedin of Iran article, but my edits have been continuously reverted by the same three editors despite me quoting from RS. The three editors that keep reverting me work together in many Islamic Republic of Iran-related topics, and one of them was recently blocked for POV-pushing/sockpupetry. I've added a RfC on the article's Talk page, where two users have supported my proposed edits, and one has opposed. Based on this, I'd like to include this info to the article, but the opposing editor will likely revert me again, as he's done in the past. I want to avoid edit-warring. Any advice? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• You should probably let the RfC run its normal course. Yes, it means that a few bad-faith editors can easily derail a discussion and make it take much more time than needed, but a one-week old RfC with no clear consensus should not be decided by one of the RfC participants. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, the RfC was filed on July 30th, and Legobot removed the RfC template as "expired" on August 29th. Thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Oh, I misread the dates, I thought it was filed on August 30th. In that case, it is hard to say. You can try listing it at WP:ANRFC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Tigraan, reading through WP:ANRFC's guidelines, the first point states that "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here... if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early." Since this particular case seems to meet these requirements (30 days have passed, and there is a majority vote supporting the change), am I right to think that the discussion can be closed and the text inserted into the article? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: majority vote ≠ clear consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. It might be that there is indeed consensus, but it is not such an overwhelming one that an involved editor closing it would be appropriate (hence my suggestion to list at ANRFC). You might get away with implementing the changes without formally closing the RfC, but I would not recommend it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Hi Teahouse folks, it's good to see you again. I had two general questions - how do I create a wikilink to a specific entry in the deletion log, and how do I link to a specific section of a specific revision of a page? (I'm aware of Special:Diff, which goes some way in helping, but doesn't exactly do the job.) Thanks in advance, Airbornemihir (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir:

1. AFAIK, it's not possible.
2. You put "#SECTION" after the revision link. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=857393165#Harassment

—AE (talk • contributions) 13:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Airbornemihir. A wikilink usually means a link made with [[...]] syntax. If a page is currently deleted then a normal wikilink like Free Cities will show the deletion log. If the page exists then I don't think it's possible to wikilink the deletion log. Special:Log/delete/Free Cities shows deletions by a user called Free Cities (there isn't one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&page=Free+Cities shows the deletion log but not in a wikilink. It can also be linked with [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=delete&page=Free+Cities}}] which produces [2] but it isn't a wikilink. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=857393165#Harassment can be wikilinked with Special:PermanentLink/857393165#Harassment. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus and PrimeHunter: Thanks! Airbornemihir (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Mobile phone

Am I OK to use Wikipedia even though I only have a mobile phone.?? Thank you. I will be waiting for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by June Commerford (talk • contribs) 15:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

June Commerford Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to use Wikipedia on whatever device works for you- although editing is usually cumbersome on a phone. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell that to Cullen328. See Smartphone editing. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I really appreciate it. Have a good day !! June Commerford (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If I can be of any assistance with smartphone editing, just ask me, June Commerford. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Fedback on page updated after deletion: Draft:Strider_Sports_International

Earlier this year, I submitted a page for Strider Sports and it was noted for deletion. I have updated it and welcome your feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Strider_Sports_International. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SliePre (talk • contribs) 15:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SliePre, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for working on the draft some more. The simplest way to get feedback on it is to press the "Resubmit" button in the message box at the top so it's a live WP:AfC candidate again. You've certainly improved it. › Mortee _talk 20:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright image question with PDF's

I have two separate questions, appreciate any insight.

1. According to disclaimer by Yiddish Book Center in this PDF this is now in public domain and on the third page is an image of Morris Winchevsky. Can I take a screenshot of that PDF and upload it to Commons or are there better practices?

2. In the second case, a recently published (and copyrighted) book Jewish Materialism (2018) published an image from Yiddish periodical Der Groyser Kundes (1912). Can I screenshot the picture of Benjamin Feigenbaum used in that modern book? I emailed the author who wrote me back, but I want an expert opinion from Wikipedia too.

I found the picture of Feigenbaum in the paper itself (to the best of my knowledge that is where it was first published). I took a picture of the paper and used it for the book. The picture is over one hundred years old. I do not see why it would be a problem to publish under fair use. best, elli stern

Shushugah (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Shushugah. Is there a publication date included in Yiddish on the second page there? GMG^talk 19:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GreenMeansGo the date of the Winchvesky publication is 1933, a few months after he died in 1932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. So far so good Shushugah. Does it indicate where it was published? Or is the only indication of that the reference to Amherst Massachusetts in English on the first page? GMG^talk 20:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shushugah. The second image which was originally published in 1912 is clearly in the public domain so no problems there. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Nothing published before 1923 is copyrighted any longer. The disclaimer by the Yiddish Book Center is not rock solid because orphaned works may still be covered by copyright, and it looks to me like the publication date is 1933 (which you have just confirmed). Instead, upload that image here on Wikipedia under our non-free image policy criteria #10. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Book #1 was published in New York (says so in Yiddish on page 2) and according to the metadata of this page. Amhert, is referring to the present location of Yiddish Book Center itself which did the scanning. Shushugah (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen is correct about source 2. But source 1 should be good too. Since the author of the work (who presumably owned the copyright to the image in order to publish it himself) died in 1933. Term of copyright in the US is life plus 70 years. So you can upload it to Commons using Template:PD-old-70. GMG^talk 20:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nesting infobox inside each other

I am trying to add the field birth_name to Uri Avnery's infobox. Currently, it uses {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} which does not have that field. I have a few options.

1. Propose to edit to {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} to include the new field (I don't have template editing abilities) 2. Wrap the template inside another one. I tried this, but it has some styling issue, see enclosed markup and result below, with 'birth_name' being Ostermann Helmut, but there is a duplication of the article name (it says "Tea House" because I posted it here)

Infobox person within Infobox member of the Knesset

Markup Renders as {{Infobox member of the Knesset | image = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg | caption = Avnery in 1965 | birth_date = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}} | birth_place = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany | death_date = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}} | death_place = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]] | Year of Aliyah = 1933 | Knesset(s) = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]] | party1 = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]] | partyyears1 = 1965–1974 | party2 = [[Left Camp of Israel]] | partyyears2 = 1979–1981 |module= {{infobox person |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut }}}}

Edit (possible solution) Infobox member of the Knesset within Infobox person

Markup Renders as {{infobox person |birth_name = Ostermann Helmut |module= {{Infobox member of the Knesset |embed=yes | image = Uri Avneri 1965-11-01 (cropped).jpg | caption = Avnery in 1965 | birth_date = {{Birth date|df=y|1923|9|10|}} | birth_place = [[Beckum, Germany|Beckum]], Germany | death_date = {{death date and age|df=y|2018|8|20|1923|9|10|}} | death_place = [[Tel Aviv]], [[Israel]] | Year of Aliyah = 1933 | Knesset(s) = [[Israeli legislative election, 1965|6]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1969|7]], [[Israeli legislative election, 1977|9]] | party1 = [[Meri (political party)|Meri]] | partyyears1 = 1965–1974 | party2 = [[Left Camp of Israel]] | partyyears2 = 1979–1981 }} }} Teahouse Born Ostermann Helmut Template:Infobox member of the Knesset

Shushugah (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, I've tried a few possibilities in my sandbox, and you're welcome to look through the history there to see my attempts. I was able eventually to make it work, but it uses |child= in {{Infobox person}}, which, per the documentation, is deprecated. This can't be the right solution. {{Infobox}} also says it's not generally meant for use in articles. Perhaps someone more expert can tell us both how to do it properly. › Mortee _talk 22:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, as you say, the right solution is to extend {{Infobox member of the Knesset}} directly. You could discuss that here or request a change using the "Submit an edit request" button you see when you try to edit it yourself. › Mortee _talk 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mortee for the advice and attempts! I found that embedd=yes param in conjunction with module param works in the second example, which is easiest/simplest solution for now. I edited the markup above to use it. Shushugah (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Nice job Shushugah. Perhaps move more parameters up into the {{Infobox person}} like this? That moves the birth name down. I haven't come across |embed=. Is there documentation for it somewhere? › Mortee _talk 23:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Unless there's something even better that another respondent can point us to, I think this has to be the right way. › Mortee _talk 23:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

See my edit here, good call with moving up overlapping params Shushugah (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me › Mortee _talk 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent info - I recommend adding a fourth section to Help:Infobox#Adding an infobox to an article called #Nesting infoboxes, and include this info. I'll post a note on that article's talk page also, so see if people watching that page want to take this project on. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave the documentation for someone more expert because I'm not clear if |child= (equivalent to |embed=) is deprecated only on {{Infobox person}} (because it never makes sense for 'person' to be the sub-box) or in general (because any more specific infoboxes could support all the 'person' parameters directly, in principle). › Mortee _talk 11:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Format infobox error

can someone please fix the infobox formatting error of this page -->> Shivpal Singh Yadav‎ ? thanks ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Adamstraw99,  Fixed the formatting error was from the unclosed links inserted by the ip ([[Samajwadisecular morcha) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, thank you sooo much :-) Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

question 1

What is Linda Lind's age — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentonebillion (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vincentonebillion. This is a page for answering questions about editing Wikipedia. You might find somebody who can answer you at The Entertainment section of the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing References

I want to edit text under a == References == section. But I can't access the text - there is only displayed {{reflist}} under the == References == section in Edit mode (Edit source mode). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan1248 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikifan1248, The References section is usually filled by references earlier in the page. In Edit Source mode, look for things between <ref> and </ref> tags. rchard2scout (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan1248 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Editcountitis

how many edits have I made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lol dolls (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lol dolls and welcome to the Teahouse. You have made 8 edits until now. By the way, I've added a good heading for this thread. Regards —AE (talk • contributions) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lol dolls, you can see all your edits by clicking the "Contributions" links at the top of the page, which will take you to Special:Contributions/Lol_dolls. There are lots more statistics in the XTools Edit Counter. › Mortee _talk 15:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Work harder on quality rather than quantity. All of your edits have been reverted by other editors, and your draft has been deleted because it contained copyright material, i.e., song lyrics. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Abelmoschus Esculentus: While those in the know surely had a smile at the header, that laugh came at the expense of the OP. You could at least have linked to the inside joke reference. We should strive to make the Teahouse a welcoming place for new editors and snide remarks like these (even if joking) do not really help; David notMD makes the same point in a direct and helping manner. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Feedback request for first edit.

Hello, I have just made my first Wikipedia edit and am keen to ensure I have done it correctly, so would welcome any feedback from a more seasoned editor. I had noticed that an image in an article on Emilia Lanier in the section 'Early life' showed the wrong church (St Botolph's. Bossall), so substituted that photo with another from the correct church's existing Wikipedia page (St Botolph-without-Bishopsgate). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikkiDon'tLoseThatNumber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi WikkiDon'tLoseThatNumber, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Yes, you did that entirely correctly. Thanks for the contribution. › Mortee _talk 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mortee.

Hi, WikkiDon'tLoseThatNumber. Welcome to Wikipedia. Congratulations, not only for making your first edit, but also for choosing one of the best usernames I've seen here in a long time. I've left a welcome message with a shed load of useful links for you on your Talk Page. Can't wait to see what you put on your WP:UserPage. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Company Pages!!

i am unclear about the rules and conditions required to make a company page that I feel is worth sharing info for. I'd like if some one could help me with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragons2000 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dragons2000, first of all, the company has to meet WP:NORG, the Wikipedia notability guidelines for companies and organizations. This usually means being covered substantially (full articles or several paragraphs, or several minutes or longer for radio/TV) in secondary sources (meaning not just routine news coverage of facts, some analysis is needed) that are reliable (major news organizations like the New York Times or BBC is usual). The coverage also has to be independent, and not unduly promotional or negative. For what kind of coverage is considered significant, the WP:ORGDEPTH section goes into more detail. Feel free to direct any more questions to me, either using {{reply}} or at my talk page, though I may not be available for several hours. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dragons2000. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for asking, rather than just ploughing in like so many new editors. It might help to realise that there is no such thing as a "company page" in Wikipedia: that is a concept more appropriate to a directory or other advertising medium. What we do have, in thousands, is articles about companies. Those articles do not contain what the company says or wants to say: they should be based, almost entirely, on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about the company - and if there is little or no such independent published material, then there can be no article. The company and its agents have no control over the content, and are strongly discouraged from creating the article or editing it thereafter (though they are encouraged to suggest edits on the article's talk page). --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Picking sources/Poor choices of sources

Hi, I'm new. My question is, if I at some point accidentally choose a source that was a bad choice, how might another user point that out and how could I fix it and find a better source? (Or would they just delete it without saying why?)

Jecgecko (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If you add content with a ref that is not considered suitable for Wikipedia (company press release, etc.) another editor may delete the content and ref, hopefully stating the cause. You can see editors' reasons by clicking on View history. I suggest you look at an article topic you are knowledgeable about and see the process. If editors are in disagreement the right place to conduct a debate is the article's Talk page. I noticed you User page stats student, cell biology. Medicine and health articles have a higher standard for citations, explained at WP:MEDRS. Briefly, no in vitro, no animal, no clinical trials. Respond here or create a new section at my Talk page if you have more questions. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jecgecko, If you need more explanation than what the history provides, you can contact the editor who made the change via his or her talk page. That editor will probably be glad to advise you. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Posting Images

Hello, I'm creating a new page and I'm trying to add images to it. An editor marked my images as potentially violating copyright and now they have been removed. I am the image owner. How do I get these images approved without someone else marking them in violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John zabkowicz 210 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi John zabkowicz 210. Images are usually uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, so the advice we can give you here is limited. I gather that the images you uploaded were removed because they have previously been published elsewhere on the internet, so you need to offer some evidence that you are indeed the copyright holder and that you release it under an appropriate license. I suggest asking the Commons administrator that deleted your images how to do that. – Joe (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

If I edit a total of 50 editions, what would happen? --DanielSanders25 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DanielSanders25 if you mean Autoconfirmed user, then you need 10 edits and being active for 4 days, which allows you to create articles. For Extended Confirmed Protection (ECP), you can edit topics that are more restricted, for example, Donald Trump, Any Israel-Palestine conflict pages. WP:ECP can also obtain Wikipedia Library access to scholarly journals. For an overview, see WP:Protection_policy#Overview_of_types_of_protection I reached 500 edits this week myself, but for most part, I will keep doing what I love :) Shushugah (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

copyright material - used with permission

I have permission from the publisher of an obituary, which is in a journal from 1984, to use whatever information and quotes I like in my Wiki article. How do I register and prove to Wikipedia that I have this permission, as it is in an email to me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yororipas. You would have to forward the email to OTRS. Note that it's not enough that the copyright owner gave you permission; they have to agree to release the text under a specific copyright licence that releases most of their rights and permits anyone to use and modify the text for any purpose, in perpetuity.

I don't think it is worth you going to all that trouble though. Copyright aside, copying text from other sources into Wikipedia articles verbatim is rarely good idea, because they are usually written in a completely different style to the encyclopaedic tone and house style we use. You don't special permission to include limited quotations, as long as they are properly attributed to the original source. Other information you should put into your own words. – Joe (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to my 1,000 edit

Today I reached a personal milestone on Wikipedia. I made my 1,000 edit on the page South Sugarloaf Fire. How can I tell which of the edits to that page was my 1,000? And how can I get a link to it that I can put on my Wikipedia profile page? Greshthegreat (talk)

Well, Greshthegreat, your current edit count is 1011, which makes the above your 1009th, and this your 1000th. You can write a permanent link to it like this: [[Special:Diff/857582329|1000th edit]]. – Joe (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

To do better editing

How can Tea House teach me to do better editing on Wikipedia,please elaborate.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyayan2 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jyayan2, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place designed for newer users to ask any specific questions they have about how to edit Wikipedia. You can have a look through the page to see the kinds of things people ask. While you're getting to know Wikipedia, if there's something confusing or that you'd like confirmation about, you can ask us here. › Mortee _talk 20:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Jyayan2, I agree with the comment above. Reading answers to other people's questions has helped me to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I will also suggest something that I have done — create a list of useful links that people post. When I read a post that contains a link that I think might help me in the future, I add that link to my list. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant any longer to our departed OP, but I have a similar list and I think it's a helpful strategy. › Mortee _talk 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is my list User:Shushugah/documentation it's nice way to self document occasional problems and my solutions I found along the way. Shushugah (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

age isn't complying with the birthdate?

so i went on zendaya's wikipedia and noticed that her birthday is today (sept. 1) but her age isn't being changed to 22, it's just stuck to 21. i was thinking i could change it to 22 but didn't know how to do that, so i googled how. but what i saw on all the pages was what seemed like the wiki page does it by itself, and even so when i tried, i couldn't find a place on the page to change her age, just the part with her birthday. can someone help me understand whats going on? sorry if i sound clueless but I've really only done simple edits to wiki pages and i don't really understand how the more complicated ones work. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebekahbird (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thebekahbird Welcome to Teahouse. Changes need to be done in "edit source mode". Fixed. See Zendaya. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thebekahbird: The age updates automatically but pages are cached for performance reasons. You can purge a page to force an update right away. See Wikipedia:Purge. Making any to the page like CASSIOPEIA did will also force an update but isn't necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Accused of creating an attack page.

There is an edit on my talk page titled "July 2018", User_talk:Rajah#July_2018, from another user warning me that I have created an attack page. I have no idea what they are talking about. They don't say what the page is/was and my contributions list my most recent page creation as having occurred in 2013. So, I'm not sure what they are talking about and I'm kind of annoyed to be falsely accused of doing something that #1 I didn't do and #2 would never do in the first place. Can anyone here please help me understand what is going on? (I realize this is a forum for new users, but I wasn't sure to post as even though I have 1000s of edits over a 14 year span, I never much troubled myself with all the controversies like these. --Rajah (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rajah, welcome to the Teahouse. After some digging, it looks like the page was Great American Hypocrites, which you created in 2010 and which was deleted this July, shortly after that warning. I'm not an administrator, so I can't see what the content was, or whether it might have been hijacked one way or another. Perhaps you could ask the deleting admin to have a look and explain it, or perhaps a passing admin here can help. › Mortee _talk 20:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That page did not seem like an attack page to me. Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics is the title of a book by Glen Greenwald, a highly notable author. A neutral article about the book is not an attack page. Anthony Bradbury was the deleting administrator, and I hope he can explain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Yes, that was just a page on a book, but it was not an attack page. I'm not annoyed that it was deleted though, just that random editors can put the scarlet letter warnings on one's talk page with no due process at all. If it was vandalism or something like that, I would understand, but anyway just letting people know it makes a 14 year editor with ~10,000 edits not want to stick around. --Rajah (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The only content apart from references was: "Great American Hypocrites is a 2008 book by Glenn Greenwald which examines the myth-making and exploitation of cultural, gender and psychological themes by the Republican Party". I don't know why it was labelled an attack page but I would have formulated the sentence differently to make it clear that it only describes what the book says. It sounded like Wikipedia accepted the premise of the book. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A reminder that you are not required to keep all (or any) posts on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That wording could be more neutral, but it's far from an attack. Besides, the page has been a redirect for the last four years. I think the deletion must have been a mix-up; I've asked Anthony if he'll reverse it on his talk page. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's been undeleted. @Rajah: As David says, you can feel free to remove the message from your talk page. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. Cheers Rajah (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How/where can I apologise to editors I have accidentally offended

I made an edit and tried to get involved in some "talk" pages. I did this before I had created a profile, I believe this in itself made me appear like a suspicious crank with some kind of issues. I have created a profile now (how did I miss that) I have tried clicking on one of the peoples "talk" link by there username and wrote a long and genuine apology on their page under one of their headings "your rudeness". I would guess there are at least four very experienced editors that I want/need to apologise to. Is that talk button the right place to do that? I am finding participating on Wikipedia to be a steep learning curve and I would hope to try to apologise for my blunders to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eimhin de Róiste. Wanting to apologise is very admirable. User talk pages is the right place to do that, but you should start new sections (unless there are existing sections that you started). The easiest way to do that is to press the '+' button to the right of 'Edit source' at the top. › Mortee _talk 20:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Though, actually, I see Dmcq replied to your message (they didn't ping you so you may not have seen). They said that as far as they can see you haven't been rude to anyone, and that there's no need to apologise. I haven't looked over your contributions myself, but you may be worrying too much › Mortee _talk 21:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

two user name by mistake

I am working on an article and I decided to also work at the same time on a second article. Somehow, and I do not understand this, the second article seems to have a different username to the first. My question is, how do I delete the unwanted user name? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yororipas, welcome to the Teahouse. Could you try asking that again? I don't understand. Articles don't have usernames, editors do. You have one username, each of the articles has one title. What's the issue you're trying to solve? › Mortee _talk 23:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

From the edit history of the drafts it appears likely that the user has two accounts: user:Yororipas (created Aprii 2018) and user:Yororipash4 (created May 2016) and has used both of them today.

You cannot delete an account. Pick one as your account and stop using the other account. Since both have been used to edit the drafts today the account that is being dropped should be redirected to the main account. See WP:REDIRECT for how to do this. Meters (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yororipas, Meters has analyzed the situation correctly. You must completely abandon one of those accounts, and use only the other account in the future. This is really important. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:One In A Million (Matoma Album)

I finished an article about Matoma new album, but I want know how this process this works. How can I convince them to approve this page? I need help. This is my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo3455 (talk • contribs) 5:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronaldo3455, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your work on the article so far. To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it (see WP:Articles for creation). One way to make the article look more ready for review is to structure the references using templates like {{cite web}} (see WP:Referencing). Consider getting rid of the primary/sales references like Amazon, Facebook and iTunes. The reviewer will mostly be looking at notability, particularly these guidelines. Check that your references show this album meets those. I hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 23:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Profile creation before editing

Hello I just very recently joined and very stupidly on my part started making contributions on a sensitive subject before I setup my profile page. I realise this was a major oversight on my part and a major breach of etiquette. I was wondering is there are reason why noobs like me are even able to do this has it been considered to make profile creation compulsory before contributions and edits can be made? Thanks in advance and hopefully not an insulting or ridiculous question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Eimhin de Róiste. I haven't seen any suggestion that people should be required to write a user page before they edit. There is a minority of editors who think people should have an account before editing, but even editors without an account (i.e. IP editors, with no username) are in fact welcome here. I'm not sure why you have the impression that this might be a problem. Has anyone said to you that it is? In a sensitive subject areas, editors are sometimes dismissive of new users who they suppose aren't aware of Wikipedia policies. Having a user page might, I suppose, reduce that reaction slightly, but it's not some breach of etiquette. › Mortee _talk 23:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussions have been closed can I help fix this

Hello I was trying to make a contribution on a sensitive subject and it appears my rookie errors have resulted in these discussions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland#/talk/4

being closed down. Is there anything I can do to repair the upset it seems clear that I seem to have caused. Can I delete/redact/withdraw my contributions. I believe I am now participating in discussions in the appropriate areas of Wikipedia as directed by the senior editors there. I have made a personal apology to everyone who reacted to my blunders and I would like to try and do as much as possible to make good my mistakes. Also sorry I haven't managed to include a working link (I think) I have only been managing thus far by copying the formats [[ etc by copying the format from others and I don't have anyone to format copy from in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eimhin de Róiste: reading Talk:Republic of Ireland#(republic of) Ireland, no, I don't think there's anything you need to do here. You asked some questions honestly, it turned out they'd been asked enough times before that the place you asked them wasn't the right place anymore, and you got some pointers to elsewhere. Nothing to atone for there and you needn't worry so. It might be useful to look through the archives at e.g. Talk:Republic of Ireland to see what the earlier discussions were before deciding what to do next. › Mortee _talk 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

PS I've learned almost everything I know of Wikipedia's markup from copying others too. You can ask Teahouse or me any markup questions you have. › Mortee _talk 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I edit my username after creation?

Can I communicate in private (PM) in some way with someone about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eimhin de Róiste (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Eimhin de Róiste. If you want a different username, open a new account under that name, and then abandon all use of your current account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username#Please consider the following alternatives to a rename says: "Users who have made very few edits are encouraged to register a new account and discard the old one." PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Or if you want to keep your contribution history associated with your current username, you can request a change of name at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to a page

Dear Wiki Teahouse, I keep on getting a contributor deleting or undoing my edits when they are in reference to the family of the person. I am not sure why since this is verifiable information. Best J DZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jughurta dz (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jughurta dz. When another editor challenges information that you want to add to an article, you need to produce a reliable source that supports it. It's not enough to assert that information is verifiable, you have to prove that it's verifiable with a citation. See WP:CHALLENGE for more information. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe, thank you so much for the advice but it is actually verifiable at the municipality level, the editor who challenges is not a reliable source to challenge so why does that override actual factual information. Just trying to understand the general inner workings of wiki . I have checked numerous pages where there is no references or reliable sources for the person's family. It seems quite odd that information is systematically deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jughurta dz (talk • contribs) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read about verifiability and about biographies of living persons. If you say it is verifiable you need to add references to published independent reliable sources. If you find unsourced information in other articles you can tag it as {{citation needed}} or remove it with an appropriate edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

From looking at the Mohamed Sahnoun article, the editor reverting your added content pointed to PRABOOK as not a reliable source of information. If Sahnoun has a wife and children, and you want to add that information, find a better reference. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Adventure

I have just completed (I think) Wiki Adventure but it didnt wrap up. have I finished it, how do I confirm Ive completed everything, thanks Aquarius4 (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aquarius4 and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for starting The Wikipedia Adventure. There are actually 15 badges to be attained, so I'm afraid you do still have a little way to go yet. (There's a list of them all at the bottom of my own userpage at User:Nick Moyes - just expand the Interesting Links>'Declaration of interest' section and you'll see them all) I found trying to complete it on a tablet or mobile did cause problems - something the developers are aware of. Good luck on the start of your Wikipedia journey - wherever that may lead you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Turning Sounds

I reviewed Draft:Turning Sounds and declined it as not satisfying event notability and because the references did not appear to be independent. The author, User:Baskak, replied on my talk page, asking me to clarify and reconsider. I am asking if other experienced editors, whether or not AFC reviewers, can look at the draft and advise me and the author whether it should be accepted.

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Robert McClenon: - I reviewed your decision, and I believe you were correct. The only source that appeared both reliable and covered Turning Sounds itself in detail was this one, I believe. As a second Glissando source wouldn't be intellectually independent I don't think that would be sufficient to push it over notability-wise. However this doesn't include analysis of the second ref, which I couldn't find accessible online.

I don't think this is sufficient to demonstrate notability.

Some clarification to the editor on specific sources (primary, not-reliable like myspace & blogs etc etc) would probably be helpful.

WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to send editors who want some help improving their draft, but in cases where you stand by your decision (or are unsure) and they still want a review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is probably the best place to send them.

Hope my AFC $0.02 has been at least partially helpful. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing ebooks

Hi. I am currently editing HMS Terror (I03) but have stumbled across a problem while citing an ebook. The ebook reader doesn't show page numbers but instead displays the fraction of the book you are currently looking at (e.g. you are reading 485.7/835 on screen while the paperback book has only 256 pages). Is there a prefered/recommended way for representing page numbers in this situation? In the interim I have opted to quote the chapter/section number (e.g. <ref>Buxton 2008 Chapter 8.3</ref>). From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi From Hill To Shore, I don't think it matters too much. I've seen a lot of book citations recently (due to my work on Category:Pages with ISBN errors), and most citations don't have a page number referenced at all. Using the chapter/section number (and/or possibly the chapter title?) should be fine. rchard2scout (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Inline book citations should give page numbers wherever possible. Rchard2scout, I'd guess you're coming across these page-less books mostly in lists of consulted works separate from the inline citations. Those are meant either as general works consulted (no particular page), or for several citations to point to, which should be specifying the book numbers themselves, e.g. with {{sfn}}.

From Hill To Shore, for e-books, the best I can find in the archives of Template talk:Cite book is this discussion from 2011, which suggests you can use the location (the number you see), or the chapter and section (and perhaps paragraph, for long sections) as you have been doing. › Mortee _talk 21:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

• Mortee (2015). Mortee's Big Fake Book. Fake University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mortee (2018). Mortee's Big Fake Sequel (Kindle e-book). Fake University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Main Page

How do I “View History” of the Main Page??

Or get a 1 page summary of news day-by-day? MBG02 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The main page is actually a bunch of different pages. The news bit is Template:In the news. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a wiki page (article) for a date (eg 10 September 2017) that lists news items (like the main page)? (And with blue-links.)

Diff Q: does one of those edit buttons insert a next-level-indent? I’ve tried about 10 of ‘em.

MBG02 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MBG02: See Wikipedia:Main Page history. It links Wikipedia:Main Page history/2017 September 10. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks. You answered the Q but it’s not what I was hoping for. Does the news page stay the same for 7 days? Was Scott Morrison so noteworthy he was the main item for all Wiki? I was hoping for a historical Wiki “News Page” like the main page, but daily, and a bit longer. Something readable about what’s happened in the world (in date order), quickly. (Wiki-ly). MBG02 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

MBG02; See Portal:Current events, and by your right side you'll see a calendar with clickable dates which you can use to navigate through daily or monthly logs. Seems that's nearest to what you're looking for, if not the one. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Similar Q

Similar to above Q; I’d like to see ATP and WTA rankings history, even if only in an abbreviated form. The info isn’t retained in the “View History” (that I can see). Is there a reason? Or am I not looking properly? MBG02 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MBG02: If a page displays templates then old revisions of the page displays the current version of the template. You have to locate the template page to see the history, e.g. by clicking edit and see {{Current ATP Singles Rankings}} or {{Current WTA Singles Rankings}}. The official websites have ranking histories with date selection at https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles and http://www.wtatennis.com/rankings. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Again; Thanks. I can get there (the Wiki Page) from the links you posted. But not from the ATP Rankings page. Is that possible? If there’s a similar “transcluded” page, do I just add the words “current”? ... or search for “template”? MBG02 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MBG02: {{Current ATP Singles Rankings}} is displayed in three articles. One of them is ATP Rankings#Current rankings. If you click the section edit link there then you see the code {{Current ATP Singles Rankings}}. This means that Template:Current ATP Singles Rankings is displayed. Template names vary a lot and are hard to guess. If you click the Edit tab at top of a page (called "View source" on pages you cannot edit) or you preview a section of a page then the bottom of the window has a linked alphabetical list "Templates used in this preview". There you can find all used templates and try to guess the one you want. On Main Page the list includes Template:In the news. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

creating two pages - Dr Fre and PENHA

Hi - I would like to create a page for Dr Zeremariam Fre and PENHA - Dr Fre has just been awarded the prestigious Desmond Tutu Fellowship award for his lifetime work on environmental care and as founder of the Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa (PENHA), of which Joanna Lumley is Patron. Could you point me in the right direction for new page creation? thank you Nicole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolekenton (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The page you need to read is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolekenton. David Biddulph has pointed you in the right direction. I would just like to give you a couple of words of caution. First, what you are proposing to do - create a new article - is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new users to spend a few weeks, or months, improving some of our five million existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works. Second, I advise you to frame it as "writing an article" not "creating a page". Wikipedia is explicitly not about telling the world about something, no matter how praiseworthy that something may be: that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: it collects and summarises what has already been published about a subject - preferably by people unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia has very little interest in what any subject says or does (or wins) except insofar as an independent reliable source has talked about it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

How to

How do you put source — Preceding unsigned comment added by PittPanther06 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi PittPanther, you ask very broad question, however start by reading Referencing for beginners. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

new comer

Hi

I have just started writing. could anyone please suggest me the best available lessons for learning editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShahedAziz (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi ShahedAziz, welcome to Wikipedia and to Teahouse. You can start by reading WP:Plain and simple and WP:A primer for newcomer as well as WP:Your first article. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello ShahedAziz! New editors are always welcome here. Thank you for leaving your question because there are probably other editors who have the same question but just didn't ask. There is a tutorial that is probably useful to you. It can be found here: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Add contest table to my article

I recently created a page of Matoma new album, but how I can add the contest table? I have already put my draft to be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo3455 (talk • contribs) 5:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ronaldo3455. If you mean the table of contents then by default it automatically appears when there are at least four section headings. See more at Help:Section. Please sign your discussion posts with ~~~~. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Exceptions to the Primary Source Prohibition

There is a sound exceptions to the Primary Source Prohibition for current leading edge activity, but there is another area which should also have an exception. Here is a use case: X creates and article on a subject S. X uses a Very Good Secondary Source K for much of the technical information. However, K is a technological journal which pays little if any attention to minor administrative facts. For example, a secondary source K might have been selected because it is an excellent new mathematical algorithm. However, K might have included the author's report of the budget that financed the development of the algorithm of the timing of the development which the author may inadvertently erred about. As a Referee for several technical journals I have very often approved a publication that was scientifically correct without worrying about the accuracy of the dates or the budget amounts as for the purposes of our journal, mathematics, we paid little or not attention to thise minor and "insignificant" details.

So X creates a Wikipedia article there people may seek the article to determine S's historical place in the timeline of mathematics development. K however may have inadvertently been in error as to the minor things like data or funds. This can always occur and I submit that our current rules and policies make it almost impossible to fix this error. A primary document like laboratory notes or Internal Project reports or company budgets which clearly contradicts the error in the secondary source and proves the error, by our rules, may not be used and we must leave the article with the incorrect information.

Therefore I suggest that where there are primary documents that contradict factual material in an article based on secondary sources, that the primary sources be allowed to make a correction, We could have a polity that states both facts and what the evidence is for each. Frankly, it pains me as I have found a few articles that are clearly wrong and I have changed one only to have the change depreciated by an editor who was correctly applying our existing policy-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymath9636 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which prohibition you are talking about. Have you read WP:PRIMARY? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The case that OP cites (which really sounds like it's really not all that hypothetical) would be a case where a primary source (esp. A primary document like laboratory notes or Internal Project reports or company budgets) probably would be questionable. Interpretation of primary sources requires a non-primary source to verify. So, a plot summary of a book can just cite the book itself, but we'd need a non-primary source to verify that the lab notes, project reports, or company budgets in question are the correct documents, that the portion that is cited in them contradicts other sources, and that the primary documents are the correct ones. In this case, there's also the problem that I'm not sure those documents are actually published (I don't see where IBM's publication contracts with Lewis D. Eigen have been published, if they even have). That could raise some questions as to how exactly Polymath9636 had access to those documents, but even ignoring that there's the problem that I don't see how anyone without connections to IBM or their lawfirms is supposed to be able to verify that information.

@Polymath9636: How did you access IBM's contracts? How do you expect us to access those contracts to verify your claims? Without using your own research, how can you verify that:

• the documents you cite are the relevant ones?
• you are citing the relevant parts of the documents (rather tricky as you just cited the entire document)?
• the mistake was not present in the primary source and/or corrected in the secondary?

These issues are why we favor non-primary sources. Imagine if I cited my (now expired) contract I had with China Jiliang University. How would you verify the information without contacting me? Would you believe what I said was in my contract over what's in a professionally published source? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• The way I read the original request, it is when a secondary source is reliable of some part of the stuff, but wrong on other parts. Since reliability depends on context, that is absolutely not a contradiction. It probably is not correct to use (e.g.) research papers as sources for author affiliation, funding etc. since the reliable and secondary part of those (via peer review etc.) does not check that kind of thing. On the other hand, using primary sources (e.g. a research group's website) is fine for trivia such as funding sources and lab members (as long as there is no controversy about these things, e.g. a crank health website claiming a Nobel prize winner as scientific advisor). However, in any case, we need a published source, not private info. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting sources for BLP age

I came across a case of where the age of a living musician is conflicting. An article from Rolling Stone claims the musician in question (Adonis) was 19 when he recorded a certain song, however, going by his birth date sourced from Encyclopedia of Popular Music, he would've been around 22-23. Where should I ask for advice on how to handle this conflict? RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If both appear to be reliable sources, then the article either needs to omit the information entirely, or to say that the sources disagree, without attempting to resolve the disagreement. If another reliable source discusses the conflict, we can of course report that source's conclusions. But any attempt to resolve the conflict in the article would be original research, which is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating my question, but where can I ask more experienced (music) biography editors for help? RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

RoseCherry64, You might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. I have not been involved with that project, but the title suggests that it might be the resource that you need. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

When to put my pregnant guppy in a breeder box

Hi I have a 3 gallon half moon tank with a small male pleco and a feeder guppy I got her accidentally right when she was born she fell in the net so I got her for free. My only option is a breeder box and August 10th she met 3 male guppies I know I messed up they all died from then 2 were already sick and shes pregnant now her gravid spot is mostly red with some black on the outer edge she doesnt have completely boxed off but it is though `--` There isnt a opposite ` so thats all I could do she hides in plants even though theres no one else and she recently watches the bubbles come out the filter she might be hungry but pls let me kno when she should go in it is day 23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.138.230.150 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is a place to ask about using Wikipedia only, and is not a general question asking forum. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indenting. Talk page.

Does one of the edit buttons insert a next-level-indent? MBG02 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MBG02, as far as I can tell, no. You just change the indent level by typing more colons in source mode. › Mortee _talk 21:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Local vs Municipal elections

Hi, a newbie question here. I have found that local and municipal elections ale considered the same thing on English Wikipedia (municipal redirects to local), yet they seem to be a different things on Wikidata and articles on municipal elections in one language don't consider themselves to be articles on local elections in another (and vice versa). Should they be separate or merged, currently it seems like just a big mess. Thanks for explanation or hints on what to do. Zoted (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the United States, municipal elections are a subset of local elections, which also include county elections. I don't know about any other Anglophone country. In other languages the terms for different administrative subdivisions may not translate consistently, and I can't speak for Wikidata. I think that any discussion of whether to keep them separate or merge them should be on a case-by-case basis. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, I don't think we use the term "municipal election". There are local elections and national ones. Elections for county councils, city councils, city mayors etc are all local. I'm not surprised that Wikidata is unable to maintain consistency since these level distinctions are quite arbitrary from society to society and Wikidata tries to be language-agnostic. › Mortee _talk 22:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The differences between countries are enough, and then there are differences in languages. In the United States, Canada, and Australia, there is a level in between national and local, which is state or provincial, and that makes it complicated enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

other language links

I moved Gremanu, and all the links to the other language wikis disappeared. Why is this, and can I recover the links without manually searching for them? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I see German and Italian, are there others? I'm following for answer too. Shushugah (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Interlanguage links come from Wikidata. On moving the page, the Wikidata entry was updated automatically, and it doesn't look like there were any other languages than German and Italian. rchard2scout (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to post my first article page

Hi everybody. I´ve been editing some pages but this is my first full page in Wikipedia but not sure how can I move it. Can anybody tell me or if somebody wants to take a look and help me post it? It´s a simple article about the novel "Lights on the Sea" that I recently read and, I realized that hasn´t had any page in Wikipedia. My idea is to fill more info about the book and the author but first I want to get sure if it´s enough neutral and figure it out how to move it to Wikipedia.

This is the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josanva/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josanva (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Josanva: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your article I am Sorry to say that your article might not be ready for Wikipedia this time. But don't be discouraged. Please read Your First Article then submit your draft to Articles For Creation. I myself had many of my articles declined. Keep trying and most importantly do not be discouraged.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

TBI

I have a condition that won't allow me to participate in certain programs. It's my memory, its too full. My cup runneth over. Brain traumatized. My healing is on its way.Thanks.

Sincerely,Christine Leticia Layson (DeHart) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Believe7428 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The most complex template

Where can I find a list of the most complex templates or wiki markup used in English wikipedia? Granted, a good template is ideally simple, otherwise almost no one could edit it without breaking stuff :P Shushugah (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

ThinkWave

Hello, i'm a new editor here and my first article was deleted and received a notice in my talk page that if i have any question i can ask in Wikipedia:Questions and through it i found the teahouse page , so i want to follow rules to prevent it to happen again. Now i have an idea about article for ThinkWave.com it's a school management software, so i want to know is that will be a good idea to create this article also i'm planing to use these references

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/thinkwave#section-overview
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ThinkWave+Kicks+Off+School+Year+With+Expanded+and+Enhanced+Service.-a065495052
https://www.owler.com/company/thinkwave
https://www.prweb.com/releases/thinkwave/school-software-gradebook/prweb4987644.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/18/business/really-plugged-in-people-reveal-really-useful-web-sites.html
https://www.thinkwave.com/company.html
https://rb.ru/news/kto-aleksandr-borodich/

it that enough or should i search for higher quality resources

Thanks Justletters (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Replacing infoboxes

Hi, I found an article about a company in a non-Anglophone country with some outdated info in the infobox. Looking at the article in the country's native language, their infobox had some more up-to-date details. I could update it, but it seems that it would be difficult to keep up with. However, when I look at the page with the (undocumented) Infobox company/wikidata template (after adding the details to Wikidata), it seems like no information is lost from the current state, plus it would have the benefits of keeping up with Wikidata changes. However, when looking up the policy for this, I found a recent discussion on Wikidata infoboxes, and it seems to be a contentious issue. Additionally, I don't know of any other articles which use this template, so maybe it's not ready for primetime. Is there a policy in place for this? ARR8 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

someone hacked my countries wikipedia

please help me get the account back im trying to take down a semi locked page from a hacker writing false information is very dangerous please help. the page is wikepedia.com/DominicanRepublic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate2020 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Kate2020, nothing had been hacked. The page Dominican Republic was using outdated information, true, but there's no need to get upset about that. rchard2scout (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Kate2020 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that your country does not have "a Wikipedia", it has a Wikipedia article about it. And as Rchard2scout stated, it has not been "hacked:. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, incorrect information can sometimes be added, either unintentionally or otherwise. If you believe information in an article is incorrect for some reason, you should post on the article's associated talk page. If you are looking at the article on a computer, click "Talk" at the top of it to access that page. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to insert a "quick facts" table

Hi,

I want to have a quick facts table in my wikipedia article about 10Bet but I dont know how to do it!

I have added a table but it looks wrong!

Thanks Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremylast77 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What you're looking for is called an Infobox, for your draft you probably want {{Infobox company}}. rchard2scout (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How to cite the same reference several times with the same serial number?

I want to cite the same reference several times in a wiki page, but each time I cite it gets a new serial number, like it is [1] the first time I cite (because it is the first citation of the page) but when I cite the second time it is [4] (because it is the fourth among all citations). I just want them to have the same citation serial number but I don't know how. I am grateful for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zc110320 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zc110320, have you seen the Help:Referencing for beginners page...? I think the section #Same reference used more than once may be of special interest for you. --CiaPan (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh it is there. Thank you so much and I apologize for not reading through the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zc110320 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

:) Glad to help. Don't worry about 'not reading', there are so many guidelines, policies, rules and preferred styles on Wikipedia, that probably no one can know them all. You just need to not hesitate to ask. CiaPan (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zc110320: At risk of complicating things, but adding to what has just been said, by CiaPan it is - as you'll have found out - necessary to allocate a simple-to-remember name to references you want to reuse again and again. You can do this most easily when you use the source editor (i.e., 'Edit source' tab) because the drop-down template gives you a field (Ref name) to type one in. Unfortunately, at present, the Visual Editor ('Edit' tab) still doesn't do this (though a fix is in train, I believe). Instead, it can only allocate a sequential Ref name number like :1 :2 :3 :4 etc to new references. But what it does have is a really helpful option in its Cite tool to 'reuse' a citation. So what I sometimes do is to ensure I use the source editor when adding references I'm likely to want to re-use, giving them my own 'Ref name' to help me remember which is which. I then use the Visual Editor not only for automatically generating further references from ISBN numbers, urls to newspapers etc, but to take advantage of this 're-use' citation facility. Hope this make some sense and doesn't muddy the water! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Independent Referencce

Hello everyone,

I have had an entry turned down - please could someone give me a straightforward example of an 'independent reference'

Thank you so much

Best

Angie — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVIGD (talk • contribs) 10:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I request someone to write an article on my behalf if I have a conflict of interest?

Hi, I want to create a page about a website that creates customizable promotional graphics for small businesses, musicians, event promoters, churches, non-profit organizations etc. but I cannot do so myself due to a personal conflict of interest. I researched on this and found out that the best way to go about it is to request someone from the Wikipedia community to write the article on your behalf by providing them the basic information and a list of external links that talk about the website. How do I proceed ahead with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alina Jamshed (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Alina Jamshed, and welcome to our Teahouse. Thank you for your question and especially for taking the trouble to appreciate our concerns over articles created by editors with a Conflict of Interest, or who might own or be employed by an organisation and who then need to observe our requirements to declare Paid Editing. The route for you to recommend an article be created is to add it to the long list in the relevant sub-section at Wikipedia:Requested articles. But, be aware that we are all volunteers here, and that editors choose the topics that interest them. So there is often be a very long wait.

I should also tell you - based on what you've just said above - that unless you've missed out something critical - there's absolutely no chance of your organisation ever meeting our notability criteria for organisations. You can read what they are at WP:NORG. You'll need to be able to provide or point towards in-depth coverage for that organisation in sources that are totally independent of it, and ignore all coverage based on promotional press releases, interviews by staff etc. So, I might respectfully invite you to consider whether your company really is sufficiently notable to merit an article here, so as not to waste your time, or to raise expectations. There must be tens of thousands of companies around the world who produce promotional graphics for other organisations - an encyclopaedia like ours isn't really the place for anyone to expect to get free promotion. So, unless it really does stand out from the crowd, I'd look elsewhere to promote your company - especially to websites where you'd have complete control over content, unlike here. I hope this makes sense and doesn't disappoint too much. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

/* How to */

How do I get to read info for WP:CXT? ) Extended conformed editor on english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingsgo (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)