Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

DAB denied

Hello, I created a new page called Prevale (DJ) and wanted to create a DAB page, since there’s a city in Slovenia that appears as the result for the search Prevale. My request was denied, since a DAB page requires at least 3 items.Since he’s a pretty famous Italian dance DJ, people might search for just Prevale, without adding (DJ) and find the Slovenian city.It means bad user experience or disappointment. Why is it 3 items minimum? Or why isn’t the city appearing with the “ Litija“ in the suggestion dropdown, but just as Prevale? Can I do something about it? Thanks in advance. Kodymix (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kodymix. There is a three article minimum because if there are only two articles, you instead link them together by using Template:About at the top of each article. GMG^talk 16:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Thank you so, so, so much! Now I know how to do it! Kodymix (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Small qualification here. There isn't really a three-article minimum for dab pages. When there are two topics, we do the {{About}} thing if one of the articles is considered the "primary topic" and the other is considered secondary, but if there are two topics that are considered roughly equal in priority, then we make a dab page with two topics. Further explanation can be found at WP:TWODABS. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem uploading newly created drawing file

Butterfield's Stage (Celeity) Wagon - this image was entered here as a 'thumbnail'

I recently had no problem creating a 'Butterfield Schedule" file and entering it in "Butterfield Overland Mail." I recently created another commons file for "Butterfield's Stage (Celerity) Wagon," but somehow got the data code in Image and Thumbnail command to upload only the file for the text and not the drawing into "Butterfield Overland Mail." I would like to delete my recent entry into commons for Butterfield's Stage (Celerity) Wagon and start over. When I complete it, which do I copy and past on the Butterfield Overland Mail site, the "Image" or the "Thumbnail?" Thank you. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

@Gerald T. Ahnert: I've just spotted that this question of two days ago has gone unanswered. Sorry about that. The image you uploaded looks ok to me. You insert it into an article as a 'thumbnail', and you get the text for that by clicking the "W - use this file" link.

If you got the text wrong when you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, you can change it by clicking the 'edit source' tab. If you uploaded the wrong image version, you can upload a new version using the link lower down on the page, in the section headed 'File History'.

Please note that if you add images to Commons, just as here when creating a new article, it really helps everyone to add it to a category. As one exists for the Butterfield Overland Mail Company on Commons already, I have just added it to the two files you uploaded. See C:Category:Butterfield Overland Mail Company.

I note that your other upload has been nominated for deletion and that you added Cullen328's comments here to that discussion page. Whilst we have no influence over the pedants good people over at Commons, who really know and are rigorous in implementing the stuff on copyright to the letter, I do admit to being a little surprised at this deletion proposal. It may have been that the image itself was out of copyright, but that it has been challenged because you declared it to have been copied from a recent publication which itself was copyrighted. I didn't actually think that mattered if the original material from 1858 was out of copyright, but I'll watch and learn from how it is dealt with. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nick: Thank you for taking the time to help out with suggestions for the dilemma concerning the possible deletion of the Time Schedule. A coincidence may solve the problem. I have written many articles and reports concerning Butterfield's Overland Mail Company and was requested by the California Department of Parks and Recreation to contribute articles on the subject to their site. I have written two articles about Butterfield for them. About an hour ago I was on their site to see if there might be more information to contribute. I was looking at what they have for Butterfield's Overland Mail Company and lo and behold I came across an article on their site about that same exact time schedule. They show a copy of it and even have "View and Download Overland Mail Company Timetable" for the general public. I just sent this info to the Commons and hope this will solve the problem by using the California Park Service site. Probably all I will have to do is change the reference. Here it is if you would like to give a look: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25066 Thanks again for going out of your way to help. It seems I have a long learning cycle to complete but I will eventually get there. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

@Ahnert glad to hear you found another source, by the sound of it your first source may have lifted the table from the government page. not illegal but shady not to give credit and creates problems for anyone trying to give proper credit

@Nick You are right that "out of copyright" material republished cannot claim new copyright but there is a hook to that especially evident in images ... if i publish a map from 1858 for instance having drawn an arrow pointing to something upon it. that image becomes a new unique thing and thus copyrightable. so i can understand pedants good people being squeamish about the use of out of copyright from an in copyright source. Hopefully the publication credited source of item (so it could be acquired directly) or a library search might find that or another copy, again, allowing for a cleaner acquisition. --Qazwiz (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Abanindra Maitra

The Editor Wikipedia Dear Sir, Please let me know why the draft Abanindra Maitra is not enlisted as an article for Wikipedia. I do not know much about the rules of Wikipedia.Kindly help me. Thanking you. Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nilima sen. Welcome to our friendly Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks for any new editor to perform, and I waited some time before I dared try. It would probably have been easier for you to have started out by making small edits and improvements to other articles before rushing to make one of your own. As a result, Draft:Abanindra Maitra has been rejected multiple times, and the explanations have been left on that page for you. Those explanations contain hyperlinks to important pages you should at the very least 'skim read' through. Before you even do that, why not try The Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive tour to help you proactively understand how things work here. Then have a read of Wikipedia: Your First Aticle. I don't mean to be rude, but if you look at live encyclopaedia pages here and compare them to your draft, you'll notice what a mess yours currently is. There are no proper references laid out, not much sign of this person meeting our Notability criteria, or  the notability criteria for musicians either. Notability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. if other independent people haven't written about a subject, there is simply is no place for an articles here, even if the person has a fancy website and lots of follows on social media. This encyclopaedia reflects what society observes is important, not what one person or another just happens to think is worthwhile. If you can work on your draft to show that, and then work on laying out the content like other pages, you might stand a far better chance.  Does this help? Regards from the UK? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Mr Nick Moyes Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply.I went through the Wikipedia Adventure, Wikipedia first article. It will take some time to prepare the draft Abanindra Maitra. Thanking you. Nilima Sen. 20.10.2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nilima sen: You're very welcome. Don't forget next time you post on a talk page to add your signature. This is very easily done by typing four keyboard tilde charcaters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end. Your name and timestamp then get added automatically. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thanks for the reply. Nilima Sen.(Nilima sen (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC))

Updating a page name: case change won't update - can anyone provide any insights?

Hi there,

I'm trying to update the page name of a company that changed the casing of its name.

The page in question is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_Point_Ltd%2E

The company originally wrote its name as "POD Point" but recently updated it to be written as "Pod Point".

I tried moving the page to the new version of the name, but it did not work, I suspect because it's only a case change vs. a spelling change.

My next idea was to try changing to a more formal variation of the company's name "Pod Point Ltd.", then change back again to "Pod Point".

Unfortunately this has not worked; I am now unable to change "Pod Point Ltd." to either "Pod Point" or revert back to "POD Point".

Could anyone advise on the best way to achieve the goal of updating the page name to "Pod Point"?

Thanks,

LightningTen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note, the article is Pod Point Ltd., with redirections from Pod Point and POD Point. --CiaPan (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lightningten, welcome to the Teahouse. An administrator is usually required to move over an existing redirect. I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Lightningten, case change renames are allowed; the issue here is that there was already a page at that title; for those issues one can request the move be done at WP:RMTR Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Galobtter Thank you both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningten (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing Problem/Dispute

Hello,

I am new to editing on Wikipedia, please keep in mind that as an novice contributor I am not familiar with all rules an terms on the Wiki. I recently edited a Wikipedia Stub article. In the article that I contributed to I may have initially included some POV terms although it was still factual and necessary information. A user undid all of what I wrote even the the pure cited information totally returning the article to the condition that it was previously, he also removed a copyrighted photo. I understood my mistakes so I re-wrote what I had previously written, I ensured that every sentence of factual information was properly cited, I included only necessary information and facts, I divided the page neatly into subdivisions, I ensured there was no copyright material, and finally I updated the article. The user then proceeded to undo EVERYTHING that I had written multiple times without providing me any legitimate reason. I kept undoing what he kept destroying that I had written and I also provided him with a level 2 warning for removal of content without adequate explanation. The user persisted to undo what I had written and warned me with a ban, at this point I had honestly lost hope and was shocked. I am reaching out for help as I have no clue what to do in this situation and I encourage you to read the final version of the article that I had updated which he undid, it really was properly cited, unbiased, and well written and MOST importantly it grew on an article which was a stub as I provided lots of history and updated information. Please direct me and advise me in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMinuteman (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You added content. Another editor disagreed with your addition and removed it. Your next step would be to discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page. The other editor asked you to do so and provided a link to the relevant information, which is here. Since it seems like you read the edit summary where the other editor informed you that edit warring (what you refer to as "I kept undoing") will lead to a block, you will also have seen that link already - take a moment to follow it and read the information there, and use the article's talk page, here to discuss your proposed additions. The other editor has helped you out by already starting a discussion there, explaining why your edits were inappropriate. Where did you warn the other editor, btw? There is no such edit in your history. --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Five of your proposed references are to the Sine Kerr campaign website. Six are to her Arizona State Legislature Senate Member Profile, which is very likely information she provided. What a person or a person's organization says about themselves are not valid citation sources. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This editor was new, and didn't understand that I had left a message on the talk page. They are now engaging in a discussion there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Are artists' exhibits notable?

I need advice concerning the criteria for a visual artist and notability. Since most artists do not make monuments would exhibits qualify? Are the criteria similar to those for academic review? Thank you for your assistance. Frederick Lurmlinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick Lurmlinger (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Made this its own question, as appeared that the submitter had in error added it to WikiMinuteman Q&A. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Frederick Lurmlinger. The general criteria for notability are given here: the main question is, have several people who have no connection with the subject chosen to write about it in some depth, and been published in a reliable place. Your question "would exhibits qualify" has no answer. "Is this particular exhibition or work notable?" would have an answer - usually either "Yes, here are some references" or "No, we cannot find any suitable sources". (Of course there are often grey areas - e.g. Is this source reliable? Is this source independent of the subject?). Note that notability is not inherited. The artist may be notable but the work not, or vice versa. Or both may be, and two sparte articles will be justified. But each case must be argued on its own merits. --ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Need guidance, please: By the Wikipedia definition of "notable", should we consider Jacob Mącznik "notable?"

Yes, I have -- have -- read the guidance on "notable" by Wikipedia. There remains substantial ambiguity, however. So, I would be grateful for your guidance, please!

Here are the background facts . . . .

This guy was an artist, painting as a widely acknowledged member of the École de Paris (so-called "Paris School of Art"). He was born in Poland in late 1905, arrived in Paris newly wed in 1928, was arrested in 1943 and murdered in 1945 (when he was 39) by the Reich in the Ebensee division of the Mauthausen murder and slave-labor camp (in Austria).

He gets six full pages of entry in the classic book on Jewish artists murdered by the Nazis, Undzere Farpainikte Kinstler [Our Tortured/Tormented Artists), authored and published by Hersh Fenster, printed by Imprimerie Abècé, Paris, 1951 (which is in Yiddish). This is a large format book; pages are 9" x 12" (31 cm x 24 cm). There is no better text, and no book with a deeper dive on the included artists, than this, written by perhaps the foremost contemporary critic, writing in French, in Polish and in Yiddish. The vast majority of the artists, if not all, covered in the book were working in France in the 1930s. There are some pictures included, but the vast majority of the entry is text.

There is a current French Wikipedia page for Mącznik: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Macznik This French page does not also exist in the English language Wikipedia. Plus, I have considerably more data on the artist than exists at the French page, as well as ample citations to provide. I might have proposed to amplify the French page, but I do not speak French. (I do speak German, Yiddish and English.)

His paintings are currently in museums in Paris, Israel and New York. While alive, he had several exhibitions in Paris in the 1930s (and before that in Warsaw). Below you will read about a couple that included his works far more recently.

He gets six full pages of entry in the Italian book, Montparnasse Déporté: Artisti Europei da Parigi al Lager [Montparnasse Deported: European Arists from Paris to Camp (death camp)], published under the auspices of the Musée du Montparnasse, the City of Turin, the Region of Piedmont and the Jewish Community of Turin; published by Elede editrice, 2007. I acknowledge that in this book, five of the six pages are large images of the artist's paintings. The book is a documentation of a then-recent exhibition of paintings of Montparnasse artists, including those five by Mącznik, that toured Paris and Turin with highly positive reviews (see http://www.teknemedia.net/print.html?newsId=19732 , and http://1995-2015.undo.net/it/mostra/46902 ).

He gets two full pages of entry in the French book, Peintres Juifs À Paris: École de Paris, by Nadine Nieszawer et al, Éditions Denoël, Paris, 2000.

He gets two pages in the book, Spiritual Resistance: Art from Concentration Camps, 1940-1945, about an exhibition in New York in 1978. The book was published 1981. One full page is a drawing by Mącznik.

He gets one full page of entry in a special edition (edition #4, February 1960) of Publication de L'Association des Artistes, Peintres et Sculpteurs Juifs de France (Publication of the Association of Jewish Artists, Painters, and Sculptors of France), called Nos Artistes: Morts Victimes du Nazisme (Our Artists: Dead Victims of Nazism)(in French).

He gets one-half page of entry in Artistes Juifs de l"École de Paris: 1905-1939, by Nadine Nieszawer and several others (all with the family name Princ), published by Somogy Éditions d'Art, Paris, 2015.

He gets a paragraph or so in multiple other publications.

No one has ever written a book solely on the topic of Mącznik, likely simply because he died so young, as did so many others of that era.

Here is a link to the entry for him at the Museum of Jewish Art and History, in Paris: https://www.mahj.org/en/decouvrir-collections-betsalel/jacob-macznik-55198

Most of his work was not Jewish art, but rather European art, and mostly French in nature. Some was indeed of Jewish themes (as was the case with Chagall, for instance). A folio of Mącznik's drawings of synagogues (mostly done prior to their destruction) exists (just two exist, to my knowledge, one at the Jewish Museum in New York, and the other in private hands in Boston (and I have seen it there)). It was issued in somewhat book format. The first part was typical book, but it was published so as to include a pocket of multiple, large drawings toward the back, all originals done multiple times by Mącznik, once for each such folio. The preface was contributed by Anatole de Monzie, a truly major figure in France at the time, who by then had been Finance Minister of France, Minister of Education and Fine Arts, Minister of Education, and Minister of Public Works.

---

So, what do you folks think? Does Mącznik rise to the level of consideration as "notable" by Wikipedia standards, or does he not?

---

Thank you very much for your help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moncznik (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Moncznik. Before I address your question, can I please remind you to sign your posts on pages like this (but not posts in actual article text) with four tildes (i.e ~ repeated four times) so that the system automatically adds your user signature and the time & date)? It helps everyone to keep track of the conversations.

As to Jacob Mącznik's notability: as you may already have gathered from reading WP:Notable and related materials, this rests largely on how well documented he is in published reliable sources that are independent of himself or his direct associates. To support notability, such material needs to extend over at least a couple of paragraphs in two or more of the sources concerned (rather than passing mentions or inclusions in lists), but it seems likely to me that most of the sources you describe above would amply meet and indeed exceed all the criteria.

Note that such sources do not have to be in English, although English-language sources are preferred when available largely because more editors on this English-language Wikipedia will be able to assess them.

Articles in non-English Wikipedias cannot themselves be used as sources for corroborating notability (just like other articles in this Wikipedia, because Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source), but the sources used by such articles may themselves be useful.

Remember also that a source which is insufficient to support the notability of the subject may nevertheless be used as a citation for one or several facts about him. Hope this helps; doubtless others may wish to comment further. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.125 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on article?

Hello experienced teahouse editors, I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I just now created an article for the popular pie 'Turtle Pie'. If any editors have some thoughts, comments, or constructive criticism it would be much appreciated.

Turtle pie

Thanks in advance, --Wyatt850 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wyatt850 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a look at your Turtle Pie article and found that it lacked the sort of references needed to establish notability. The sources seem to be a blog and some sales sites for the product. I expect that it might be possible to show that turtle pie is a notable dessert, but we would want to see more authoritative sources regarding its origins and history. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the templates that jmcgnh added to the article, and would expect it to be swiftly nominated for deletion if better references cannot be found. What is needed is articles about the origin of Turtle pie, not recipes! See Pumpkin pie, Pecan pie, Key lime pie and others for examples. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing Tables/Templates

Hi there, I've been trying to add new nominations to an artists list of awards. I cannot figure out how to add a row and place the new noms. I also don't understand how to color a box in a table. For example "Wins" are green and "Nominations" are red. If you can give me some step by step help as a new user it would be wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukeaanthony (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Lukeaanthony. Welcome to the Teahouse. For a brand new editor like yourself, editing tables is likely to be quite a challenge. (it took me ages to understand the basics!) The easy way around it is to post what information you want changing on the articles talk page (along with a reference to support it, of course) and hope that it will be acted upon by another editor. That said, you can find a lot of detailed help on tables at Help:Tables, and links to related pages. I would always advise either testing a brand new table (or copying an existing one that you wish to edit) into your sandbox and experimenting with it there first. We do have some things we call 'templates' which help you do certain tasks or make certain changes more easily. In this case, we have {{Table cell templates}}, though that page might looks pretty scary to you, too. You might probably find this introductory page to Table the simplest place to start. I'm sorry I haven't given you a nice and simple answer to your question, but I hope you might find this a useful start. If you're still stuck, do come back, but remember to link to the page and clarify which table you want to change, and please sign every talk page post with four keyboard tilde characters (like this:~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lukeaanthony. I see you use VisualEditor. Most table help is for the source editor and some things are not possible to do in VisualEditor. See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Opening VisualEditor for a way to switch editor. In the source editor you can often copy and adapt existing code. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions - Created My First Article Draft

Hi there, I've started my first draft on Wikipedia. I tried to get more comfortable with editing first in general, but now I have attempted to create a draft for an article. Anyways, I have two questions:

1. One of my sources is the film/film cover itself that the article is covering. While I have referenced other sources to verify most of the information within the article, I should probably cite the film/film cover if possible. I wrote more about that issue on the draft's talk page. 2. It's currently a draft. While I have no issues with the process itself, how should I submit it for article review? Is it ready for submission or does someone here have a suggestion on something I should attempt to do before I submit it?

Clovermoss (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Clovermoss. Your draft has serious problems with its sources. The Barnes & Noble website sells the DVD so is not an independent source. The other references are to IMDb which is not generally considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. Please read Citing IMDb. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. You need to add better sources. The draft in question is Draft:Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom (DVD). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response! I'll look into your link and try to find better sources. Is there any way to cite the cover of the DVD itself, or would I be better off trying to find a better source anyways because it would be a primary one? Clovermoss (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Also, just to clarify - citing IMDb and Barnes and Noble were my attempts at trying to verify the information I got from the primary source (the DVD film/film cover that I was unsure of how to cite, if at all). It probably be a good idea to find better sources anyways, though. Clovermoss (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your most important task at this point is to establish that this DVD is notable, and that requires references to significant coverage of the DVD in reliable, independent sources. Only after you accomplish that goal should you give any thought to citing primary sources, Clovermoss. It is easy to clean up an article about a clearly notable topic. It is impossible to create an acceptable article about a topic that is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OK! Thank you! I'll try to work on the notability issue, because (at least) my current understanding is that unless an article is notable, it isn't an article, correct?

Also... I have another question that's unrelated to this draft and I'd appreciate some input on that too, if possible. I've been editing off and on the past month, and yesterday one of my edits were reverted. I didn't have a problem with the reversion itself, but I was kind of confused about why it was reverted. I left a message at the talk page of the user that reverted my edit yesterday, but so far I haven't received a response. Do you have any suggestions on what I did wrong and might have been a "productive" edit in that case? Clovermoss (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess that you are asking about these edits, Clovermoss. I am by no means knowledgeable about the Marvel Universe and have little interest in it. But your edit is unreferenced and may possibly be introducing your own personal interpretation. Please read No original research which is a core content policy. I do not know why the other editor did not respond sooner but I have been off Wikipedia most of the day because I was attending my granddaughter's first birthday, a trip that involved 200 miles of driving. Please remember that we are all volunteers and have other things going on in our lives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I realize that people have lives outside of Wikipedia, I didn't mean to be rude or anything. Thank you for adding your input, I really do appreciate it. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I have done some research on the notability of the subject I drafted an article on. My conclusion is that the subject of my draft is not notable enough for its own article. I think this because even though Dora The Explorer is a notable topic, this specific DVD set is not notable enough for its own standalone article. Also, there are several other DVD sets like this one that I were able to find mentioned in a list on Wikipedia, but that list article seemed to have sourcing and notability issues itself, suggesting that an article on one of the list would also likely have notability and sourcing issues. Also, nothing about Dora Saves The Crystal Kingdom stands out that much from every other DVD set on that list. I can't find any sales figures, but it's unlikely that it sold more than any other Dora The Explorer DVD set. It wasn't the start of some successful project or spinoff. The only potential aspect of notability would be a video game that adapts its premise from it... but it doesn't seem like that decision was made because the DVD was popular, and if it was I am unable to reference and cite a trustworthy source for that information. So... what should I do? My understanding is that articles that aren't notable enough to be articles would be deleted, correct? So do I label that somehow? Should I transfer this information to the talk page of the draft page if it's just going to get deleted? Clovermoss (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the content could be transferred to a list article, but when you are finished with the draft, tag it for deletion according to the instructions at WP:G7, Clovermoss. An administrator will delete it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I really do appreciate all the help. I've been going through that community portal thing and trying to learn more of the policies and stuff, but there's a lot to go through and I appreciate the effort that goes into answering all of my questions. Clovermoss (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I've added the template, and I think I did it correctly. Am I supposed to submit it for the article review process or just leave it like that? Also, I've tried to summarize some of the stuff about decisions and whatnot on the draft's talkpage... I wasn't sure if it would be helpful or not but I wanted to be safe instead of sorry. If you have any feedback on that or anything else, please let me know. I'm trying to do all of this as correctly as I can. I did mention you briefly on the draft's talk page (that you brought up the issue of notability). Is that a good or bad thing? Is it something I should avoid? I'm sorry for all the questions, by the way. Thank you for volunteering your time to try and help me. Clovermoss (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You have tagged the draft properly, Clovermoss. I will leave it to another uninvolved administrator to delete it, since I have already expressed my opinions about it. Your comments on the draft talk page were fine, but not really necessary in this case. Deletion is the pretty straightforward outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Clovermoss. If you want to have the draft deleted, then adding {{db-g7}} will accomplish that and you don't really need to do anything else. An administrator will eventually get to it. I don't think there was anything wrong with your talk page posts, but the talk page will be deleted as well when the article is deleted per WP:G8 unless there's some specific reason for keeping it that benefits Wikipedia and might be helpful to have for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both Marchjuly and Cullen328. Also, future reference, how should I determine when I should write on a draft/article's talk page? Again, thank you for all of your help. Clovermoss (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no right or wrong time so to speak, but it rather depends upon what you're posting. As long as you not treating the talk page as sort of an online forum for general discussion about the subject matter but are instead discussing ways to improve the article/draft in a Wikipedia sense, posting should be fine. For example, if you want to talk about ways to improve the page of a actor or explain the reasoning behind an edit you made to the article, then that's OK for the talk page. However, if you want to talk about how great or how bad the actor was in particular role or how great or horrible person they are in real life, then that's not really OK. You can find out more about talk pages at H:TALK.

FWIW, I think what Cullen328 meant by "not necessary" was that since you were the creator and only major contributor to the draft, tagging it with "db-g7" bascially assures that it will be deleted. If, however, another editor came a long annd felt that there was still hope for it someday becoming an article, then they could' use the draft's talk page to explain there reasons why along with their desire to continue working on it.-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

China

The Chinese Wikipedia seems to be working from my location without VPN? Can any one confirm this? has there been any recent change which could explain this? It was being blocked for some time. Edaham (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Edaham. I'm Rebestalic.

I'm not a host here, but I would like to remind you that this is the English Wikipedia; questions about the Chinese Wikipedia aren't really relevant. By the way, I think that you sound a little like you want to vandalize; vandalism is not welcome in any language of Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Rebestalic (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: What makes you think this user wants to vandalize? Have you viewed their user page? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that the front page when typing Wikipedia.org defaults to search the cn version by default. This gives Chinese people who don’t check the language option before they search that Wikipedia is inaccessible in China. I have long thought that the default option for Chinese browsers in the PRC should be English, therefore giving Chinese people a chance of retrieving anything at all. After having given one or two lectures in China regarding En Wikipedia use, I’ve discovered that at least 50 percent of people are under the impression that it’s totally blocked. I have been telling these people that only the Chinese version is blocked. Am I now wrong in thus explaining. @Rebestalic:... not sure where to begin with that. I’m a relatively experienced user and therefore won’t take offense, but this is the teahouse. There’s lots of new and potentially fragile users asking questions here. You need to exercise exemplary understanding, assume good faith and act constructively whatever the editors level of experience might be. In summary: just no. Edaham (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize.

Rebestalic (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

How to get my father credited with his artwork : File:Les Girls.jpg

My father, John Fernie, was an artist and many of his items show up on Wikipedia without any mention of the fact that it is his work. We don't want any renumeration we would just like to have him credited.

Please see File: Les Girls.jpg for an example. His info is here: www.johnfernie.com

I would love to have a page created for him... can I hire anyone to make the submission?

Thanking you in advance for any help.

Bruce Fernie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.163.32 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at File:Les Girls.jpg. The information about that file indicates that the copyright is probably owned by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and the picture is considered usable on Wikipedia under "fair use" principles. It seems likely that your father signed over his copyright rights to MGM. I don't think there is any article on Wikipedia that discusses the picture itself, so there is no obvious place to put a discussion about who created the poster. Regarding your suggestion to hire someone to create an article about him – please know that paid editing of Wikipedia is rather discouraged. There are some guidelines and policies about that. Even the idea of unpaid editing about topics that someone is very closely associated with at the personal level is a very tricky one. I suggest starting by looking at WP:COI and WP:Paid editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bruce, any author who chooses to write a biography will need references to secondary sources about the subject.... see WP:CITE and WP:N. You could add those sources to your web site.... then you could request an article be written; see WP:RA. If you choose to edit Wikipedia yourself; I suggest you register a user name and use it exclusively - put a WP:COI declaration on your user page if needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Just going to add that it might be possible to add your father's name to file information for "Les Girls" file by adding the parameter |Graphic Artist= to the {{Non-free use rationale poster}} template being used for the file's non-free use rationale so that it appears on the file's page, but I don't think there's much more than that which can be done unless you can clearly provide a reliable source which is independent of your father or anyone/anything connected to him which can be used to verify that he created the poster art for the movie or which discusses his involvement in the process for creating the poster for the movie. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I just added that. After a bit of web searching, I also found a substantial amount of other very nice artwork by Mr. Fernie – most of it posted by his son – e.g., at http://www.johnfernie.com/, https://www.facebook.com/John-A-Fernie-Artist-184134758285335/, and https://eu.art.com/gallery/id--a229894/john-fernie-prints.htm. Unfortunately, I did not find any of what is known on Wikipedia as WP:Reliable sources that discuss him. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles

On average how long do articles take to be reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo956 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if there is hard and fast data out there, but if you are simply going through the New Pages process, the current backlog (with a few exceptions), goes back to the end of August. If you are going through the articles for creation process, the wait is slightly longer, as the oldest (with a few exceptions), date from mid-July. That being said, sometimes articles can be reviewed quite quickly, especially if there are no issues with them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a template for "more detail needed"

I am frustrated by an article which states:

In November 2014 the CCG invited the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to conduct a review a review of maternity services in Cumbria and the Morecambe Bay area.

Which really begs the question: "and what were the findings/recommendations of this review?" Is there a template to address this? The original editor might be able to find this information more easily than me.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi ThoughtIdRetired Not sure if there's a specific template for something such as that. Perhaps {{Explain}} might work? You can also try asking for help on the article's talk page or at one of the WikiProjects listed at the article's talk page. The cited source is from 2014, so any review probably would be finished by now (if one was even performed). Perhaps there's something about the outcome of the review published in the same newspaper. I tired searching "Maternity Services Review" on the paper's website and got some hits here that go back to around the same time period; so, maybe there's a follow up article buried somewhere in the paper's online archives. The other alternative might be to remove the sentence altogether if the results of the review cannot be found by anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - it's a big subject. The review was completed and is a substantial read. I was hoping to prod the original editor to do some of the work - especially since there are many developments since. Much of my information comes from attending meetings that are open to the public, so someone who gets information from published sources would find it less onerous to edit this article (in that they know where to find citable sources). It looks like the talk page is the best route.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikipedia?

Other websites are starting to creep forward and if wiki doesn't take action we will no longer be the best website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePersonWithNoUsername (talk • contribs) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your seventh edit since creating a Wikipedia account earlier today and you want to phrase that as 'we'? On a more general note, Teahouse more of a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello ThePersonWithNoUsername and welcome to the Teahouse.

If you're concerned about what you may consider the stodgy appearance of the Wikipedia website, there are other websites or even browser plugins that take Wikipedia's content and reformat it into styles that may be more appealing to other readers. I'm an advocate for separating content from presentation. Having hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors experimenting with different presentation styles seems to me to be a good thing (if only the search engines were a little better at recognizing the common origin). Will we be able to agree on one best presentation style? I doubt it. But such agreement is not required. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's one such example:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Khmer New Year

Why the article Khmer New Year Can't proposed the caption a bout my cultures Khmer New Year Kh.wikipedia translate to official English ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknow7 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Made this its own question, as it seemed unrelated to the improve Wikipedia question. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor who asked this question appears to be yet another sock of user:Phnom Penh Skyline, who has been blocked, and created several other socks in an effort to put original research into the encyclopedia. An SPI has been opened. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites as sources?

Hello experienced Wikipedia editors, I have recently been working on an article for a popular dessert 'Turtle pie.' I have received help from a couple other editors, but I have another question: Is it ever acceptable to use corporate websites?

I'm not really getting 'information' from them, I just put them there to SHOW that they sell this product. I said in the article 'The pie gained popularity when frozen food brands such as Marie Calendar's and Edward's started selling frozen, pre-made turtle pies.' I included sources to the pages here and here. Onece again, I'm not getting any information from them, just using it as a way to show they sell the product.

Thanks, --Wyatt850 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Wyatt850 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

Sites whose primary purpose is to sell a product are generally avoided as references. The general guidance for this is at WP:REFSPAM. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wyatt850, the claim is that the pies gained popularity when those companies started selling them. Referencing the company pages might show that they do sell them, but it proves nothing about their popularity increasing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Took out the "gained popularity." Article still needs references to published content about what turtle pies are. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wyatt850. I will answer the question in your section heading. Corporate websites can be used for mundane uncontroversial corporate facts, once the notability of the corporation is established by references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Examples where corporate websites would be acceptable sources are the name of the current CEO and the city where the corporation is headquartered. But a corporate website is worthless for establishing the notability of a product like a pie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia

Free tea to all who love Wikipedia - relax and enjoy

Is it okay to find out information from other websites to put into articles. World of Cyclones (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey World of Cyclones. That largely depends on what what types of information you're trying to include and where you're getting it from. Some website may be useful for some types of information, while other website may not. Maybe if you could be more specific we could be more helpful. GMG^talk 17:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't u provide a cup of tea here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anvi Singh (talk • contribs) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@World of Cyclones: It's always worth stopping for a cuppa and pondering over how reliable any website actually is before you cite it as a source to support statements you add. Is there any editorial control (as there would normally be in a news website)? Or is content able to be posted by any person (like IMdB or even here on Wikipedia, for example!)? Is it someone's personal blog, or perhaps a corporate website or personality trying to promote themselves? Is it a museum, university or government website where content is liable to be rigorously checked first? Is the website directly connected with the subject under discussion, or is it totally independent and seemingly reliable? These can be quite difficult to assess sometimes. There are two pages I would like to give you links to. These are: a) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and b) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (for discussing issues around particular sources). Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I have releated article but someone removed my article url

I have added a link of my website article which has the same topic article but mean as custard just removed that article link without reading any of my article and its frustrating. If I'm unable to add related topic URL and also i have added one line that their types of system software but still mean as custard removed my all edits. I can't even add little bit information. if possible solve it or else I have to use another alternative of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvmajumder (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Shuvmajumder. Mean as custard put a message on your user talk page explaining why they removed the link, including wikilinks to the pages which discuss the policy on external links in articles. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by one user's opinion on what should be in there. You were entitled to add the link, if you thought that this improved Wikipedia; but Mean as custard was entitled to revert your addition if they thought it was not an improvement. Your next action (according to the recommendations in WP:BOLD) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and try to reach an consensus with Mean as custard and any other editors who join in. Reapplying your edit, as you did, is called edit warring, and is not allowed, irrespective of the merits of your edit.

I agree with Mean as custard that the article you linked to does not meet any of the criteria in WP:EL, and so would not support reinstating the link. But if you think it should be in, it is up to you to convince us, in a discussion on a talk page, that it does meet the policy on external links, and is an improvement to the Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shuvmajumder: I, too, would agree with Mean as custard and ColinFine that the article link you added to the page called Offshore custom software development was really not good enough for use on Wikipedia (though it was not, as Colin suggests, added as an external link, but as a reference to actually support the article in its lead sentence. You say that you wrote the blog post yourself, and certainly its date of publication yesterday coincides with the creation of your user account here. We do require users not to add personal blog posts to Wikipedia, but to cite only what we call "reliable sources" (i.e. those written by authoritative websites, media sources, or in published books or journals for example).

I also have to admit to being bemused by the article, as I can find nothing online to suggest that this is actually a separate topic that is notable enough in its own right to be appropriate for Wikipedia. (rather in the sense that 'foreign travel' would seem an unlikely topic for an encyclopaedia, even though we know it exists - someone will probably now shoot me down on that, of course!) Perhaps if you could focus on adding one or more such reliable source to demonstrate that the topic title actually exists in its own right, and is separate from the equally weirdly-named Offshore software R&D that might stave off my feeling that it should be removed from this encyclopaedia, or at least be turned into a redirect, especially bearing in mind that we also have two other pages, one of which is a redirect from IT Outsourcing and another completely different page being a redirect from IT outsourcing. It all seems rather a mess of topic-promotion to me which only serves to confuse the reader. At least, it does me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominating an article for assessment

Hello, Rebestalic here.

The quality of the article "Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft" is currently ranked as "unknown". I would like to know what class it is. Do I need to nominate the article for assessment, or do I do something else?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Convenience link: Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft John from Idegon (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rebestalic, except for GA and FA classification, which have formal review processes, anyone can review an article. However, reviewing standards are set by the WikiProjects that follow the article, and this article has not been assigned to any projects. And I'm clueless as to what project would be appropriate. Not the most helpful answer I suppose, but it does give you a starting point (finding the appropriate project). John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Mummy Juanita

There is a copyvio in this article. Copyvio from https://allthatsinteresting.com/mummy-juanita-lady-of-ampato and a bunch of other websites...Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Article dates to 2004, with a large part being an early-done translation from Spanish Wikipedia. When did copyright get into article, and is there not enough non-copyright to salvage it? David notMD (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Earwigs Copyvio. Huge Violation. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible that the All That Is Interesting site (dated 2017) copied FROM Wikipedia? I have had that happen to articles I have worked on. David notMD (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This Website too Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

You may have been too hasty in nominating this page for deletion. I agree, this does not seem like a copyright violation by a Wikipedia editor. Instead it is a violation by the All That Is Interesting site to have copied WP material without attribution. When you find reverse copies like this, it sometimes makes sense to leave a note on the talk page to advise other editors of the copy direction. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Should I untag the page then? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: (edit conflict)Yes, but the second website article you linked to above was a wordpress blog posted in 19 July 2013. The copyvios you've flagged up appear to have already been in the article way, way before that. I'd suggest you remove your CSD template and reconsider it further. You can always add it back in again if you feel you were right. (You might also like to read the single comment on that page left by a blog reader, which is quite enlightening) It is a common trap to fall in to, and it's happened to me. On one particularly embarrassing occasion here at the Teahouse I accused a new user of blatant copyright infringement. I was totally in the wrong and had to apologise profusely! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't read the blog.... The pictures scare me and give me nightmares. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL! There must be a lesson there somewhere...don't edit things that give you bad dreams, maybe? Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added a {{Backwards copy}} template to the talk page of the article including the two links that Thegooduser found and mentioned here. It's still possible that there is yet some older source that our article and these other websites have copied from. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please help

How do you get written articles on the knowledge panel?? AkwesiSark (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi AkwesiSark, welcome to the Teahouse. If you refer to Google's Knowledge Graph then it's controlled by Google and their algorithms are often secret. See also Template:HD/GKG, a stock answer to people who report errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Needs Sources Help

Thank you so much for reviewing my wikipedia article! I saw that there was a comment regarding to my lack of resource and I would love to get help with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatarHD123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources (not "Resources") means that the draft, which was declined, had no citations/references that provided the information. Secondly, the reviewer doubted that the subject meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Also, the article appears to be autobiographical, which is frowned against. Wikipedia is not a social media site where people can create their own profiles. Rather, it is an encyclopedia where the topics all have multiple articles already published about them. David notMD (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the position on making excessive minor edits and no Edit summary?

Such as when a History page is backlogged with a tedious amount of minor edits, and which leave no edit summary, making it extremely difficult to compare or verify edits. This could easily be abused to slip in incorrect statements or vandalism, or remove details that may have been important.

I've noticed certain users tend to have a pattern for this editing style. I cannot figure out why they won't just use the Show Preview button and then Publish once they have a substantial amount of content, instead of adding or subtracting a few words at a time and doing it over and over to the point where the History page is completely flooded. It's very frustrating because after a certain threshold, verification becomes near impossible without putting in tedious amount of effort just to compare changes. DA1 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DA1. I think it might be possible to use WP:BLAME to find who made a particular change to an article, but I've never used it myself so I'm not quite sure if it would be helpful in this case.

As for a policy regarding a tedious amount of minor edits, I think that might be WP:DE; however, whether this is "disruptive" probably depending upon who you ask. In addition, although an edit summary is helpful and editors are encouraged to use them, it's not necessarily required per policy (at least I'm not aware of it being required).

If another editor is inappropriately marking their edits as minor when they shouldn't per WP:MINOR then you could politely ask them to not to do so either by posting {{uw-minor}} or a more personal message on their user talk; there might be something they set by mistake which marks all of their edits as minor, or they might not realize the differences in a Wikipedia sense. If they don't respond and continue on as before, then you can try to get an admin to help you at WP:ANI. Though blocking someone for this if their edits are otherwise policy compliant might be seen as a bit extreme. While I can see these types of edits can be annoying and it can be a pain to try and find the one bad edit in a bunch of other good edits, I don't think it's would be a good idea to try eliminate these types of "small" edits as long as they comply with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: By "minor" I meant it in the literal sense, not the "mark" that is used to indicate such. Some users flood the history page with tiny edits instead of using Show preview, and it becomes impossible to navigate or compare edits, especially when they leave no ES to go off of.

I've used that Blame function, I think from experience my results are mixed. Sometimes things come up, sometimes they don't. But that's not really my issue. When you're dealing with a situation where the entire article is being presumably reworked (by a single user), looking up a word or phrase from memory and seeing who added or removed it isn't useful, what's useful is seeing what's been changed that I don't know or can't see from memory. DA1 (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@DA1: You should be able to use the selection buttons on the page history to compare a whole group of the other editor's changes as one. That way, you don't necessarily have to examine the edits individually to decide if you agree with their cumulative effect. I agree that this sort of letter-by-letter editing can be frustrating to look at, but at least the edit history can help reduce the problem. The other extreme, where an editor makes a lot of large edits all over the article all at once can be a lot more frustrating to figure out and I don't know of any tools to make it easier. And it's always legitimate to ask an editor whose edit summaries are blank or inadequate for letting other editors know what the intention was to improve their edit summaries. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: I agree that bulk edits can also be a problem. That's two different extremes from opposite ends that are both problematic. But I've come across the worst and most extreme example of the aforementioned. How about this, please take a look at this article: [2] Any thoughts on this? DA1 (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again DA1. I think depends upon the editor as to whether they mark their minor edits as such. I think I've only used the minor edit button once or twice, but I do tend to always leave an edit sum. As for the example you've referenced above, I'm not sure there's a way to force people to either leave a clearly worded edit sum or combined their multiple little minor edits and tweaks into one more comprehensive edit as long as the edits they make comply with relevant policies and guidelines. For sure, you can leave them a message and explain why you think this editing style is not helpful or add {{uw-editsummary}} to their user talk, but whether they take you advice and change their approach is kinda up to them. I think that's all you can really unless there is something actually wrong with their edits or that you can establish that their approach is causing serious some disruption to Wikipedia in general. While this type of editing style might not be desirable in many ways, it's not in and of itself something which the community automatically deems to be tenditious (at least not as I understand TE); so, it's not really something that's going to warrant being blocked over. I personally find the bulk edit approach to be more problematic and something which has more potential for abuse, than lots of minor edits simply because in the latter case its usually much easier to figure out what has been changed by looking at the diff and often easier to fix an error without affecting other parts of the article by simply reverting the problem edit. Anyway, although this is an interesting discussion, it might be more suited for a policy/guideline talk page or maybe even WP:VPP than the Teahouse, since it's on those other pages where any changes to relevant policy/guideline are going to be more likely made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Marking" the edits as minor was never an issue of mine. My issue was vague and ambiguous edits, and ease of review.

I have actually left a message, asking the user to please use ES or combine his edits so that it isn't as tedious.

I'm not sure if this approach at dealing with this is really thought out. There is always an issue with reviewing articles in situations like this. It discourages user review. What's to say the edits are all good? Would you like to review the article I posted above, perhaps then we could rest assure that it's all good. Bulk edits have their own problem, but extreme cases like this (to me at least) are worse. I've reviewed bulk edits in the past but this type of flooding is impossible to deal with, especially when there's so many edits it spans multiple pages thereby making it impossible to compare between pages since the History page only supports comparison between a threshold of 1000 edits. DA1 (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just for info: My favourite minor edit flurry was an editor who recently took 204 edits to change 15 words, and left no edit summaries. (diff). Had I spotted an error in one of them I'd probably have cheerily rollbacked the lot as it would be unreasonable to expect other editors to wade through to find the precise moment of a typo. I really think this is tendentious editing and bordering into disruption - but couldn't find any policy against it. Anyone? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Optimal Citation?

Hi I'm relatively new too the Wiki Project and Ive been having fun starting out just adding citations. My citations are pretty good sources but I was hoping to get some advice on formats for good citations with the authors name, date, and publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssufer (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ssufer: Are they books/journals or websites? And are you asking about the format of how they're cited? DA1 (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ssufer, welcome to the Teahouse. It's brillant that you want to help out by adding good references to articles. There is certainly more you can do to improve their content, and this is extremely easy to do. Both of our editing tools contain drop-down templates via the 'Cite' button in their toolbars. Using either source editor or Visual Editor nyou should be manually adding journal name, author, date, page numbers, ISBN/DOI numbers, date accessed etc. And if you think you might want to use a reference more than once, you can even give it a name (ref name) which allows you to call it again and again without having to re-enter it each time.

One wonderful tip (which can make life even easier) is only found in Visual Editor: when you call the cite button there, the drop-down template that appears has an 'Automatic' tab which allows you to paste in an ISBN number, DOI number, of even a Google books reference. It automatically looks up and fills in most of the details for you, if it can, but is then worth checking for minor errors/ommissions. It's not very good at page numbers or getting every field totally correct, but it's so much quicker. When I started, I did all this by hand. Until I discovered these tips, I manually entered every references, which took forever Does this help? Do come back with any further questions. (The last reference you entered here today (diff) should actually end up looking like this when entered simply by pasting in the DOI number withon Visual Editor before any tweaking at all. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Rejected yet better than accepted articles in the same space... what gives?

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

I fail to see how the HRI article reads like an advertisement. I worked a long time to get it neutral and in large part believe I accomplished this. If it wasn't neutral in select areas, perhaps a contribution could have been made rather than a summary rejection that it was unworthy to be posted on a user-generated wiki? I'm fairly new to wikipedia and want to learn more and help out as much as I can. But I'm completely flummoxed how some pages can get approved while ones like mine (above) can be dumped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_the_Hungry has almost zero content and it was accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_the_Children contains 6 out of 14--or nearly half of all references--going back to it's own website (obvious self-promotion).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hunger_Relief_International only has 2 of 8 references going to its website (for financial and charitable work references).

In addition to Feed the Children having 50% of links promoting their homepage, FTC also lists charity watch organizations like Guidestar and two local news channel websites. (Those two news references, by the way, were about fraudulent activities by their president--not for anything great they were doing).

Hunger Relief International only has 25% of references linking back to hungerreliefinternational.org (again, as financial and charity work references), also lists charity watch groups like Guidestar, and then follows with links to CNN, Forbes, and two separate non-profits.

I have no part with HRI--neither as donor, volunteer, employee, contractor, member, user, etc.--but if FTC and FTH's article is passable, how does HRI get rejected?

Thank you and I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Influentialchristian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The argument "I've found a crappy article in Wikipedia, and am therefore justified in creating another one" will not convince anyone here. If you are here to improve Wikipedia, and you find an article which does not meet Wikipedia's standards, you should improve it until it's acceptable; or if that's not possible, you can propose it for deletion. On the other hand, if you're here to promote something, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, use some site such as Facebook where promotion is permitted. Maproom (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

On the page of Dr. Meera chandrasekhar you have mentioned some thing to edit/correct to improve the article.

Sir/madam,

I (74) have created the above article from ID : Rangakuvara. This I keep for editing English articles. Radhatanaya is used for Kannada articles.(I have contributed 900+ articles in kannada language.

Since I'm a senior citizen, and can not read and understand elaborate rules or conditions, please help me in a few lines. Like "Yes" or "No" format. thanks. --Radhatanaya (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Radhatanaya. Welcome to the Teahouse. Firstly: If I understand you correctly, you have two different user accounts which you use for editing two different language wikipedias. You should only ever use one account across all language wikipedias. The article Meera Chandrasekhar has been edited by both of your accounts - and this must not happen. My advice is to decide which account you will cease using from now on and then add a link to both userpages which clearly states the relationship of the one account with the other. Using two accounts leads to editors being blocked, I'm afraid. See WP:MULTIACCOUNT for more on this important rule.

• Secondly, the most important thing to do on the article Meera Chandrasekhar is to add references to support each of the 'factual statements' so that others can check and see that they are not made up. Did she really win all those awards? Probably. So please give a link which proves that.
• The first paragraph makes no sense to me: Meera Chandrasekhar (ಡಾ. ಮೀರಾ ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ್), is a Curators’ Teaching of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri, United States. If you mean Professor, please state that.
• We do have a policy of excluding Indic scripts from lead paragraphs and Infoboxes. So please remove these. (See WP:NOINDICSCRIPT if you need proof.)
• Some links to what might be supportive references have been put into 'External Links'. This is wrong. Please follow the format used in other articles here - and presumably on your home language wiki, too, by including them in the text. Information about living people which is not supported by references is likely to be deleted.

I'm sorry I cannot give "yes"/"no" answers as you have not asked simple questions that command that type of reply. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

IP addresses account

I recently was welcoming new users and I realized that IP user accounts were more than users who opened an account with their username. As I was welcoming them , some were being blocked and others I guess they may not use the account. What can be the cause of not opening an account with a username to an extent that IP users are becoming more than username Users? , Spurb ^(talk) 06:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

IP users account for about a half of users and represent approximately one third of activity on Wikipedia. Wikipedia guidelines regarding civility and assuming good faith do not make special dispensation for IP users, who should be treated with the same respect as other users. Some have been contributing for a very long time and have a great deal of experience contributing to articles. Those with experience won't mind if you send them a welcome message, but may have their own reasons for not creating an account, which is their decision. In practice, profiling an IP user is sometimes more difficult as it is easier to attribute edits and behavior to a registered account, however this does not mean that one should assume that IP users are here to vandalize the site. A huge majority of helpful Wiki-Gnome edits I see on my watchlist were made by unregistered users. Edaham (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Igloo

To control the quality of such edits I installed igloo tool , unfortunately it failed to launch. How to launch igloo? Spurb ^(talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Spurb: Partial reply: I've never used it, but in the absence of anyone else responding to you immediately, have you tried the advice on this section of the Igloo page? It suggests Igloo doesn't launch with every 'skin' that users select, so a refresh or your browser and a check of these notes might be one suggestion. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: When launching it on vector default skin the outcome is that: rollback rights are required to use igloo. Spurb ^(talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Publishing Pages

How to publish my own page, I have one ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributer7 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Contributer7 and welcome to the Teahouse. If you could link to the draft article you've prepared, we can offer some feedback to you on its readiness for publication. Alternatively, you can use the Articles for Creation Wizard and receive feedback there. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Could I please have feedback on my article I drafted. Thanks in advance! -Max Draft:Karolina Watras — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributer7 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Contributer7: thanks for your question. As it is, that article would not be accepted to Wikipedia, because there is no credible claim that the subject is significant. The only references are the school directory (which confirms that she works there) and a FaceBook page (which is not a reliable source at all). Please read the page at "WP:ACADEMIC" carefully to understand the criteria for teachers to be listed in Wikipedia. Especially, read the list under Criteria a couple of times. Then consider whether your subject can meet those standards - if so, start by collecting reliable sources that discuss her in depth to show how she meets those criteria. Feel free to come back and ask here again if you have questions after reading those criteria. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

new Wikipedia page

What to do if new Wikipedia page is not showing in Google search.?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:36C2:8E59:1561:CADC:3E0A:CA18 (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi anonymous IP. The short answer is to wait. Newly-created pages go through a process of 'new page review' before Google is permitted to index them. This stops spammers and vandals damaging Wikipedia and its reputation with inappropriate content. This process can take minutes, but often takes much longer. There are currently 3,500 such pages awaiting volunteer input in this way, going back to early September. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Which page is it? Some new pages are draft pages and user pages which will not be indexed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

new page/timing

hi. I've submitted 24 August 2018 a new page (subject "Edward Williams Architects") but I've no news about it since then. could you please tell me anything about the revision/publishing timing? thanks! silvia

link to page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silvia_cesa_bianchi/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia cesa bianchi (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft hasn't been reviewed because you didn't submit it. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

But I don't believe the draft will be accepted in its current form, Silvia cesa bianchi, because it does not

cite any references that are about the practice, rather than the organisation it is associated with, or the people involved, and so does not establish that the practice is notable in Wikipedia's special sense. In addition, I'm not sure that any of the sources are independent of the practice: 3 and 4 might be (they're behind paywalls, so I can't see them) but the rest are not. --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2004 Taylor oil spill

I just started 2004 Taylor oil spill. If you're new and interested, expanding this could be good practice. It's all over the news. If this post is inappropriate, please remove it. I just thought newcomers might like it. I'd be happy to meet them and work together. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

SAM SAILOR - I EDITED BOB STANFORD ARTICLE

Just left it in my sandbox. Is there a protocol for taking you up on your offer to help me add the URLs and other references? snapperdoctor. Snapperdoctor (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snapperdoctor - will "ping" Sam Sailor for you. Generally, you could simply leave a message on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Hello @Snapperdoctor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. to notify ("ping") another user, you can either use a template like {{ping|username here}} in your signed message or contact the user with a message on their personal user talkpage. I'll ping @Sam Sailor: here to notify him of your question. GermanJoe (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both, onel5969 and GermanJoe, I have followed up on Draft talk:Bob Stanford. Sam Sailor 19:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Helichrysum mundtii: wrong interwikilink?

Hi,

I clicked on random item in Wikidata which guided me to that article in the vietnamese wikipedia: vi:Helichrysum_mundtii The article refers to the english wikipedia, but the article doesn't exist: en:Helichrysum_mundtii. The language in Wikidata was only set for Vietnamese in Wikidata. How should I proceed?

Thanks for the help. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The link wasn't through Wikidata but was hard-coded in the vietnamese article. I have removed the link. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, David Biddulph ! --Hundsrose (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Checkbook.io

David.moreno72

Thanks for reviewing the submission. Per wikipedia guideline(s):

"significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondarysources that are independent of the subject:"

Here are some citations, I've included them in the submission article too. As you'll notice there are multiple citations spanning about 2 years

May 2016 https://www.ca.com/us/modern-software-factory/content/the-company-checkbook-goes-paperless.html Wired.com (both online and in paper form, alexa rank ~450 in the US ) is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io

July 2016 http://www.digitaltransactions.net/with-checkbook-a-payments-veteran-creates-a-souped-up-engine-for-check-21-clearing/ Digital Transactions is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io

Aug 2017 https://theamericangenius.com/tech-news/checkbook-device/ American Genius is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io

Oct 2017 https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/checkbookio-offers-digital-checks-and-invoicing-services Accounting Today is a published, reliable and secondary source, and offered significant coverage of the company independent of the subject i.e. independent of Checkbook.io, unrelated to any press releases or communication efforts of Checkbook.io — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleeereza (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

David.moreno72, this one is for you. Sam Sailor 19:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Same question (and ref list) also posted at Help. And at the Draft. Although does not appear that these references have been incorporated into the draft yet. And Aleeereza needs to declare COI on User page as ex-employee of the company. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How is a redirct accomplished?

Is a redirect accomplished by adding brackets around the word to be redirected? Example xxxxx and the redirected word is automatically then highlighted in blue indicating a redirect? Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Gerald T. Ahnert, if you mean a redirect page where one directs to another (such as sufficient and necessary conditions being a redirect to necessity and sufficiency), the help page at Help:Redirect should give you all the information you need for making redirects of various types and the syntax. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Gerald T. Ahnert - Redirects are specific pages with no content, which simply exist to redirect to the correct article. For example At The Stage Door redirects to At the Stage Door. There is no content on the first link, it is simply there in case someone types in a capitalized variant of the true article. If that is what you are asking about, then Seraphimblade has pointed you in the right direction. However, what you seem to be describing is simply linking pages. So in an article about Christy Cabanne, if I wanted to link to the film, At the Stage Door, I would simply put brackets around the title (not including the ''), and the words would turn blue, indicating a link, At the Stage Door. If you put brackets around a word or phrase, and there is no article about it, that creates a redlink, like It's Up to You (1936 film). Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Contents Box

I'm trying to clean up my User Talk page, and I can't figure out how the contents box at the top of the page works. If I delete some of the entries, the box stays, and if I delete some other ones, the box remains. How do I figure it out? Purplemoonsong (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, looks like very few edits to your User page (which other editors can easily see) and lots of experimenting with your Sandbox, which is your semi-private workspace. David notMD (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The TOC box comes up automatically once you have 4 entries. You can find out more about customizing the TOC at WP:TOC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

anyone willing to help with a complex edit?

First, i assume the following:

• one is not allowed to create/edit a relative's biography page
• or "businesses" involving a relative
• no dis-ambiguous entries without at least one blue link

thus to do what I'm thinking about I would need another editor at a minimum.

I have a non-familial relative Named Mike Jones. He is a musician and the lead singer of "Seven Reasons" which has two self published albums (hard rock genre) and a small following in the SW Michigan/North Indiana (USA) area. (a few other avid fans also)

there has been a lot of stir about both the band, Seven Reasons , and it's Lead Singer Mike Jones , but so far it's just warming the pot, with little boil. I'm not sure that Seven Reasonsis significant enough for a page but after I tried to refollow Mike only to later find i had written the Rapper of the same name, i wanted to add a dis-ambiguous page entry.

suggestions? or Volunteers? --Qazwiz (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Qazwiz: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being aware of the conflict of interest. First thing, you say "with little boil." What do you mean by that? Are the subjects notable, per WP:NMUSIC? RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Qazwiz. I echo what RudofRed said, acknowledging you for being up-front about your conflict of interest. But I'm afraid that disambiguation pages exist to help people find things within Wikipedia. Until there is an article about Jones (which depends crucially on there being sufficient independent published sources about him to establish notability), he should not appear in a disambiguation. --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Template:U:ColinFine thank you both for prompt reply. checking WP:NMUSIC i have to admit he may be close but not yet, albums were effectively "self published" - he has had a few local radio appearances none national - closest he has gotten to qualifying is he was rejected for The Voice this year. if his audition is broadcast, will see soon, he might qualify for a dis-ambiguous page link to the shows page as having participated, but definitely not an artist page... at least not yet :-).
thanks again for replying --Qazwiz (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What are some good places to read about Wikipedia editing policies

Hello, I'm pretty new on this site. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can learn about Wikipedia policy. I'm interested in adding links, editing pages, creating new pages, and anything else I should be aware of. Also, I'd like to learn more about the talk function...how to reply and ping users, etc. Thanks! --Seahawk01

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seahawk01. Start by reading Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and following the links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. On a more abstract level, Wikipedia:Five pillars describes the "fundamental principles" of Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Hi Cullen328! Sounds good, thanks for taking the time to point me in the right direction! User:Seahawk01

Here are a couple of more good links for you, Seahawk01 : How to edit a page and How to develop articles Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 Great, super :-) Thanks! Seahawk01

Follow-up to Permission Error.

Hello,

I have made several edits to the page entitled driving simulator, but the last one was not successful and I cannot find a way to correct it. I am new to wiki and have difficulty even maintaining a dialogue with the people who have helped me before. please advise.DriverSafety (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DriverSafety - here are a few links which can help you get started on editing on Wikipedia:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles

Finally, the best way to ask for help is to leave a question on either the talk page of the article you are attempting to edit, or the talk page of the editor who has reverted and/or changed your edit. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Interested in organizational aspects of helping out

Hello again. I think my skills lie more in organization than writing. Also, I'm good at research and sourcing references. So, I'd like to see how to get involved in those things. I have created one category page to link some topics together, left a note on one wikiproject page and added to another wikiproject todo list. Any other suggestions in how to get involved? My interests are affordable housing and fourth amendment rights. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahawk01 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01. There are many different ways to contribute to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia) that don't involve creating articles from scratch, but focus more on Wikipedia:Maintenance. There are almost 6,000,000 existing articles and almost all of these can be improved upon in one way or another; so, there's never really a shortage of things to do. Some edits focus on simple copyediting such as correcting spelling mistakes, etc., whereas others look for formatting/syntax issues which need fixing. Many articles are tagged with maintenance templates to indicate they need attention, and many of these articles can be found on tracking category pages such as Category:Articles lacking sources, etc. So, if this is the type of thing which interests you, then perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:Random page patrol or Wikipedia:Cleanup might be of interest to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for the reply! Random page patrol and wiki cleanup squad actually sounds kind of fun :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is a userbox a template?

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

I have a short question--is a userbox a template?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(P.S. Disappointing that the Teahouse is now semi'ed.)

Hi, Rebelastic. I don't think there's any reason in principle why you shouldn't code a userbox directly on your User page if you want to. But normally they are templates, so that they can be reused, or have other templates based on them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, mistyped your name in the ping Rebestalic. --ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: A userbox is usually considered a template regardless of the namespace. A template can both be defined as a page in the template namespace and as a page with code intended for transclusion. Do you have something specific in mind with the question, e.g. where to save a userbox, or where to nominate it for deletion, or how to use it? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: protection. I agree it's a trifle kafkaesque for this page to be protected until 24 October with would-be editors directed the talk page...which itself is protected until the 29th. ——SerialNumber54129 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Query re Talk Page

Hello, please could someone direct me to any articles or information that show and/or explain how an article's talk page should be constructed (in an ideal situation) where there are several people editing? As a newbie, it all seems a bit confusing and I think I'm adding to the confusion! Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@*ptrs4all*: Hopefuly Help:Talk pages will provide some answers – but if it does not, please ask more specific question. Especially if you mean some specific issue with some specific talk page. --CiaPan (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CiaPan. There is no specific issue. *ptrs4all* (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem with someone using my artwork and falsely attributing.

There is some of my artwork (drawings & photos) on Wikipedia that are being falsely represented as someone else’s work. Wikipedia contributor Dandlyin is using artwork drawn by me and claiming it as his own. I will tackle these one at a time. The first is in Wikipedia’s Dragoon Springs, Station. The station plan at the bottom of the site is my drawing. Look in the lower right-hand corner and you will see my name (very small—so Dandlyin probably didn’t notice) “Drawn by Gerald T. Ahnert.” In the copyright information under is the following: Description: Station plan showing the sleeping rooms of the Butterfield employees during the massacre of September 9, 1858. Date: 1 January 2013 Source: Own work (Note for above. As you can see this is not his own work.) Author: Dandlyin (Question to help me out since I am a newbie to Wikipedia. Does “Author” mean the one who created the artwork or the author of this contribution to the commons?)

There are two others on the site that he does attribute to me in the “Description” and gives a date that I created them as 2013—which is correct. But to get around the copyright requirement of them not being in the public domain, Dandlyin states that the “Source” is his “Own Work” and that the Author is “Dandlyin.” Why was this accepted—is there something I don’t understand? Under this heading is the statement why this can be used under the copyright regulations: “I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license.” As can be seen this is not true—I am the copyright holder. This also is true for the photo of the stage station and the other drawing. As a newbie, I am trying to keep an open mind and may not understand the situation for the above. I am flattered that there are many references in Wikipedia to my work. I want the public to have the true history concerning Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company, for which this stage station was a part. To keep the peace, I would like to contact Dandlyin and have a civil conversation about this subject—maybe we can sort things out. But I don’t understand how I can contact the person. But first I would like your clarification and suggestions. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Hey Gerald T. Ahnert. I have nominated the images for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. You can see the deletion discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dandlyin. If you would like to license the images for free public use, so that they may be used on Wikipedia, you can do so by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT, but Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and users should not be uploading images and claiming them as their own work when they are not. GMG^talk 13:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep: The attribution for the three files is now acceptable to me.Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

I was just contacted by Dandlyin and as it turns out I know the fellow. I will not pursue this any farther and will have a conversation with him. He is an alright fellow and I am actually pleased he is using my material. What will probably happened is that we will find a way to amiably add some more information to the artwork to satisfy both our needs. This was also a learning cycle for me since I want to also correctly add correct copyright information to my new entries. Thank you for the explanation which helps. I have no more problems with this issue. I will try to take care of the deletion notices after he and I get together to amiably solve the issue.

Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

(edit conflict)Hi Gerald T. Ahnert. I'm assuming that File:Station Layout Drawing.jpg is one of the files you're referring to above; if it is, then it's uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which means there's not much which can be done here on Wikipedia about the file. Commons and Wikipedia are sister sites and images uploaded to Commons are often used in Wikipedia articles, but each site has it's own particular policies and guidelines. You might have to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly per wmf:DMCA takedowns or wmf:DMCA Policy if you believe your copyright is being infringed upon. You can also try to tag the file for speedy deletion as a copyright violation per c:Commons:Deletion policy#Copyright violation or nominate the file for deletion per c:Commons:Deletion requests since these are two common ways files are deleted from Commons; you may, however, be required to provide proof of copyright ownership in either case.

As to why this type of thing happens, sometimes people find content online that they wish to use in a Wikipedia article, and they just choose the first license option they are offered when they upload the file. Many people are not familiar with copyright law, and mistakenly assume that finding something online, downloading it onto their computer and then uploading it to Commons makes it their "own work"; so, they choose that license. Others might assume that anything available for free online (i.e., something they don't have to pay for), must be free from copyright protection as well. I'd imagine most people just don't know any better, and aren't intentionally setting out to violate someone else's copyright. Moreover, all editors on Wikipedia and Commons are volunteers; there are no full-time employees checking whether files are licensed correctly and there's no pre-upload vetting of files. This means that files only get reviewed when they are flagged for some kind of issue.

If you'd like to discuss this with the editor(s) who uploaded the file(s) in question, you can post something on their respective user talk page(s). Editors who edit on both Wikipedia and Commons tend to have a user page and a user talk page for each site; so, you can leave a message on one or the other talk page and see if you get a response. You can find an editor's user talk page by clicking on their name and then clicking on the "Talk" tab next to their user name. One thing you need to be really careful about when discussing things like this on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:No legal threats; you can try to civilly discuss the issue with the uploader, but you should refrain from making any threats of off-Wikipedia legal action against another editor because doing so will lead to your account being blocked. Your best bet would be to only discuss legal matters directly with someone at the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An amiable solution to this has been achieved with satisfaction to both parties with the addition of attribution. I have just posted a "Do not delete" notice in the deletion notice on the commons site. Thank you for your help.

Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Draft: New Fortress Energy

Hi, I created a draft page for an energy company, New Fortress Energy. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:New_Fortress_Energy. It was rejected for not being worthy of a Wiki page. However, the company operates around the world and was founded by American billionaire Wes Edens (who has a wiki page himself) and is associated with an investment firm that also has a wiki page). I've added a Wall Street Journal article and a few others, added reference to Edens. But I wonder if there is more I should do prior to re-submitting for consideration. Thanks for the help. It's the first page I'm attempting to create. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactCheckerPNW (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey FactCheckerPNW. The rule I go by is "try to find as many reliable sources as you can, add what they say, and when you run out of sources, stop writing." Now, if you run out of sources and all you have is one or two sentences, then the subject likely does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Having said that, what you really need are sources that deal with NFE in particular and in depth. No matter how notable related people or business may be, that doesn't help us really write an article about this company, and do it without going past what the sources say. Whether we can write a well sourced article (that wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb in a traditional encyclopedia) is really the heart of whether a topic is notable enough to have an article. GMG^talk 21:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with editing Wikipedia page Stanfords

Dear all, I joined the Wikipedia community close to 20 years ago and have not made many contributions but enjoy the small edits that I can assist with. Now I need some help editing a page that I am closely linked to personally and am concerned that the actual editing should be done by someone other than myself. The page is for Stanfords a UK business that my brother and I are shareholders of and I am now Chairman and CEO (now you see the conflict). I can provide content and fact checking if requested. Thanks for offers of help. Vivien Godfrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgodfrey (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vgodfrey and thanks for your honesty. Please read the policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. Use the article talk page to propose changes, and provide links to reliable sources. See Template:Request edit for the code that will bring your request to the attention of other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You may also consider asking for input at the relevant wikiprojects, see the article's talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semiprotecting a page

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

Tsar Bomba is currently suffering heavy vandalism; is there a way that I can assign semi-protection to the article?

Thank you, Rebestalic (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rebestalic. I have reverted the edits in question. For future reference, you can request that a page be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it usually requires levels of vandalism that are more like a few vandals every few minutes, rather than a few vandals in a day, which can normally be solved just by reverting them. GMG^talk 21:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

My gosh, a reply within ten minutes! Unbelievable.

Rebestalic (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Need help with rejected draft

I have been working on the following draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_Proman and it has been rejected twice now. I could really use some advice. After the first rejection, I spoke to one of the editors to try and get some insight regarding what qualifies as an independent, reliable secondary source. For example, I had a citation from the SEC that I was told didn't qualify, and that made no sense to me. But after going back and forth a bit, I resubmitted the article. It addressed the "overly positive" language, (I removed it), and had the citations that had been already IDed as meeting the independent and reliable thresholds. But then it got rejected again, and the editor's comments are a bit confusing. I understand wanting more information & citations to give the article body, but I don't understand the issue with the citations I *did* use. They were already deemed OK by a previous editor. Any insights would be appreciated. Navysaylorgirl (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Navysaylorgirl. At present the draft has three references cited. I'm not clear what the Forbes entry is - it seems to be nothing more than a rating of the website. It does not seem to me to be a place where somebody unconnected with Proman or his projects has chosen to write at length about him. The NYDN entry I cannot read, because it is not available in Europe; but from the title, it does not seem likely that it is a place where somebody unconnected with Proman and his projects has chosen to write at length about him. The third reference is a list of names.

You may notice that I have repeated the phrase "where somebody unconnected with Proman and his projects has chosen to write at length about him": that is the gold standard of an independent source (it also needs to have been published somewhere reliable). Unless you can adduce at least a couple of sources that meet that description (and note that they have to be about the subject of the article, not about something else connected with the subject of the article), the subject does not meet the criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Forbes is a major industry and finance publication in the US. To have the website of the a company that you created receive an accolade from Forbes in no small thing. It's not an award for website design or anything like that, but for content (product). The NYDN article is about a conference that was hosted by Proman. It was newsworthy because of who he got to speak at the event. Ivanka Trump, Sarah Blakely (of Spanx) and Randy Zuckerberg (of Facebook). Had nothing to do with the writer being connected in some way. That's why I took out all the Huffington Post references, because they were suspect. Since Proman was able to author his own article for Huff Po at one point, it seemed likely there was some possible connection. But there's none for the NYDN article. It was simply a noteworthy event on its own -- and one that Proman brought into being.

I do understand the need to find additional references though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navysaylorgirl (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Article's Title

Hello! I am trying to change a small discrepancy in the article title of the organization's name that I work for. The current article title is Wine to Water, but the actual name of the organization is Wine To Water. How do I edit the title of the article? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietderienzo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Naja, Cobra, Cobra (disambiguation) concern

Hi, I have an interest in a couple articles that I think are in need of cleanup/merging. Cobra is a stub that has high priority in the reptiles project, so I was going to add some relevant information. However, upon arriving it appears to just be a list of animals that are not part of the "True Cobra" family (Naja) that are named "Cobra", the most ridiculous example therein is the False water cobra (the "false" in the name of course refers to "Cobra" not "water"). To me, this page makes much more sense as a sub-section on the cobra (disambiguation) page, and forwarding traffic from "Cobra" to "Naja" as is commonly done with other genus with a common name. Does this seem reasonable?

Cheers, Mstearnsa (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Mstearnsa

Hello and introduction

Hi there everyone,

Thank you for inviting me to the Teahouse. I would like to introduce myself, my name is Howie and I am eager to contribute to wikipedia. I have started editing a few pages and love the new template editor.

I know there are a tonne of resources out there, but I would love to hear tips from more experienced members of how to be a more valued contributor to the community.

Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howiemann (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. See here. Thanks! Happy Editing! :) Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add Infobox to Entry

Hi, I'm editing an entry called "International Space Station United States National Laboratory," and I'm having trouble adding an infobox to it. I used the Infobox Laboratory template with Visual Editor, and then filled out a few basic lines for it, but when I previewed the page, the infobox didn't show up. It only shows the title of the entry and nothing else in the box. Can you please tell me how to create this infobox? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfleming458 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mfleming458. It looks like Legacypac had just sorted that out for you, and moved your draft into mainspace too. (no pun intended) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I just did the move, another more talented editor fixed the infobox. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Bikram malati

Bikram malati actor was movie krodh reeleas on 2017 the page create Bikram malati krodh Short film Watch on bit liliys He channel on youtube Comedy channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alll she be (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Alll she be:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, not a venue to promote a YouTube channel or a social medium like Facebook. If you are interested in contributing encyclopedic content, please see WP:About for more information about this project and its purpose - sourced encyclopedic contributions are always welcome. But all other unrelated or promotional edits will likely get deleted, and you should look for other websites to publish such information. GermanJoe (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiWatchlister

How can I add a infobox for this page? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about taking content from one page to create a new page

Hello, on Driving while black there is a section called Pretextual stop which is a redirect. I would like to take this paragraph out of this page and make it a separate page. A notice was given awhile back on the Talk page and nobody responded. So, is it OK if I just go ahead and do this? I'm new and don't want to step on anybody's toes! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting an article

This is another stepping on toes question. On Wikipedia:Splitting it states that over 50 kB an article should be considered for splitting. I would like to work on Economic inequality, but it is huge! I think it is 202 kB. I just left a note on the Talk page that I would like to split it. On the Splitting page, it says I can be bold, but...I'm not that bold, yet. Do you think I should just split the page or try to notify some more people first? Seahawk01 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As an editor, my advice is "Yes, go ahead. The article needs splitting, and for two years has had a tag at the top saying so." As a fellow human, my advice is "No. It'll be far more work than you're expecting, and no-one will thank you for it." Maproom (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is the appropriate field?

I have just created a stub Mannem Nageswara Rao and want to add Indian Police Service (IPS) to Infobox. But I'm not quite clear of what it exactly is. Is it a position or qualification or education or rank or something else? Any experts? Kindly guide. Thanks. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone changed my editing

I have added the date in which my grandmother died, she was a chess player named "Clara Friedman". Therefore I have edited the page. Someone decided to erase it and asked me if I have a proof. I don't know how to contact him or write a response. Anyway, I have no proof right now besides taking a photo of the grave... she has passed away in 2015. Thanks for helping. Clara Friedman — Preceding unsigned comment added by גליה פרידמן (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You could try citing as a source. Your edit might get removed again as it's not an independent source - or it might be allowed to stand, as uncontroversial. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom: Are you sure that is the same person? The image at the PeopleMaven.com profile [3] shows a quite different face, IMVHO... --CiaPan (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(after ec) @גליה פרידמן: I can understand you're disappointed, but one of most important rules of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability. It means any information published here should be supported by external, reliable WP:SOURCES, so that a reader can (potentially) verify what Wikipedia says. That is especially important in case of people – it hurts much less if we don't publish information about someone's death than if we said someone passed away too soon. So, if you can find any public source confirming the fact Clara Friedman died in 2005, it will help in publishing the information at Wikipedia. If you can't, we better wait.

BTW, I have found this note: https://www.avelim.co.il/%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%96%D7%9C/

I can't read Hebrew, but I asked Google Translate for help. It said this is about Clara Friedman and it mentions a funeral date 15.12.15. However, it does not mention the birth date so I can't know if that's the same person. It also mentions family members, but they in turn are unknown to Wikipedia article, so this doesn't identify the person, either.

Can you, please, provide any (WP:SOURCEd!) additional family facts, which could allow us connect the obituary notice with the subject, hence use it to document the death fact/date? --CiaPan (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor

What happen if I click the publish changes and got denied 9 times? - 114.124.175.218 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding Links

Am I allowed to make references to my work 'live' by linking? or does this come under COI (conflict of interest). There are many mentions of my work, especially in numerous classic album articles where I have given a rating in on of my ((Colin Larkin (writer)) books (Encyclopedia Of Popular Music and All Time Top 1000 Albums). There are many times when I am quoted by name and/or referenced by my books, but the balance is inconsistent. Sometimes the reference is linked and other times not. Advice as to ruling please. Thank you. Colin Larkin (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)