Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KrakenSeas (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 7 September 2018 (→‎Looking for help on my first edit of a page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

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

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)[reply]

  • 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. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See my edit here, good call with moving up overlapping params Shushugah (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me › Mortee talk 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wonder if the best solution is to merge the infobox into {{Infobox officeholder}}, which should have all the required fields. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Editcountitis

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Hello, @Robert McClenon: and @Nosebagbear:, editor here. In light of the above I have to reiterate what I already submitted to @Robert McClenon:. First of all, I have pointed out that the sources I gave are very respectable national-level media. I'm convinced that among the editors of the English Wikipedia there should be ones familiar with those. We're talking about "Gazeta Wyborcza" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazeta_Wyborcza), "Odra" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odra_(magazine)), "Ruch Muzyczny" (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruch_Muzyczny ) and "Tygodnik Powszechny" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tygodnik_Powszechny). I presume, that calling these sources non-independent would actually seem to be in conflict with these entries and their compliance with Wikipedia's policy. If you find it necessary, I'd be happy to arrange and provide scans of relevant articles for you to veryfy its content in reference to the event in question. Hence, could I get some specific rationale for classifying these titles as non-independent?
I would also like to strongly oppose the suggestion, that I, the editor, hasn't done my homework regarding the sources. I did, and that's where I learned that (the aforementioned) independent sources are to be invoked, and they are referenced there and relied on. The other kind of sources (such as programme booklets) are referenced only for backing factual details, and I'm convinced in this case it's better to reference such sources than none. I guess it's quite obvious, that no media report from an event is going to include all the performers/compositions etc. Please note, in addition, that the MySpace page referenced was the main webpage for the event cycle mentioned, hence it would be counterproductive to not reference it at all - I believe it's Wikipedia policy to direct users to official sites of the subjects decribed.
In addition, it's important to note that the work on the draft is in progress, and there will be more sources referenced, of similar notability. However, I guess in the Wikipedia spirit it would be advisable if other interested users (and I believe there are many) would chip-in with their input. Thank you. Baskak (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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}}.[1]
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.[2][3] › Mortee talk 21:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Mortee 2015, p. 42.
  2. ^ Mortee 2018, location 485.
  3. ^ Mortee 2018, chapter 8, section 2.
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)
That's useful, thank you. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure which prohibition you are talking about. Have you read WP:PRIMARY? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello, Believe7428. Welcome to our Teahouse. We have many editors here with 'conditions' that some might consider unusual. But they still make fantastic editors. This doesn't mean that they can edit in a way that breaches our policies or guidelines. I simply hope you will feel able to contribute here in a way that does fit in with your current condition. Do listen to the advice or feedback other editors might give you. This is important, as failing to edit in accordance with Wikipedia rules can lead to editors being blocked. And that would be a shame, wouldn't it? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Curious why you're looking for complicated templates in particular! One place to look might be templates invoking templates that invoke the warning {{intricate template}}. I'm not sure where to look for complications in other areas. › Mortee talk 23:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/thinkwave#section-overview
2. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ThinkWave+Kicks+Off+School+Year+With+Expanded+and+Enhanced+Service.-a065495052
3. https://www.owler.com/company/thinkwave
4. https://www.prweb.com/releases/thinkwave/school-software-gradebook/prweb4987644.htm
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/18/business/really-plugged-in-people-reveal-really-useful-web-sites.html
6. https://www.thinkwave.com/company.html
7. 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)[reply]

In my opinion, 1-6 all 'No'. Not brief mentions, not press releases, not the company's own website, etc. Number 7 is really 'No' because, well, Russian. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justletters There is nothing wrong with using Russian sources if nothing better is available in English. In this specific instance though, the source only briefly mentions ThinkWave as a former employer of the subject of their article. It cannot be used for anything other than a statement like "Alexander Borodich worked as a web developer for ThinkWave", which is probably pretty useless. I would urge you to familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for companies and organizations, WP:NCORP. It explains these kinds of issues really well. Vexations (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations and David notMD thanks for your help i really appreciate that, it would be more helpful if you can confirm even ThinkWave deserve to have article on wikipedia or not Justletters (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justletters An article based on only the sources listed above would very likely be deleted. Press releases and the website of the subject are not reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Yes, I got it. So if i have an article idea can i ask editors to search about it and create it if it notable enough. I think i saw a page before speaking about that but i can't found now Justletters (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can submit an idea at Wikipedia:Requested articles but it could take months to years before an editor decided to create such an article. The great majority of editors work on improving some of the 5,000,000+ articles in the English language Wikipedia, or in other languages. Sadly, it is common for people to become editors specifically to create a new article on a topic of their own interest (sometimes, themselves), not realizing how hard it is to create an article. David notMD (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it's really hard to become an editor need to have the knowledge of the community and it's rules, I'm looking at the editors here in the Teahouse and how they are helping each other just for editing love .. really a pure community and i want to have my role on it. Thanks again for your help. Justletters (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:) 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Appreciate your advice. Feel the impulse to try out different ways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zc110320 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @AVIGD: Very simple - go to the front page of any reputable newspaper (for instance, The New York Times), pick any reporting story (not in the "opinion" pages though), that is an independent source for any important point of the story.
To have an entry accepted, you need a bit more than "independent" though for the sources. The requirements are outlined at WP:GNG: essentially, the source must be (1) independent of the subject (interviews with the subject, press releases from her company, etc. do not count); (2) reliable (the source has some quality editorial control: blogs from random internet persons do not count) and (3) "significant coverage", meaning it deals at length with the subject (business listings, phonebooks, short mentions of the like "company X merged with company Y" do not count). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AVIGD: if this is about Draft:Ian Drummond, it currently not only cites no independent references, it cites no references at all (though it does include direct external links, which are not acceptable in Wikipedia articles). To learn how to cite references, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:,Nick Moyes Hey Nick! I understand your concern but I'm not looking for promotional content for the website. I only want to create an informative page about PosterMyWall (https://www.postermywall.com) as a graphic design tool solely. I see that there are pages on Wikipedia for some of the other graphic-design tool websites such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucidpress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Spark

If I provide the required information, can someone completely neutral write the article on our behalf, if it interests them, ofcourse?

Hi Alina Jamshed, you can certainly add PosterMyWall to WP:Requested articles. The key thing is to include a few independent references (newspaper coverage, that kind of thing) that an editor could base an article on. › Mortee talk 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello Allthingsgo and welcome to the Teahouse.
For the Extended Confirmed user right, please see WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. You still need more edits to achieve it.. Other than the very few pages with extended-confirmed protection, there's very little besides status value associated with this user right.
You've been around for a while, but there's something odd about your account since it does not display the "autoconfirmed user" right in either of the tools I used. You may want to ask an admin to look into that and receive the "confirmed" user status. See WP:CONFIRM.
But if you're able to move pages and perform other activities that require autoconfirmed status, it may just be a glitch in the reporting tools and not something you need to do anything about. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving WP

If a person wants to leave WP, does he have inform some admins? I have been really disappointed as a number of editors here have always tried to discourage me. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Knightrises10. If someone wants to leave Wikipedia, all they need to do is stop editing. There is no need to inform an administrator. Some users do choose to use a template such as Template:Retired, to let visitors to their userspace know they have left.
However, as long as you are on board with Wikipedia's aim of creating a free well-referenced encycopedia, I would encourage you to stick around, read some advice pages, be polite and keep editing, starting with small things like copyediting. Good places to start are Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Community Portal. Also, given your userpage, might I recommend a quick skim of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, if you have not seen that already. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreyGreenWhy: I actually never would want to leave Wikipedia, but sometimes I am just disappointed. Thanks for advice though. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

line numbers visible?

Hi, is there a way to temporarily show line numbers at the side while editing, so I can locate a line where I have been told there is an issue? Difficult to manually try and count down 50 lines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please give us some context. I see this edit of yours but I do not find where Dianaa (or anyone else) complained about a copyright issue specifically on "line 54" - the only post I see from Dianaa to you is [1].
Please tell us where it happened, because there is no such thing as "lines" in the HTML format (or wikimarkup) since text flows; what is line 50 on a computer could be line 150 on a mobile phone, for instance. So I strongly suspect you misread the post, and it is actually about reference 54 or something similar. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

page deletion

hy i want ask something any one can tell me that how much time is required for removal of deletion notify ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul rehman.malik10 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

movie casting

heyy guys,

im doing a movie and added my name in casting of a movie, varma. this is my first movie and hence there is no talk about me in google. one of the editors just keeps editing and deleting my name off and in spite of me telling him that he can counter check with the directors office and that im doing the movie, hes trying to make my life difficult. what is the procedure in stopping that editor in creating a nuisance? the editor is Kailash29792.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rraj6 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rraj6: We do not "counter check with the director's office" because that would be original research. A core tenet of Wikipedia is that the information that's in there is verifiable, meaning, in publicly-available sources (of sufficient quality, but the problem here is "publicly available"). Kailash29792 is not trying to make [your] life difficult (please assume good faith of other editors), but quite appropriately challenging unsourced information. If you can provide a published source (it needs not be online) crediting you with that role, that will allow your text to stick.
As a side note, please see WP:MINOR before marking any other edit as "minor". Anything that changes the meaning of the Wikipedia text (in particular adding information) is not minor. TigraanClick here to contact me

The Unicode character ꓐ

When I tried to create an account with the user name CONTRIꓐUTIONS, I recieved the following message: "The username "CONTRIꓐUTIONS" is not allowed to prevent confusing or spoofed usernames: Contains unassigned character "ꓐ" (U+A4D0). Please choose another username." This message is misleading. First of all, Unicode character U+AD40 is not a reserved code point, and the message says that U+AD40 is a reserved code point. Can you please explain the message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CONTRIẞUTIONS (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CONTRIẞUTIONS: I don't know about the unicode, but judging from User talk:Contributions, the user name CONTRIꓐUTIONS probably would not have been appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This is a case where one cannot tell by looking at a screen what Unicode character is being represented, because a regular upper-case Roman B and a regular upper-case Beta look the same, but do not have the same Unicode representation. Also, what I am seeing above looks more like a large lower-case Beta. Anyway, the name is enough like a reserved word that that is why it is being flagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 38 Greek letters that can be used as symbols in mathematics and the sciences, because there are 24 Greek letters, and each of the 24 lower-case Greek letters is recognizable, but only 14 of the upper-case Greek letters look different than a Roman letter. You can't tell an alpha from an A, or a beta from a B. You can tell a gamma from a G and a delta from a D. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

publishing of page

i am unable to figure out how and when will the page, created by me, become public. i have been clicking on publish changes, but the page is yet to become public and come up in search engines— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aasthars (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aasthars To submit it for review you need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it (see WP:Articles for creation). However it will not be accepted unless you add sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Palais Kaunitz-Wittgenstein, and an editor needs reassurance that drafts are always being edited

I reviewed Draft:Palais Kaunitz-Wittgenstein. I said that the palace did appear to be historically notable, but left it for another reviewer due to the conflict of interest. The author, User:WiR IACA, then replied on my talk page letting me know that they had made edits to the article. I replied that I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. (Besides that, I was letting another reviewer review.) They replied: “I am aware that following a draft would not be the classical behavior, I just wanted to make sure that your remark does not seem to be improper due to a possible worsening of the draft through my continued editing. I am begging your pardon for any inconvenience and disruption.” This left me confused further. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Draft:Palais_Kaunitz-Wittgenstein for the details. I now have a two-part request. First, is another experienced editor willing to review the draft with regard to notability and tone? I think that it is historically notable. Although COI editors usually edit non-neutrally, I think that the case of a historical structure may be one where it is easy enough for a non-neutral editor to edit neutrally. Second, can someone reassure the other editor that editing a draft while it is in the review process is the normal state? They seem to be worried that I will find that the draft isn’t what it was when I reviewed it, but the review process always works like that, and a reviewer should know to look at the history. Maybe they need to be told that they don’t need to get permission from all of the previous reviewers to have edited the draft after it was reviewed. Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. In my view, the draft article created by WiR IACA is very definitely about a notable topic - i.e. a historic building. There are many sources like this one which assist in establishing this. Unfortunately, Lukas Weinbeer's command of English appears not to assist him. I recognise he has also edited the German version, but his English version is hardly adequate for a mainspace article. Whilst I accept that WP:AFC criteria generally ignore language skills, I would urge the editor to work on this whilst waiting for further review. I'm sure then there would be no problem in accepting it into mainspace. I have absolutely no worries about a draft article being worked on whilst still under review. This is quite normal. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Nick Moyes. I thought that part of my problem in understanding what User:WiR IACA was saying had to do with their command of English. However, I also think that their concern that I would find the text of the draft to be different than what I had reviewed showed a lack of understanding on their part of the review process, which is that of course a draft is always being edited (and, for that matter, an article may also always be edited). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding of the COI-policies, paid-editors are advised not to edit a page directly. If the article on the palais was moved to main space, I would have hence suggested my edits through the request-edit process. Editing a draft in the AfC-process seemed to bear the risk to appear like an attempt of editing an article directly. As Robert McClenon, however, already clarified the situation on their talk page, I came to the conclusion that I might have been a little bit too worried --WiR IACA (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WiR IACA, as the Wikipedian in Residence at the Anti-corruption Agency you do have an obligation to declare your involvement with that organisation - and you've done that clearly and effectively (there's a wonderful irony there). But it is inevitable that a WiR is going to be remunerated (paid) for articles that they are writing about. I really don't think you need to make edit requests for every change you want to make. You, of course, have a very great responsibility to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, and I'm sure you will do just that. Good luck with your residency. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick Moyes for your clarification.
I also tried to clean up the clumsily written parts of the draft. Working with German books only, while writing in English leads to confusion, especially when several parts should fit into one text, even though they do not really...
Hopefully the clean-up was at least partially successful, would be glad not to be remembered as this one WiR who didn't know English :) --WiR IACA (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I only ever managed to create one article on de.wiki. Your English is far better than my German - and that was with the assistance of Google translate, too! Feel free in the future to ask someone to cast an eye over anything you might have concerns over. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nick Moyes, User:WiR IACA - A COI editor should not edit an article directly. A draft is not an article. COI editors are told to use the AFC process and draft space. I didn't need to be told about edits to a draft, which was still being reviewed. Drafts are always being edited, and are not articles, just prospective articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

What is my sandbox used for? Can you please explain what I should write on my sandbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CONTRIẞUTIONS (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CONTRIẞUTIONS: As you can see at WP:ABOUTSAND, sandboxs are for testing new code to make sure it does not break the page, drafting new material for other pages, and other things like that.
It is for working on articles, not for posting about every single day of your life. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war-ish

I'm having an edit conflict bordering on an edit war (not yet at 3RR) with a user regarding something on list of fictional countries. How do I approach this situation? Do I take this to their talk page? The article's talk page? A page reserved for resolving edit wars? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is best. Maproom (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VerifiedCactus: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:ANEW is the proper forum to report edit warring to, but it should be a last resort. You should first attempt discussion on the article talk page, as Maproom suggests. You can also request page protection at WP:RPP. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having the page be protected is one of the usual results at WP:ANEW. There are basically five possible actions when a report is made at ANEW: (1) nothing, if there isn't an edit war after all; (2) reported party blocked; (3) reporting party blocked; (4) both editors blocked; (5) page protected (and editors told to discuss). So, before reporting edit-warring to ANEW, and before reporting anything to WP:ANI, read the boomerang essay, because your own conduct will also be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 brooklyn shooting

i want to create this. Sofiagrama6 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find it pretty hard to believe there was only one shooting in Brooklyn in 2018. I assume you're speaking of Brooklyn, NY, but seriously I'd find it hard to believe there was only one shooting in 2018 in Brooklyn, Michigan, much less NYC. John from Idegon (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search shows that there have been several shootings in Brooklyn recently, but none of them appear notable to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sofiagrama6, welcome to the Teahouse. I take it this is regarding Draft:2018 brooklyn shooting. To make an article, you should read WP:Your first article. It's not enough to give the title of the page, you need to fill in some of the content and add some good references before an article can be published. You've picked a difficult subject for a first article. See WP:NOTNEWS for one policy often cited in this area. This may not be the right choice. If you have questions while editing other topics, you're welcome to ask more questions here. › Mortee talk 22:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did say that if they were trying to create a draft, they should ask for advice at the Teahouse. Were you asking someone else to create the article on a topic? As noted, you didn't give enough information to indicate what shooting, and besides Articles for Creation is for review of drafts (and I thought that maybe you had tried to enter a draft and hit the wrong button by accident), and not for requested articles. We do have a queue called Requested Articles, but it tends to have a backlog in years rather than days or weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

help please

i want to add new articles to wikipedia but dont know how. all i get is article wizard and drafts. help please????--Sofiagrama6 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sofiagrama6. The best advice is at WP:Your first article, I think. For some of the core guidelines, see WP:N and WP:V, for help with referencing see WP:Referencing for beginners. Those, and links from them, should help. I'll post a standard welcome to your talk page that includes other links you may find useful. › Mortee talk 23:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sofiagrama6. Your enthusiasm to contribute here is to be commended. But every new article needs to be about a notable subject, and to be supported by one or more references (citations) which support every statement made. Creating a new encyclopaedia page is one of the hardest tasks to achieve here. Most sensible editors begin my making small improvements (edits) and gradually learn about what is and is not acceptable. News stories generally don't merit articles, unless they've been covered in depth by multiple media outlets. The three word page you've drafted falls very short of a worthwhile article at the moment. You will definitely need to work on it. My impression is that this news story doesn't merit an article here. Do have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of what's involved in contributing to the world's greatest online encyclopaedia (and collect 15 badges of achievement along the way, too). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Schenecker double homicide" assessment

Hello,

How can I ask for this articles, Schenecker double homicide good article assessment be reviewed? Please share your thoughts as I would like to have the assessment to be lowered to a C-cLass article. Any tips from fellow editors that have experienced this type of request would be appreciated. Thank you, Vwanweb (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vwanweb and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.
The procedure to follow when you think a GA article should no longer carry that assessment is at good article reassessment. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Not only is that not a good article, I'm not 100% convinced it's even a notable subject. John from Idegon (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

If there is a point in the future when nearly all Wikipedia articles are featured, what happens then?

Rebestalic (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rebestalic and welcome to the Teahouse.
Wouldn't that be an exciting event? Could it happen in our lifetime? I won't say "never", but we seem to be heading in a different direction.
Note that even Featured Articles are still subject to revision and improvements, so, for one, there would still be that work to do.
One way to get to that state, however, is to delete substandard articles rather than continuing to improve them, and I think that would be the wrong way to go.
As things stand, though, new articles about notable subjects get added to the encyclopedia at a rate considerably in excess of the rate at which articles reach FA status, and as long as that remains true, the goal of all articles being FA will be receding rather than approaching. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editors at the time would decide. Wikipedia:Featured articles currently says: "Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". If most articles started to become featured then I guess either the requirements would be increased or a better article class would be introduced. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of search results in Wikipedia

Hello and thanks to everyone in the tea house who have helped me so far. I am currently trying to understand how the search ranking works in a Wikipedia search. Specifically if I type in a search for "Ireland" why does the "Northern Ireland" page not come up either on the predicted prompts or the short list of results. A link to where I might better learn and understand how this works would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eimhin de Róiste and welcome to the Teahouse.
Search ranking? I don't think the Wikimedia software does anything very sophisticated with the search box. It has a rather small capacity to get past misspellings, but otherwise seems to stick to presenting a list as if you were browsing an alphabetical list of the pages on WP whose initial string matches what you have typed so far. It may be that its ability to get past misspellings is only based on the existence of redirects from those misspellings. Since Google and most other search engines have indexed the article content of Wikipedia, that's where I would expect to go for higher-level search engine capabilities such as page ranking. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The search mechanism baffles many people, Help:Searching, may contain something of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eimhin de Róiste: If you look at the very bottom of the search box when you type 'Ireland' you'll see a line in italics beginning "containing..." Select that, and you'll get a list of search results often covering multiple pages containing article titles and contents with that term in. You'll see that Northern Ireland comes up second on the list. So never just rely on the simple string search in the search box. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the pointers, very helpful indeed. I must confess I stopped paying attention to methods to improve my searches back in days of Netscape Navigator and beyond the boolean and/or and use of "search term" I effectively stopped thinking about or learning ways to "power up"/make more effective searches. I will study further. Thanks for the guidance.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article not sufficiant notable - confused

Hi,

I have a question. We write an article about a new project delivery methodology which is trademarked in Europe, US and Switzerland and used by the re-insurance market leader to manage a project of more than 200 millions. And we get the feedback that this article is not suffician notable.

on the other hand I see articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagile_software_development which describes the same methodology in a complete wrong way, in fact just a sentence by a person.

So, I am confused about what "not sufficiant notable" means. Does it mean that I need to personally know a person in the Wiki team to publish something?

I get more than 50.000 hits in goolge when searching for "Wagile"... Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegando (talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andreas, Collegando and welcome to the Teahouse.
The article you were seeking a comparison with, Wagile software development is currently under discussion for deletion. The trend in that discussion is heading towards a conclusion that "Wagile" is not a notable software development methodology. You could participate there if you want to affect that conclusion. The outcome of that discussion will likely be taken to apply to your draft as well.
Other objections to your draft could have been brought up. It is very highly promotional, full of buzzwords and praise for how effective this approach has been. The diagrams you have incorporated would be questioned for whether they are copyrighted - for instance, the first diagram also appears in this copyrighted PDF.
Creating this draft appears to be the very first thing you have done towards editing on Wikipedia. The nature of the draft indicates you have not spent much time learning the policies and house style that need to be followed here. I'm not sure this is welcome advice, but you need to go over the instructions at your first article and NSOFT to see where you may have taken an unfortunate turn in your participation at Wikipedia. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your mention that the methodology is trademarked in the United States, the EU, and Switzerland makes me think that the purpose of a trademark is to protect a market share, and that makes me think that your page may be promotional. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote a product or a methodology, and promotional pages can be deleted as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andreas / Collegando. While I agree with everything my fellow editors have said above, I would like to address a particular aspect of your question – "what "not sufficiant [sic] notable" means" , because "notable" is a piece of Wikipedia jargon that doesn't have the everyday meaning you might have assumed.
For the purposes of Wikipedia, "notable" does not mean "important" or "widely-known." It means "sufficiently documented at length in material published by reliable sources completely independent of the subject." See Wikipedia:Notability for a much fuller discussion of this.
By reliable sources we mean such things as reputable newspapers, magazines or scientific journals (So for example: New York Times yes, Weekly World News no; Nature yes, Psychic News no).
By "independent" we mean not based on what the subject itself has said. This excludes all self-published material (such as on the subject's own website, in its own publications etc.), but also anything based on interviews with its representatives or press releases from it, even if these are published in the aforementioned reliable sources.
By "at length" we mean at least two (but preferably more) passages of at least several paragraphs entirely or largely about the subject, not passing mentions or entries in a list, however many of those there might be: those latter may be suitable as citations to corroborate specific facts about the subject, but not to support its notability.
It may be that there is not yet sufficient published material fulfilling these criteria on which to base a Wikipedia article (and unpublished material, including your (or my, or anybody's) own knowledge does not qualify). That is what those considering the article's deletion are attempting to determine. However, this may be merely a question of Wikipedia:Too soon, so an article may be possible some time in the future if the subject is successful in the real world and consequently is written about more by disinterested parties.
If you think the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term, you need to demonstrate this by citing the sort of acceptable material I have described above and basing the article on it alone, not on what you personally know. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/90.212.15.178|90.212.15.178] (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO, you started with "We." Editors are required to be individuals. If you are a you, don't write "We." AND, the "We" suggests that you individually or as a group are associated with the company you are writing about. See WP:COI and WP:PAID David notMD (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, thank you very much for your feedback.

I tried to write this article as precise as possible with as many facts as possible - like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development) - and I obviously spend some considerable time for this. I used graphs from the standard model as otherwise it would be my own interpretation, like the Scrum article does as well. It is now considered as being promotional, fair enough.

The discussion about hybrid project delivery strategies is not new though, there is many books and references about this topic. I unfortunately do not have a complete overview of all the different tendencies is this area, that is why I focused on only one methodology I know as the company I work for decided to apply this methodology. My motivation of writing this article was, that when I first heard about this methodology and was searching on Wiki, I only found this Wagile development article.

Please don't take it as a critic and don't get emotional, I just still did not fully understand how this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagile_software_development), which refers to a single blog of a single person is accepted and not considered as promotional, with the only working reference to a page saying in the title: "Jason Gorman's Software People Inspiring - Follow me on Twitter". Your argument that this article is under discussion to get deleted is not an argument why it initially has been accepted. It is even strange to me that you need to discuss so long about the deletion of an article which is obviously against your policies.

Anyway, I understood there is nothing I can do to publish anything around this topic as "there is not yet sufficient published material fulfilling these criteria", I will therefore not invest more time.

I honestly thank you for your time to explain everything to me. Many greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.26.20 (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. The existence of an article on Wikipedia does not mean that it has necessarily been "accepted" by anybody, ever. Nowadays, there are editors watching new pages and checking on their quality and suitability; but in earlier times many substandard articles were created. Often, a discussion like this brings such an article to people's notice, and it either gets improved (or at leaast, flagged for improvement) or deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding foreign language wikis that need translation

I'd like to work on foreign language pages in French or Spanish that need translation into English. Is there a simple way to find a list of such pages? Thanks! HarleyOpenRoad (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HarleyOpenRoad and welcome to the teahouse. Take a look at Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia and Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia for a list of current articles that can use some translation help. Happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 07:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HarleyOpenRoad. In addition to the advice given by MarnetteD, you might also want to look at WP:TRANSLATE for some general information on translating articles from other language Wikipedias into English Wikipedia. You should pay particular attention to WP:TFOLWP since you will likely need to provide proper attribution to the original source article you are translating. Finally, even though the various different language Wikipedia projects are all part of the same "family" so to speak, each is governed by its own sets of policies and guidelines. These various policies and guidelines may be quite similar in many ways, but there might also be some very important differences as well. The policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia tend to be (on average) much more stringent that the ones of some other projects; this is particularly true when it comes to Wikipedia notability guidelines and standards related to reliable sources. So, just because an article about a particular subject already exists on another Wikipedia is not a 100% guarantee that the same article should also be created and added to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic disambiguation terms

Please see here and share some views. I'm posting here because both experienced users see this as well as newcomers who, like me, can learn from this.

Cheers.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question has now been answered on the linked to page. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Grand Ayatullah Syed Muhammad Yar Shah Naqvi Al Najafi

this isn't the place for a draft

Ayatullah Ustad-ul-Ulama Syed Muhammad Yar Shah Naqvi Najafi (born 1913 in Alipur, Panjab, died 12 Dec 1990 He Was a First Shia scholar In The History of Pakistani. He lived in Najaf Ashraf for a while before returning in 1940. All of Pakistan's ulamas are directly or indirectly the students of Ayatullah Muhammad Yar Shah Najfi.[citation needed] He was a simple man every time he work for his god. Once There was a Came Irani scholar in the Islamic instute of Dar_ul_Huda Ayatullah was sitting in the earth when he saw so he impressed for sitting on the earth he said this is a real change.

Activities

Majalis and teaching Tazkra e Toheed Masaib e Al-Muhammad a.s Specially he recite Masaib janab e Sayyeda

Prominent disciples

[1]

References

  1. ^ Tazkra-E-ulamae Pakistan

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naqvi syed512 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for a draft, so I have collapsed its display (and terminated the unterminated "reference" to prevent it upsetting the display of the rest of the page). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The place to suggest improvements to the existing article is at Talk:Muhammad Yar Shah. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing a single item in a list

How should this be handled? Say i want to put List_of_games_in_Star_Trek#Fizzbin into Category:Games_with_concealed_rules

Would I put the category onto the page, or would I put it somewhere within Fizzbin´s entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonyTheDwarf (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MoonyTheDwarf, welcome to the Teahouse. A section cannot be added to a category but a redirect to the section can. Fizzbin already redirects to the section. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects and Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My first authored article

I would value feedback from experienced Editors on the draft article in my Sandbox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AWCzarnik/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWCzarnik (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AWCzarnik and thank you for leaving your question here in the Teahouse. What you have written is not an encyclopedia article. It also appears to be written by you and actually may disappear rather quickly because it appears to be a personal attack. I am sorry to tell you this bad news. I hope you will stay with us and add content that is informative, not about yourself or your grievances. You seem intelligent and your participation in building an encyclopedia is very welcome. Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):Hello, AWCzarnik and welcome to our Teahouse, and thanks for inviting comments on your sandbox draft. My first impression was that you have attempted to take advantage of Wikipedia to further awareness of a legal case which you personally brought against your employer, and that this was a terrible Conflict of Interest and a cynical abuse of what Wikipedia is trying to present to the world. That said (and never working in legal circles here or anywhere else) I eventually saw (with help from your sandbox's edit summary) that you were not doing that, but were attempting to demonstrate a significant and 'notable' change in U.S. law with which you, personally, had been involved as the plaintiff. So I don't quite agree with what Barbara (WVS) says above (and have just invited her to remove the WP:CSD G10 attack page deletion notice, which I think was wrongly placed, albeit in very good faith.) I gradually came to see your case might be likely to meet our essential 'notability' criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (law), specifically, WP:CASES in which it may be (and I paraphrase): the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court of a country, state or province, or has set a legal precedent that is formally binding. Others with more experience will be better equipped to make that assessment of notability, but I'd suggest you stand a good chance, assuming the court decision was a high enough one, or has had sufficient impact.
That said, I think you've gone about it all wrong, and it is a shame that such a heavily involved and high-profile person such as a yourself should be writing it. We have a law-orientated Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, which recommends requested articles be added to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law, which is what I would be recommending you to do - possibly linking back to your sandbox for background, in the hope someone unconnected would be interested in creating it.
Were you to continue, you must clearly declare your WP:COI, and restructure and perhaps precis the article to make it encyclopaedic.
In particular, a WP:LEDE is needed to introduce the subject - never leave the key conclusion to the last paragraph - this isn't a scientific paper! With a title that follows the style of other legal case articles, such as Czarnik v. Illumina it should begins roughly along the lines of: Czarnik v. Illumina was a 2006 legal case in the United States which set a precedent by establishing for the first time that reputational harm alone was sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement to bring a correction of inventorship claim. As at 2018, Czarnik v. Illumina has been cited by nine other courts since then, and cited in legal treatises. Background: Heard in 2006, the claim .....
I would also advise you to spend a little more time learning the basics here before you think about creating articles. We expect a certain structural layout and style to be followed, and every key statement needs to be supported with citations. At present your references are just hyperlinks in the text, and you need to provide good links to help editors assess notability. If there was coverage in the national media of the legal precedent being set, these should be cited too. So, check WP:CASES, read Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. I see you've started The Wikipedia Adventure. Do finish it - you have 13 more badges to attain, and along the way you'll get to understand the basics of editing, referencing, layout and style. I hope this helps somewhat.
If, in due course, you choose to commit to sharing your extensive knowledge and skills within Wikipedia, as your userpage suggests, I'd respectfully suggest you might wish to consider seeking a mentor to Adopt and guide you. Our adoption scheme for new editors is very much in the doldrums these days (having been superseded by virtually instant help fora like this Teahouse), but I think you could be a perfect candidate to support if you demonstrate long-term commitment, and I for one would be happy to help out should you ever need that general assistance. Don't waste your time adding an 'adopt me' template to your userpage - these really don't work; simply find an editor with comparable interests - and there are quite a few listed at WP:AAU, and approach them directly. Oh, and don't forget to sign every talk page and noticeboard post with your signature. You simply type four tildes (like this: ~~~~) and the sofware add name and timestamp automatically for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic feedback, and so fast. Thank you! A.W. Czarnik — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWCzarnik (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. AWCzarnik (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, AWCzarnik. You'll now see that, having left it a short while, I eventually removed the WP:CSD G10 template from your sandbox, placed there in good faith by another editor, and left some further advice on the sandbox's talk page. (That's a whole afternoon gone. Hey ho.) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create an entry for a new topic?

Good morning,

I wrote an op-ed on an economic policy in use by the US government without a name nor defined rules.

The op-ed will be out tomorrow, and I would like to submit the information herein. I write for the Eureka Springs Independent newspaper, www.Eureka.News

Kindly,

Dr. Luis Contreras Eureka Springs, AR 72631 <personal info redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeanDoc (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm afraid what you're proposing isn't suitable for submission on Wikipedia. Wikipedia hosts encyclopedic articles, not opinion editorials. It's also not suitable for policies "without a name nor defined rules", since they must be notable (i.e. mentioned in multiple secondary and reliable sources) to have an article. Thanks, Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 13:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LeanDoc and welcome to the Teahouse-a great place to ask questions like the one above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a publishing platform for editorials or op ed pieces. In addition, it is highly recommended that you do not create an article for which you have a conflict of interest. Even if you were able to get your op ed piece onto Wikipedia, it would be highly edited and then become something very different than your op ed piece. That is the bad news. The good news is that you are very welcome to add information to Wikipedia. If you can provide references to support information on a topic, then you can add information to the topic. We love new editors. I hope you decide to stay. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not founded

I created one article about me and publish it but when i went back to google it I did not find it I have created a wikipedia on myself How to find it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek A singh (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek A singh: You created a user page, not an article.
See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI for why we discourage users from creating articles about themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

article declined

I recently wrote my first article and requested to publish which was denied. I admit it lacked citation what can I do now! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robeda (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robeda, and welcome to the Teahouse. Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources if you haven't, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Gather the best reliable sources you can and cite them in the your draft, guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners. If there are no (or not enough) reliable sources to find, give up (at least for now, things change) on writing an article on this topic, it will be deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two suggestions: 1) you should not have so much personal information on your User page. What belongs there is information about how you intend to be a Wikipedia editor; and 2) you moved the information about Sayat from your User page to a Draft, but as it has no references, cannot become an article. See the advice GGS provided. David notMD (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to see truncated edit summaries in full

Hi. I'm looking at the page curation log (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/pagetriage-curation) where some edit summaries are truncated with an ellipsis, e.g. "Thanks for your new article on Rafe Pomerance, but more evidence of his notability is needed, such as commentary on his influence over l..." How can I see the rest of what was truncated? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayoquot, welcome to the Tehouse. Look for an edit made at the same time to the talk page of the article author. In your example it is [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Origins

Is the website Ancient Origings www.ancient-origins.net concidered a reliable source? --WikiDitscha 22:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDitscha (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDitscha: In the future, you can ask such questions at WP:RSN.
Looking over the front page, I'm seeing:
I'm gonna say this is a WP:FRINGE site and so generally not a reliable source. I'm confident that WP:RSN would say likewise. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mix of reprinted press releases about real archaeology, all of which can be found in much better sources, and absolute bullshit like the above. So no. – Joe (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to edit a URL in an article

Good Afternoon,

I received an email concerning an out of date URL for a link in the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Carroll_Napier 

James Carroll Napier. 

The link is Ref #9.  I have the correct URL (http://dsi.mtsu.edu/trials/napier)   but am unable to get access to the Ref list to change it.  Is it something to do with my account / permission that I can't see the actual References and edit them.  I've edited text etc but never had to change something in a Reference list.

Any help would be appreciated so that the correct link can be displayed to our collection at MTSU. I'm more than willing to learn how to do this!

Jean Reese, Librarian MTSU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr524 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjr524: Citations are not in the "References" section but in the article body. Reference #9 is located in the "Career" section. If you got to edit that section and look at the reference after ", serving on the Nashville City Council," there's the area you want to edit.
You might want to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure, as it has a section on creating and editing citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find on page

How do I find a string on the page I'm editing? Jmar67 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmar67: I just use the browser's find feature by pressing CTRL+F, and then typing the string in there. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Safari on mobile and do not know how to do that. Any idea? Jmar67 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmar67: I don't have a device for testing but my first Google hit on Safari find is https://www.lifewire.com/search-for-text-in-safari-on-iphone-2000562. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I tend to forget Google. Jmar67 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no need to answer - this is just a test as part of a discussion about new users

problem problem problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerry Raymond (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Listings

I'm curious about the WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE rule. Concerning the article about the British radio station BBC Radio 1, one editor (sometimes as an IP) is heavily engaged to fill the article with long lists of programmes and broadcast slots. This seems to me to fall foul of the rules — is this interpretation correct, or are frequently changing lists of programmes acceptable in an artticle? Earlier this year I did try to contest the edits but an edit war ensued and I had to bow out to keep the peace. I've managed to tag the article with Template:Schedule but I daren't step in, as experience suggests these programme lists are jealously guarded. So I thought I'd ask if anyone else had a view about programme listings. Cnbrb (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cnbrb:, this sounds like a content dispute, the best way to deal with these is to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article in question, instead of getting in to edit war. If discussion on tke talk page doest not resolve the issue, then follow the guide at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Iffy★Chat -- 13:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I had left it a long time so it didn't seem like an immediate dispute. I was actually wondering if I was interpreting the WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE rule too strictly and if there was something I had misunderstood, such was the determination of the other editor. I'll see how it goes and take it to Dispute resolution if needed, as you suggest. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search data and also the growth of mobile users

Hello, I hope you can tell me how to get data about how readers typically get to an article page? perhaps percentage of results from external search engines google etc (or the other (possibly) mainstream search engines) versus the percentage of people finding articles via the wiki search function, not including following links between wiki pages. I would also be very interested to know, what are the growth metrics for mobile readers, how common are mobile readers (also interested in mobile editor figures) and the growth rates of mobile quarter by quarter or any data in these areas. Thanks so much in advance. Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eimhin de Róiste: - I can only offer a partial answer, I am afraid. Pageviews Analysis, part of the WMF Tools, can split pageviews over any user-determined timeframe between desktop, mobile, and app users, so that could be used to assemble data. Here is the data for the Teahouse itself, for instance. The WP:5000 includes data for the 5000 most viewed articles each week, including mobile views. On the editing side, there is xtools -Here is the Teahouse data, but this does say much about whether the edits where on mobile or not. If there is a tool to aid you, it is likely here somewhere. Sorry that this hasn't been too much help for your specific query, but hope it helps in some way, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Stormy clouds: Thanks so much, there is plenty there to keep me going for ages, a great help 😉.Eimhin de Róiste (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many warnings to get blocked?

How many warnings to get blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.145.202 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no certain number of warnings that must be given before a block is issued; it all depends on the situation. Usually, it will be a few, but if the behavior at issue is particularly egregious, few or even no warnings can be given. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you were close to setting a record: this query at Teahouse at 12:41 was the first-ever posting from this IP address, and short-blocked (31 hours) 25 minutes later. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not remove this line!"

Hi!

I was looking at the Video Star page, and was about to start changing some of the "-" to "–", and I noticed that above the Infobox, there were two lines saying "Do not remove this line!" with an empty line underneath each one.

Is it acceptable to remove the empty lines underneath the "Do not remove this line!"? The two empty lines underneath each "Do not remove this line!" leave a weird gap at the top of the article page.

Thank you!

Best, JHY0 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blank lines, and those 2 comment lines, can be removed. They are relics from when the article was an AFC draft, and they weren't tidied up when the article was published. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with wikitables

Hi, still relatively new to wikipedia, I found something on a page I wanted to change but wasn't sure how to do it, I've experimented a little in my userspace and this is the closest I've gotten:

Country parties and organizations Note
 Ireland Irish Republican Socialist Party socialism, Irish Republicanism
Labour Party member of Socialist International
Sinn Féin democratic socialism, social democracy, Irish Republicanism
 Northern Ireland democratic socialism, social democracy, Irish Republicanism
Social Democratic and Labour Party social democracy, Irish nationalism

But I want for the 2 note rows of Sinn Féin instead to be a single row. How would I do this?

Thanks,

Melias C (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Melias C. You need to insert rowspan="2" | before the first note, and delete the whole of the second one, including the '|' at the beginning. --ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More guidance at Help:Table#Cells_spanning_multiple_rows_or_columns. Is the result below what you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Country parties and organizations Note
 Ireland Irish Republican Socialist Party socialism, Irish Republicanism
Labour Party member of Socialist International
Sinn Féin democratic socialism, social democracy, Irish Republicanism
 Northern Ireland
Social Democratic and Labour Party social democracy, Irish nationalism

Can you help create an article?

Can you help me create an article and publish on wikipedia? I tried myself and it got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kors05 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start by signing your question with the username you created the article with by adding 4~ without blanks to the end of the question, so your editing history can be seen. I added 4~ without blanks and WP added a signature: Geo8rge (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An editor, not me, thought ZectaBridge was not notorious, famous, or important enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Why is ZectaBridge important? If you believe the article should exist, when you have collected the best sources supporting that contact the editor that deleted it.Geo8rge (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Kors05. Welcome, and thanks for bringing your question to the Teahouse. I've been editing on Wikipedia for over seven years, but I'm afraid I would meet with the same lack of success, were I to try to create an article for you on the company called ZectaBridge. You must have seen the detailed explanation on your Talk Page here? It told you that there was no evidence that this company meets our notability criteria for businesses. We aren't here to help people promote their favourite company, and you can read more about these criteria at this link: WP:NORG. I couldn't even get the company website to load up on my computer, but doubt you will find reliable sources that are totally independent of that company that talk about it "in depth". (i.e. ignore all company press releases, blogs and other social media content - we don't care a fig about what these say) If you can do that, and find good sources, you may have a chance. But without them, neither you nor I stand any chance whatsoever of an article remaining here on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to disappoint you - but that's not what this encyclopaedia is for. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kors05 - Did you read my comments on your talk page? I said that the draft had no references, and that it read like an information brochure about the company. References are needed to establish corporate notability. I tagged the draft for deletion as advertising. Administrator User:Deb then reviewed the draft and agreed that it was advertising, and deleted it. Did you read her comments on your talk page? She asked whether you were affiliated with ZectaBridge. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to find every article that uses a specific infobox template? I want to test proposed changes and make sure existing infoboxes do not break.

Is there a way to find every article that uses a specific infobox? I want to test proposed changes in my sandbox area and make sure existing infoboxes do not break.Geo8rge (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo8rge. Welcome to our Teahouse. It might have been helpful if you'd told us which Infobox are you considering making changes to? Some (like Template:Infobox person) are used across tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages, and should be treated very carefully indeed. You are right to want to test proposed changes in your sandbox, but you should also discuss proposed changes on the talk page of the relevant infobox.
To either count the number of usages, or to see a list of every pages deploying (i.e. transcluding) a certain template, simply go to that template page (e.g. Template:Infobox climber) On the far left of the page, look in the 'Tools' section and click 'What links here'. By default, this shows the first 50 pages, and you can view up to 500 pages at a time. To get a count of how many times that template has been deployed on pages, on the results page, click 'Transclusion count', which takes you to this external tool which tells you that 153 instances have been found. Whereas Template:Infobox person is in use on 312,634 pages. So do tread carefully, please! Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox_United_States_District_Court_case A user asked a year ago that defense counsel be added to the infobox, I think I can handle that and edit source has not been disabled. There is also a Template:Infobox_US_court_case, so I wonder if changes to one template would make it incompatible with the other template, if that is important.
A more complicated issue is that an earlier editor mentioned in the documentation that the image for the court should update automatically when the name of the court is entered. It doesn't because the code in the documentation was never added. But I am not expert enough in template code to tell if what is in the documentation works. Geo8rge (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the counter, but I am interested in the actual articles so I can copy the infobox to my sandbox and see what happens when I alter the sandbox version of my template.Geo8rge (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo8rge: I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough in templates to be able to advise you much further. But here is your list of the 160 pages currently using that template. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that is what I was looking forGeo8rge (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding an article that doesn't exist, and it’s creation is being blocked in error

There is no article for the term Expletive, and I think there needs to be. There are articles for Syntactic expletive and Dummy pronoun which are fine, but they are different — they both refer to a particular kind of expletive, and not the most common. If you search Wikipedia for Expletive it sends you to a disambiguation page. And Wikipedia will not allow an article on Expletive, because it says there already is an article — which there isn't. I wanted to write an article on the term, so I'm interested in a suggestion on how I might proceed. Thank you. Cottonwalyer (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cottonwalyer, welcome to the Teahouse. Would the new article also be different from the topics covered by Profanity and Expletive attributive? (That last one isn't currently mentioned on the disambiguation page, but perhaps should be) › Mortee talk 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi, Cottonwalyer, you can start writing the article at Draft:Expletive, and when it's ready for mainspace then made a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. It will then be moved to mainspace for you. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I was wrong above; the attributive is linked to on the dab, I didn't just find it that way). › Mortee talk 17:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I thought I had posted this comment a while earlier today.) To respond first to Mortee, yes, an article on "Expletive" differs from those two highly limited articles. "Expletive" is the bigger, older, all inclusive, umbrella term. And those other articles are recent and highly limited to particular smaller things, that perhaps could be said to derive from "Expletive". And Ammarpad and Mortee, thank you very for your responses.Cottonwalyer (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cottonwalyer, that's great. It sounds like a very useful article to have written. It also sounds like it's intended to cover all the topics currently being disambiguated between, except perhaps profanity, with links out to the other articles for more detail. If that's right, it might be simplest to overwrite Expletive (disambiguation)Expletive, rather than keeping a separate disambiguation page. Maybe add a hatnote to Profanity for readers who had that specifically in mind. Just a thought, anyway. › Mortee talk 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 20:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I added a one-sentence subheading to cover "profanity". It's an improvement. (I only had to add the heading). Thanks, Mortee. Cottonwalyer (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did see that you'd mentioned it already, just not linked to the page. My thought was that if this article replaces Expletive (not Expletive (disambiguation) as I wrongly wrote above), you could replace {{Other uses}} at the top with {{See also|Profanity}}, as a quick redirect for readers who have found themselves in the wrong place. A brief section like the one you've started that covers the use of expletives in forming profanity, with either a simple wikilink or with a {{main article}}, is another perfectly sound approach. Thank you for writing the draft. › Mortee talk 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I replaced Expletive with the draft article. It seems to have worked. Thank you very much. Cottonwalyer (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN, Cottonwalyer, Mortee, Ammarpad, and Frayae: The way the current content at Expletive was added is, I think, a problem. This edit completely replaced the older content. But as a result the redirect Expletive (disambiguation) is no longer pointing to a disambiguation page. Moving the older content there would constitute a cut-and-paste move, which breaks article history and is therefore to be avoided.
It also looks like there was something at Draft:Expletive, but it was deleted as CSD-G7 on 5 September 2018. I don't know whether that might also have been a problematic cut-and-paste. Perhaps an administrator could perform the necessary Wikipedia:REFUNDs and history merges? Alternately, if this seems to require more discussion, that should take place at the proper venue. I'm not certain where that would be, but this thread is probably not sufficient. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cnilep, the draft was created yesterday by one editor in about three edits, so the cut and paste move didn't lose any significant information and histmerge isn't necessary. Now it's deleted I can't double check this, but an admin could, if you're still concerned. Expletive (disambiguation) only has one page linking to it, which is easily changed, and the new Expletive to which it still redirects has links to the various topics that were being disambiguated between, so it functions equally well as a disambiguation page, to my mind. I should have been clearer in my reply that I meant it as a proposal to see what others thought, but I don't think the way the new page was created has caused any problems. If you're seeing issues I'm not, do let me know (perhaps on the article talk page?) and I'll help to resolve them if I can. › Mortee talk 06:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Here's the situation: There was quite a decent draft article at Draft:Expletive, written by Cottonwalyer. It was the same as the current content of the article. Cottonwalyer was the only one to edit the draft page. On 9/5 they blanked it and tagged it G7. I deleted it. Cottonwalyer then pasted that content into Expletive, covering up the DAB. Ideally we 1) should restore that DAB material (the version last edited by Cnilip on 1/14/16) which would keep the history, 2) move the page to Expletive (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect, 3) restore Draft:Expletive, and 4) move it to Expletive which would retain the draft's history. Does this make sense? Should I or someone do it? And while we are at it let’s explain to Cottonwalyer about using Move instead of copy-paste. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining the situation. That is basically what I assumed had happened. Also, your proposed actions are pretty much exactly what I had in mind. Unless anyone else objects, I think that would be a fine thing to do. FWIW, I left a message on User talk:Cottonwalyer pointing to this discussion. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. There may be some cleaning up to do, including adding "Expletive" to the DAB page, and the appropriate hatnote to the new article, but I'll leave that to the rest of you. If I messed anything up let me know. BTW I am amazed that we managed to get through this whole discussion without ever saying (Expletive deleted). (There, I said it!) --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Blackbird923

how do you make that information thing on the side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird923 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackbird923, since this is a separate question from the one above, I've given it its own heading. The boxes on the right hand side of many articles are called "infoboxes". You can read about them at Help:Infobox. For Draft:Boeing-Canada 213 Totem, you might want to look at a similar article, say Boeing 314 Clipper, to see how it's been done there. By the way, it looks like you submitted the draft for review when you first started it. I'm going to decline the draft for now because it's not ready to be published just yet. It needs some references first, to verify the facts and to show that the aircraft is notable. There'll be a 'resubmit' button to press once you think it's done. I'll add a welcome template to your talk page that includes some links to other handy resources. I hope this helps. Best of luck with the article! › Mortee talk 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC) PS: you can sign your messages with ~~~~[reply]

Improvements

The article I've written on Jon Jashni has been tagged for cleanup to address neutrality and notability. I've disclosed my COI as I am associated with the company he runs but would like to request a review of the article. Based on what I have learned on Wikipedia:Notability (people) for creative professionals I feel the article cites numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in addition to citing the significant role he played in his body of work. And the membership he holds with AMPAS, AFI, and PGA certainly denotes he is an important figure in his professional field. The user who added the tags has not yet responded to my request for help, so I'm hoping to get some help here. I'm fairly new to editing, so looking for some guidance. Please let me know how I might improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxx7291 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the problem is that the article fails to provide evidence that Jashni is notable. You say "I feel the article cites numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; can you list a few sources that do that while including significant discussion of him? There are 27 references in the article, and I'm not going to check them all. But the first five all fail. 1 is based on an interview with him, and so is not independent. 2, 3 and 5 list his name, with no discussion at all. 4 does not even mention him. Maproom (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add sources to what is already cited. Are there any additional improvements I can make? And how might I request a review of the article so that those improvements might get seen and the tags removed?--Xxxx7291 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Xxxx7291[reply]
Don't reference bomb (excessive referencing). Winnow out all but high quality refs. David notMD (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD is right, I should have been clearer. When experienced editors say "the references aren't good enough", they're not asking you to add even more worthless references, they're asking to replace all the worthless references by a few better ones. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the COI template from the top of the article, as Xxxx7291 now properly declared as PAID contributor on the Talk page. Also removed a few of the non-suitable refs, but more winnowing needed. With proper referencing, my opinion is that Jashni is sufficiently notable in the Wikipedia sense to warrant this article, but I will leave that decision on the remaining template to editors more knowledgeable about the film industry. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General Content Question

Hello! This is my first time trying to post anything on Wikipedia so please bear with me if I'm asking a "stupid" question. My grandpa's friend (elderly) asked me to see if I can upload an article for him on Wikipedia. The more I read about the types of information that is accepted, the more I believe that his article will not be allowed. The article is about his personal account of a series of events dealing with Jim Jones. The article has a 1980 copyright and has been uploaded to another website previously. I believe this would be classified as a personal essay but I just wanted to be sure. Is there a way to link the current online article to the existing page on Jim Jones? Thank you for you help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lllitke (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lllitke: Yep, we don't take original research and we generally can't take copyrighted material. If the article was professionally published, depending on where and how it might qualify as a reliable source for the article on Jim Jones. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to do to keep your article on Wikipedia?

Hi guys how to edit a biography and not be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonnestWorld (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Write an article about a person who already has enough source material about their lives to support a quality biography. That is, find someone whose life is already documented in places like books and journal articles and newspapers and other reliable sources, and then write about THEM. If a person's life has not been sufficiently documented through reliable, in-depth, and independent writing already, then Wikipedia will not have an article about that person. The trick is not in your writing, it is in choosing the correct subject. See this page for more information. --Jayron32 20:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to Use Wikipedia info in New Book

Hello -- I realize Wikipedia is free, and volunteer driven, but my attorney still suggested I write asking permission to use a few quotations from your Cannabis section, which will be used in a new book coming out this holiday season, "No More Weed In Our House," By Justin Daniels.

Please advise if I need anything further, other than to make a donation? Thank you, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5700:2F80:454C:50E:1E9:E92B (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already have that permission. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Anyone can re-use Wikipedia's text for any purpose, provided that you give proper attribution and re-release the content under the same or compatible license.
Donations are entirely voluntary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem more clued up than your attorney. Maybe you should be charging them for your advice. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle repeated deletion of material?

Hi, I recently wrote the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_News_Wire, but recently, I've been having issues with a user who seems to have been created solely to delete material in the article without justification beyond "tweak wording". How should I handle this? Am I being too defensive of my work? I spent quite a bit of time putting this together, so having my writing repeatedly deleted for no reason by has me a bit irked. I'm still relatively new myself, so I'm not sure I'm handling this dispute properly. Thisdangguy (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thisdangguy and welcome to the Teahouse.
Neither you nor your other editors have started a discussion about these issues on the talk page of the article: Talk:Your News Wire. So I'd have to agree that you're not handling this dispute properly. Any time you find yourself reverted or making corrections more than once, it's a sign that you should be opening a dialogue on the talk page. Anything else is just some sort of edit warring and edit summaries are inadequate for carrying on the needed conversation. I'm not going to look into or comment on the content in question until at least one of you has opened up a talk page discussion laying out their point of view on the relevant content and sources that back it up. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmcgnh:, makes sense, thanks. I've opened a dialogue on the talk page, let me know if that's what you had in mind. Thisdangguy (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits?

Hi, am am new to Wikipedia. I edited Caprifoliaceae so that the phrase "the elderberries (Sambucus) and the viburnums Viburnum" became "the elderberries (Sambucus) and the viburnums (Viburnum)". I placed this as a minor edit.Where do I see my minor edits on a page?𝕋𝕙𝕖ℙ𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕖𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕟 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThePlanetarian. Any changes you make to an article should be visible in the article itself or in the article's page's history to everyone once you click "Publish page". Minor edits will be marked with an "M". Just for reference, I can see the edit you made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At simple level, click on "View history: in top menu bar. Shows your entry. At that entry, on left, "Prev" will show side-by-side before and after of your edit. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine if a subject is notable?

Hi all

I'm considering creating a new page about a Linux-based text editor "Notepadqq". It is similar, and inspired by the very popular Windows editor Notepad++. I don't want to go to the effort of creating a page if it is viewed as not-notable, so would like some feedback as to whether it would be considered notable. From my perspective, it is up-to-date, last commit 2 days ago, has an active community (last post today), and their blog has a comment of this month (September 2018). It has a wide use base according to https://snapcraft.io/notepadqq I have no connection to the development of it.

I have collected some reviews, etc, listed here:

Main web page: ----------

https://notepadqq.com/s/
https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq

Community --------------

https://plus.google.com/communities/118430810002505082315

Reviews: ----------------

http://www.linuxandubuntu.com/home/notepadqq-an-alternative-to-notepad-for-linux
https://opensource.com/article/17/12/editing-text-linux-desktop-notepadqq
https://itsfoss.com/notepadqq-notepad-for-linux/
https://medium.com/brian-besaw/notepadqq-my-search-for-a-linux-notepad-equivalent-has-ended-2b39704ab856
https://www.maketecheasier.com/notepadqq-notepad-alternative-linux/
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/great-notepad-alternatives-linux/
https://news.softpedia.com/news/notepadqq-a-notepad-plus-plus-like-editor-for-linux-now-available-as-a-snap-on-ubuntu-520134.shtml
https://www.noobslab.com/2015/12/notepadqq-is-best-alternative-to.html
https://alternativeto.net/software/notepadqq/reviews/
https://www.2daygeek.com/install-notepadqq-source-code-editor-in-arch-linux-mint-ubuntu-debian-fedora/


Thank you for your feedback.

Peter peterl (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peterl, I think reviews 1, 2, 3 and 5 put together can be considered significant coverage. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this as well. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback please

HI, I am a very new contributor of Wikipedia, and I have made my debut by editing the article about Puhoi village in New Zealand several weeks ago. I have not heard anything from Wikipidia since, and the content I added does not look as it has been deleted in the "TALK" box. I would really appreciate if someone from Wikipedia team could get back to me either via Wikipedia Thank you in advance :) Warmest Regards, Victoria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria Kirichuk (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Puhoi, clicking on View history, I see three edits by you. The first was reversed by an editor as a copyright violation. The second used a flawed reference format, so it is invisible. The third appears as a reference, although it had to be fixed by another editor. David notMD (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria Kirichuk. Generally, editors are not given feedback on the edits they make unless they really do something they shouldn't have done. Most of the time the good edits we make are simply built upon by others and any mistakes we make are simply corrected by others. If you're looking for personalized feedback, then you're probably going to have to ask for it here at the Teahouse or on the relevant article's talk page. You could also simply add the articles you edit to your watchlist and monitor their respective page histories for changes. If someone WP:REVERTS one of your edits or revises content you added, check to see if an edit sum was left explaining why or ask for clarification on the other editor's user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Person Information

I Don't understand what's My Wikipedia page, Isaac Morales. Not the baseball Player. just myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imorales914 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imorales914. I'm not exactlly sure what you mean by "My Wikipedia page", but perhaps you mean your user page. Each Wikipedia account has a user page and a user talk page. A user page is bascially where you can let the rest of the Wikipedia community know a little bit a more about yourself and your Wikipedia activities, while your user talk page is where other editors will post when they want discuss Wikipedia matters with you. It's important to understand that a user page is not like a Facebook account where you pretty much can post whatever you like; rather, you will be expected to adhere to relevant user page guidelines and other editors may edit your page in cases when you don't. For reference, your userpage is User:Imorales914

On the other hand, a page like Isaac Morales is a Wikipedia article and there's quite a bit of difference between an article and a user page; so, if you're question is about writing an article about yourself, then you probably should read Wikipedia:Autobiography because trying to do such a thing is highly discouraged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many drafts before a submission is ready for approval?

Following the helpful feedback of the Teahouse editors, I've amended several draft articles to reflect the recommendations of editors and hopefully they now meet Wikipedia standards. However, how many edits and feedback is typical before an article is approved? I'm quite keen to get this online after the previous amends that have been made but understand that it can be a process. Are there instances for example where in which an article can be approved with recommendations for continued improvements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAL123 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DAL123. There are really no deadlines when it comes to a draft and you can submit it as many times as it takes until it's approved. As long as you don't just keep submitting the same declined version over and over again, you should be fine. Drafts only tend to get deleted when they haven't been worked on for quite a bit of time per (see WP:G13) or they have other serious problems which mean they can never be accepted as an article (see WP:GCSD); otherwise, they are usually left alone so that their creators can continue to work on them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to move my article from the Sandbox while there is no button with move in my account

Hi goodmorning, I would like to publish my first article but I don't know very well how I can do that. I did already write a page in my Sandbox. I have some questions about it: first of all I get this message when I click on my name: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:M.C.J.Hoelscher. If in doubt, please verify that "M.C.J.Hoelscher" exists. Further I do know that I have to move my article from the Sandbox to the real but there is no button more or move in my account. Should I start all over again? (I don't hope so...) Please can you help me? Many thanks! Rieteke — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.C.J.Hoelscher (talk • contribs) 07:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.C.J.Hoelscher. If you want to move the article yourself, you can do so by following the instructions in WP:MOVE; however, after looking at your sandbox, I would not suggest that you do this right now since such an article is likely to be tagged for deletion rather quickly since none of the content is supported by citations to reliable sources and it's not clear whether the subject is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written. Instead, it might be better for you to carefully read through Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners and continue to work on the draft so that it has a better chance of being accepted as an article. Then, when you think it's ready to go, you should submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

FWIW, writing a proper Wikipedia article can be a pretty hard thing to do especially when you're a new editor who's not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; so, it might be better to learn more about what a Wikipedia article is intended to be by trying to improve existing articles and then apply what you've learned to your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an autobiography

I need to write an article about myself and my accomplishments. I need to either find a writer, willing to assist me with this or write it myself. I need help crafting this article within the guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayayron joans (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ayayron joans, welcome to the Teahouse. If you "need to write an article about [your]self", I advise you to create a website where you can promote yourself to your hearts content, and use it to further your acting career. That's not what Wikipedia is here to do. We only care about you if, at this moment in time, you meet out WP:Notability criteria.  Draft:Aaron Jones (actor) fails in that regard, and you've had helpful feedback explaining why. Maybe it's simply WP:TOOSOON, and later on when you're walking up to collect your Oscar, you can wave two fingers at Wikipedia, and to me. But then you will have met the notability criteria for actors (set out in WP:NACTOR), and we'd love to have someone write an article about you. Whilst it's appreciated that you've declared your Conflict of Interest, I'm really not seeing anything yet to suggest an article is merited right now. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to realise why we strongly discourage people trying to write about themselves here. Sorry to disappoint. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need a good place to get started.

Hello. I am wondering if there is a place that I could get started with editing articles, like a recent changes patrol tool or a spell checker tool like in WikiHow.I am wanting to be part of the Wikipedia community just like I am in the WikiHow community.


Thanks, --TheHeckLord (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Community portal, which has a LOT of options for contributing, especially in fixing up articles tagged for various issues, such as grammar or categorization or the like. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 13:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Templates

Hi There!

I need to remove templates on the page below. I am in desperate need of help doing this. All of my updates are getting deleted.

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

Thank you kindly,

Kelly --Thehappyworkaholic (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this question, and recieved replies, yesterday on the Helpdesk. Please do not shop around for answers. You have been asked to post your proposed changes on the article talk page and told to read WP:BRD and WP:DR. That is what you need to do. - X201 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thehappyworkaholic has declared on own Talk an on this article Talk a PAID relationship. Someone more experienced than me should decide if that is sufficient to remove the COI template from the article. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The user has been repeatedly asked to post proposed changes on the article talk page, but has not, and instead has edited the article directly, so I have re-added the coi template. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting warned : Page blanking by the creator and only substantive contributor to a page and CSD:G7:

I am writing an artist page and keep getting the warning above. I think I may have accidentally deleted a tag or something, because I am not trying to blank or remove anything, I am just trying to create a page. Here is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nancy_Kelly_(jazz_singer)

I started with an artist template from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artist_biography_article_template and then made modifications

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks.

Jeff Berezin — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBerezin (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JeffBerezin. You absolutely did nothing wrong. What you're seeing is just an edit notice informing your of something that may be helpful to you. Continue your editing and do not bother about it. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffBerezin: for what it's worth, I'm fairly experienced now and edit drafts sometimes as a reviewer at WP:AfC; that edit notice freaks me out every single time. › Mortee talk 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick responses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBerezin (talk • contribs)
Good, @JeffBerezin: and when you post at discussion pages, don't forget to sign your comments by appending for tildes (~~~~) at the end. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it! Thanks.JeffBerezin (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JeffBerezin nicely done. (I too forgot to sign posts early on). Best of luck with Draft:Nancy Kelly (jazz singer) › Mortee talk 20:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editnotice is confusing and not helpful. I have started a discussion requesting that it be changed at Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Draft#message_freaks_out_new_and_experienced_editors_editors --Vexations (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

I was trying to warn a user with Twinkle but when I did that instead of my name it showed Favonian and Drmies' usernames . After that it is fine . Can you say how that happened ? [3] and [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpgjhpjm (talk • contribs)

@Kpgjhpjm:, there is a problem with {{REVISIONUSER}} magic word. Being worked on in T203583. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use Wikipedia in multiple languages. Until recently the language links on the left hand side was a complete list, but apparently it was decided to reduce this to a short list with a box "other" you could click on, revealing the complete list classified by continentMountparnassus (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC). This was annoying but I could live with it.[reply]

But now clicking on the box "others" has no effect whatsoever.

How do I find the same article in other languages now ?

Huh, Firefox does not collapse the list, but I just tried Chrome and I also see that the box does not work. Chris857 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a difference of being logged in vs logged out. In your preferneces Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-languages, uncheck "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you.". However, the button definitely has a problem. Chris857 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission Error.

Yesterday I successfully added an image to a page ....Driving simulator...Today I tried to add another image to the Driving simulator page and this time it was was not inserted because of a Permission Error. Can anyone explain why and what I can do about it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriverSafety (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DriverSafety, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not exactly clear what error you encountered, but it looks like you tried to invoke an image on the page that hadn't yet been fully uploaded to Commons. Once an image is uploaded there, you can put it in the article using e.g. [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|right|caption text|alt=description for those who can't see the image]]. If you keep having problems, please do ask again and be as specific as you can about what you've tried and what errors you've seen. › Mortee talk 17:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are editors allowed to share personal info (such as real names)?

Hi everyone, quick question - A user asked for my full real name on my talk page, I reverted that edit since that was nonsense, but is asking for one's full real name allowed on Wikipedia?

The diff is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IanDBeacon&oldid=858305716

Thanks so much, --IanDBeacon (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IanDBeacon, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know a rule against asking a user for their own name. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information does not mention it. But the post was clearly not about you. The user reverted an edit by you two minutes earlier [5] and mentioned the full name of a source in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PrimeHunter, I was confused, didn't know if he was asking me for my name or not. Thanks so much again. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi IanDBeacon, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia editors are free to reveal as much or as little personal information as they like, and most choose to reveal very little indeed. Any attempt to find out more is distinctly against etiquette, and any attempt to reveal more than an editor has revealed themselves is WP:Outing, and is taken very seriously. The way the other editor phrased their message isn't at all clear, but I think they were trying to ask you about this edit of yours, which they reverted, because part of that change moved the full name "Edward C. O'Dowd" into the |last= field of a {{cite book}}, whereas "Edward" is of course the |first= name. In fact you reverted an IP editor seven times in the same way. You should probably read WP:3RR. › Mortee talk 17:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed read WP:3RR before, Mortee. I was trying to get the IP to stop doing so already before it got out of hand. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I haven't tried to read the full detail, but seven reverts in a row naturally doesn't look great. Anyway, I hope the message you asked about makes sense now. All the best, › Mortee talk 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Article...

How long should I wait after requesting an article be written by another editor, to just write it myself?

If I write it myself, can I then request other editor's help in editing it? If so, how can I do that?

Thanks in advance!

DevinAlmond (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Devin[reply]

Hello, DevinAlmond. There is no particular time that you can expect a Requested article to be picked up: many sit there for months or years. Anybody is welcome to create a new article, but be warned that creating an article is hard, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works and improving existing articles before they launch themselves into it. In any case, please start by reading your first article. I see you have made a declaration of your status as a paid editor, so I assume you have already read COI and WP:PAID. You are not forbidden from writing an article where you have a COI, but it is likely to be harder for you to be suitably neutral, and you can expect your draft to be closely reviewed.
Please note that the sources you mention in your entry at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine/People in medicine do not any of them appear to be a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything said, done, or published, by the subject of an article, or anything said about them by their friends, relatives, or associates, except insofar as those sayings or activities have been written about by people unconnected with the subject. This excludes anything based on an interview or press release.
In order to write an article, you would need to start by finding several places where people who have no connection whatever with Mueller have written about her, in some depth, in reliably published sources. (It would be worth your looking for these anyway, to add them to your RA posting: without them, anybody who considers taking on the article would need to go looking for these themselves). Be sure not to omit sources critical of her, if there are some of these. Then forget absolutely everything you know about her and what she has done, and write an article based only on what these sources say. Afterwards you can add in a small amount uncontroversial factual information (such as places and dates) from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does copyediting need to be reviewed?

As a new editor, an article about a Gujarati book was suggested to me -- Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta. There was a lot in the Synopsis that was unclear, so I hope my edits made things clearer, rather than changing any meanings. Is it important to document what changes I made in an article and why I made them? I see that other editors' comments are cryptic. Do the edits get referred back to an editor knowledgeable on the topic, or to the original writer? What if I have questions about something that isn't clear? There was a word that I had never seen before, Dilectual, and I couldn't deduce whether it was a misspelling of something else. I see that a later editor removed the term. I wondered if I should remove the copyediting alert, but others found a few more items to fix, so perhaps it was best to leave it. I was also surprised about the article itself. It didn't seem to meet the notable standard; but in India, perhaps it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamMusic (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PamMusic. No, copyediting does not need review by anyone. If you have questions about something that's not clear in the page, then you should ask at the page's talk page, in this case Talk:Gujarati Tunki Vartama Pariveshni Karyasadhakta. On your third question, yes, you can remove that notice once you're reasonably sure that the problem is addressed see Help:Maintenance template removal for more information on this. Articles that doesn't meet the requirement for inclusion are deleted daily through several means, you can read Wikipedia:Deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process to learn about that.–Ammarpad (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Removed

Hello, curious as to why edits get removed and what I can do to reinstate the information? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Blake5813 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J.Blake5813 and welcome to the Teahouse.
Most of the time, when an edit is removed, the reason for the removal is given in the edit summary. When there is nothing in the edit summary, you may ask the performer (if it isn't a bot) to explain why the edit was removed. In some cases, usually when it is overwhelmingly obvious that the removed edit was vandalism, the edit summary might be omitted on purpose.
In my experience, aside from vandalism, the most common reason for an edit to be reversed is because it introduced new material without citing a source, followed by unexplained removals of sourced material. When these two things happen, the editor is expected to provide at least some indication about why, but the edit summary may sometimes be brief to the point of being cryptic.
But in looking at your edits, I see that you tried to add people to a list that is supposed to contain "notable" people who meet the criteria for inclusion on the list. The "notable" part means that we expect the person to meet WP's notability standards and have their own article on WP. See WP:LISTBIO for a bit more information. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, J.Blake5813. It appears that you added James Blake and Katherine Blake to List of transgender people back in July. Those listings were removed because neither person has a Wikipedia biography. The other people on that list have biographies. So, you could add those people if you wrote acceptable, well-referenced biographies of them first. There is a possible problem, though. Your username indicates that you may possibly have a conflict of interest regarding these people named Blake. If so, please proceed cautiously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Learning to Edit

Hi,

Is there someone who can walk to through how to edit on Wikipedia? I'm inexperienced at this format, and I learn best by doing.

Thanks!VictoriaConoan (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help on my first edit of a page

Hi,

I'm excited to make my first edit! I'll be adding a new section to Sun Lakes-Dry Falls State Park about Umatilla Rock. I don't have much information on the rock, but it is a major part of the park. I recently hiked the area and I feel it's worthy of inclusion on the page. I also have one photo that I would like to add as the main photo for the section.

So, my questions are...

  1. Does the rock deserve its own section on the page?
  2. All detailed information I gathered about the rock is from Google Maps. This includes location of the rock and its approximate length and width. I couldn't find anything else from the State Parks, or anywhere. Is this ok for a source? As far as the length of the trail, I gathered that from my own GPS app as I hiked it. However, there is a Washington Trails Association entry on the trail, so maybe use that as a source instead (although all entries on that site are still just crowd-sourced by people like myself)?
  3. The entire text only consists of three very small paragraphs. Is this enough for a new section?

Thanks in advance for your help! Where should I upload my prepared text for you to take a look at? The Talk page I'm guessing?

KrakenSeas (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=858432818"