Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

331dot, 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

had article moved to draftspace

Hello, I was working on an article New York City housing crisis. This was an article split from Affordable housing. I wanted to know if I could create some stubs like "los angeles housing crisis" and "vancouver housing crisis" and I decided to go to IRC for help. Some of the users there decided to put the article into draft space. Current location of article is: Draft:New York City housing crisis and some note about this are on: User talk:Seahawk01.

The reason they are saying it needs to be in draft space is primarily because it doesn't have reliable, independent sources. But, my primary sources are:

• Executive Director, NYC Dept. of City Planning
• Commmissioner, NYC City Planning Commission
• Executive Director, New York Housing Conference
• Office of the New York City Comptroller

All the information on this page are directly from those sources, including such statement that equate to "crushing", "suffering", "burden".

A secondary reason was that I was using those terms in the lead. But, I was following WP:WHENNOTCITE in the lead and assumed those statements would just be adequately defined in the text to follow.

Additionally, I feel it was a bit rash to put the article into draft space when all I really needed to do was either rewrite the lead or add one or two citations. I personally think it is a pretty even handed article although it could use a little rewriting in the lead. And, I was planning on filling in more details and adding more references in the next week. So, comparing it to other articles out there, I don't think it should of been moved to draft space.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Seahawk01, welcome to the Teahouse. You've stated your sources above, but all you stated is a list of names. Can you please expand on that? If those people are directly your source (in other words, if you received the information from them via an interview or a conversation conducted by mail or email), then that information cannot be used in the article at all. See WP:OR for further explanation. John from Idegon (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seahawk01. A quick search about your subject matter revealed that there are several authoritative sources (e.g. this article from The New York Times) that cover the crisis. And I suggest you use them instead. As was stated by John from Idegon, using interview/primary data is not allowed. Also, after taking a look at your draft's lead, it reads more like an essay or an opinion piece. To learn more about the acceptable format, you can check this: WP:TONE and WP:IMPARTIAL. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, thanks for the reply. The following are my two primary sources:

• Purnima Kapur, Executive Director, NYC Dept. of City Planning, Michelle De La Uz, Commmissioner, NYC City Planning Commission, and Rachel Fee, Executive Director, New York Housing Conference moderated by Brian Lehrer (May 30, 2018) Brian talks New York - The Housing Squeeze by Numbers (video) cunytv75

• The Growing Gap: New York City’s Housing Affordability Challenge (2014) Office of the New York City Comptroller, Scott M. Stringer

There are other sources used on the page as well. I spent two days at the help desk and they stated that it is allowed to use videos as a source as long as the video is from a reliable source (see WP:CITEVIDEO). The video is from the City College of New York where they produce public interest TV interviewing government officials, etc.

In addition, I was going to add additional sources this week. But, I found my treatment in the IRC chat room so depressing that I haven't worked on this page since. In fact, I was really pretty shocked that they couldn't spend 5-10 minutes and help me improve the page. They didn't even read it, just scanning the lead in less than 30 seconds and making a snap decision. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Darwin Naz, I am using reliable sources. Please see above. I am not using interview/primary data. Also, I would say that the sources I'm using are better than newspaper articles. If I wanted more sources, I would probable use a report from the NYU Furman Center, but definately not newspaper articles.

In terms of the lead, first of all, let me say that this was an existing article that I was improving (rewriting). I did not pay too much attention to the lead. It is about 50% something I added and 50% existing, but I wasn't focusing on it. Anyway, I am going to remove the lead right now. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please note: I removed the lead, removed the tag "essay like" and placed article back in the main namespace - see New York City housing crisis. Also, I want to file complaints about the people in IRC. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in here, I still agree with Drewmutts decision to move the article to draftspace, and I honestly think the article still reads like an essay and that Seahawk should not have moved it back to the mainspace. TheMesquito^buzz 08:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

TheMesquito, I agree and prod'd the article. You can lead a horse to help, but you can't make him take it. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added a new lead section there. Perhaps new contributions could salvage the article. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am seriously fed up with this situation and am considering leaving Wikipedia. Why don't you all review my other contributions: User:Seahawk01. Anyway, this has become a major time sink for me and I don't want to deal with this article unless other people are willing to help. And, my last thoughts on IRC are here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Suggest Wikipedia does not mention IRC as a source for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahawk01 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seahawk01: You've been editing (at least using this account) for two months. Feeling frustrated over having your efforts criticized or even nominated for deletion is completely understandable, especially for someone as new as you. Perhaps taking a look at WP:HELPAFD will explain what goes on in an AfD. Having an article nominated for deletion doesn't not automatically mean it will be deleted; articles can continue to be improved while the AfD is ongoing and in some cases enough improvements are made so that the consensus ends up being kept. It's also possible that the article can be userfied or draftified to allow it to continue to be worked on and improved. Try and remember that none of this is intended to be taken personally; Wikipedia wants us all to be WP:HERE to help (in whatever way we can) to try and work together improving the encyclopedia, and sometimes this means removing or deleting content, or taking it out of the mainspace to try and improve it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What to do with Zipline International Inc.

I would like some help figuring out what to do with Zipline International and Zipline International Inc. I think that the appropriate name for the article should be either Zipline International (per WP:NCCORP) or Zipline (company) (since the "International" is typically omitted in discussions of the company). It looks like two separate articles were created (one of them by Back ache and one by Richierich44), and then Back ache tried to redirect Zipline International to Zipline International Inc. two days ago (but did not remove the article body when doing so). So the article is now at Zipline International Inc., which I think is not the appropriate article title. I think that a {{histmerge}} may also be needed, but I'm not sure. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree the "international inc" is useless fluff. BarrelProof is right, the search let me down and I created a dupe Zipline International, so my effort wasn't wasted I have been gutting the good bits of ii and rolling it into the older article with a view to one of them just becoming a pure redir. (I personally agree with BP that the shorter cleaner version should be the main one)

I have also been trying to address the criticism of Zipline International Inc. sounding a bit of advertising-y at times, I don't think the OP was malicious just a bit too much cut n' paste.

What the organisation itself is doing and its historical importance makes it worthy of an decent article so will keep chipping away at it but would appreciate help and I am happy to talk.Back ache (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Based on your description of what happened, this was not a copy-paste move, but rather an accidental creation of a different article on the same topic, followed by a merging, so I think a {{histmerge}} may not be needed. I think I'll just submit an RM proposal to move Zipline International Inc. to Zipline (company) or Zipline International. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll see if I can find some time to take a final scan through my article to see if any bots from it can improve the first one. Back ache (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I filed the RM request at Talk:Zipline International Inc., and the two people who have commented there so far have expressed support for it. The RM request is a little different from what I had initially planned, because I discovered that there is also another article about a different similarly-named company, Zipline Creative Limited. At this point, I suggest that the further discussion should take place at Talk:Zipline International Inc., rather than here, so that the record of the discussion will be recorded there. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding Infobox and image in recently created page

I would appreciate if you could guide me on possible infobox templates for an open water swimming world champion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudio_Plit and also the protocol for uploading an image in the infobox and/or the article, especially considering image rights. I am considering asking for an image of a local swimming association. In this case, do I need a written permision to upload it to wikipedia or just specify who is the author of the picture. I am considering alternatives to improve the article. Thank you very much. Delphinidae9 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Delphinidae9, please see Template:Infobox swimmer.

As to the case of image, please ask the author (i.e. the copyright holder) to use this tool to upload the image.

I will advice him to upload the image directly to Commons (rather than through mail; w.r.t Step 2) and then, wait for OTRS rubber-stamping. But, please avoid any delay between uploading the image and licensing the image through the tool. Also, place {{subst:OP}} on the image-page, once you've mailed off the license-statement (generated by the tool) to OTRS. ∯WBG^converse 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Delphinidae9 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway of removing these 4 boxes in my edit screen?

Is there a way to remove this graph bar above my text as I type this? Imagine you are making a post to the Teahouse. There are a bunch of options to editing texts, etc. I was messing with some settings and this got turned on somehow. I wish to deactivate it. There are 4 boxes that are expandable. That is what I am talking about and wish for it to be removed.

Thank you!

Aviartm (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Aviartm and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about the "Advanced," "Special characters," "Help," and "Cite," buttons in the editing toolbar? If not, would you be able to elaborate in a bit more detail what exactly these look like? If you can, I should be able to answer your question but if not I'll request for someone who is familiar with the topic to do so. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 23:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello SkyGazer 512. I am going to link you what I am talking about. This is the imgur... https://imgur.com/a/LpwcAzK I must've flipped something on my settings but prior to whatever thing I turned on, the classical editing interface as become different. I can tolerate the highlighted text and all in the editing field (If there is a way to revert back, please tell me.) but my main concern is the 4 boxes at the top of the editing area. I do not want that there. Aviartm (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aviartm: Ah, I think I know what you did now; thanks for the elaboration. You seem to have accidentally installed the gadget wikiEd. Go to the Gadgets section of your preferences and scrolling to the "Editing" section. You should see that the option "wikEd: a full-featured integrated text editor for Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome" is checked; uncheck it and then click the save button at the bottom. Is this what you were looking for and does the solution I proposed work? Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 05:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Yes! That was it. Thank you for your assistance. It was a bit much and I prefer the original version. Thank you again! :) Aviartm (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Aviartm, glad I could help. I personally do think that the features WikiEd supplies, although helpful, are way too much for me to be able to edit comfortably. If you need help with anything else, don't hesitate to ask here again or leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks again @SkyGazer 512:! Aviartm (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Citation improvements

Hi. A quick clarification: I am frequently finding very "terse" citations (ie made within the cite template, and lacking some often basic details). Is it worthwhile fleshing out these citations ... on the explicit understanding that I don't mind doing it, since when I am researching, I am going to the source material anyway to read more. Or is this a relatively pointless exercise? (My recent contrib history has examples). Prime Lemur (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that your fleshing out of references is valuable in helping to improve Wikipedia. It's also unlikely to be controversial. It's great to see a relatively new editor doing things which are clearly improvements. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Prime Lemur, I totally agree with Maproom. For anyone wanting to actually understand a subject (and not just skim-read Wikipedia's content), then having good, clear, and comnplete references really is incredibly valuable for checking factual statements and for helping them undertake further research or investigation. If improving these interests you, your contributions will be immensely useful, even if not noticed by most users(!). If good quality citations weren't important, then scientific journals wouldn't place so much store upon their use and formatting, and their content would lose a lot of their academic rigour and value. The same applies here - even if many users aren't aware of it. Have you heard of of Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup? If not, you might find it worth checking out, and perhaps helping work towards some of its key aims. And, although I must confess to rarely using it myself, you might find the Citation Bot tool at WP:UCB well-worth investigating. It's a neat way to tidy up the formatting of some older citations. (And if you weren't aware of it, using Visual Editor to edit an article allows you to enter just a url and to create a basic reference from it. These still need a bit of work to tidy up, but can save on a lot of typing - as well as updating the access date of the reference itself, were you to re-enter it. Oh, and there's also Wikipedia:ProveIt are various other user scripts available which you might like to install and experiment with - see Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#References. Hope some of this might be of use. Let us know how you get on. Good luck and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Maproom and Nick Moyes for the feedback and encouragement. I've used an external citation tool for Google Books before, so I'll be sure to check out the scripts ... and the project. Prime Lemur (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Prime Lemur: The only trap in citation cleanup is WP:CITEVAR, which says that you should not change bare refs to templated refs or the other way around without good reason. (It is absolutely stupid in my opinion (since templated refs are superior in every aspect) but it is policy.) Fixing incomplete information is OK though, and greatly appreciated even if not always noticed. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's a policy I have always ignored. Maproom (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks @Tigraan. I have once improved citations that used the Harvard style ... which I almost gave up on through lack of familiarity. But learning something new is its own reward, and thank you for the additional information, which I've now read. And lol @ Maproom. Prime Lemur (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like an ad??

I have an article about a leader in nursing ethics, but two reviewers said that it sounds like an ad. Might the article be better if it were shorter and ONLY talked about her firsts in building out the discipline of nursing ethics? Draft:Christine Mitchell MaynardClark (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MaynardClark. A well-written Wikipedia biography summarizes what reliable, secondary, independent sources say about the person. Your draft relies far too much on primary and non-independent sources. That type of source is acceptable only for mundane, non-controversial biographical details like place of birth, graduation date, and so on. The lead section includes the promotional phrase "award-winning" about some short films and the awards are mentioned again later in the lead. This is overkill. Then, when I take a closer look at one of the films that is mentioned, Code Gray: Ethical Dilemmas in Nursing, I was surprised that this woman is not even mentioned in that article. Plus, the film was nominated for an Oscar but did not win. So, it is misleading to describe it as "award winning". Checking IMDb, she is listed as an "associate producer", not as producer or director. Your link to "Freddie Awards" leads to Freddie Laker who established a travel industry award by that name. That has nothing to do with films about nursing ethics, so that link is misleading. Much of the content is unreferenced, and that is a major problem. In my opinion as an experienced editor, every paragraph should have at least one reference and every single evaluative assertion should be referenced. For example, you write "She has helped develop the field of nursing ethics, to which she has contributed significantly" but that extraordinary assertion is unreferenced. Another such assertion is "She is known for her role advancing clinical ethics consultations for morally difficult issues in hospital settings", also unreferenced. You need to provide references to reliable, independent sources that describe her that way. At least one of your references (I did not check them all) is to another Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article is never acceptable as a reference in another Wikipedia article. The "Publications" section is way too long, in my opinion, and should be limited to her most widely cited work, or publications which have been widely reviewed. These are my observations after a quick read through, but every line in this draft needs to be examined carefully, and all unreferenced content should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ 06:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on Wikipedia's behalf. I think of "She has helped develop the field of nursing ethics, to which she has contributed significantly" as a topic sentence to be developed, not only by my efforts, since this observation is publicly evident. I have made some adjustments to the article. MaynardClark (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If that statement is "publicly evident", then it ought to be easy to provide a reference for it, MaynardClark. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we ought to be able to discover more than local recognition of the contributions, Cullen328, including (but not limited to):

• 2010, Living Legends in Massachusetts Nursing Award, American Nurses Association Massachusetts
• 2018, Vice President, Association of Bioethics Program Directors, whose membership is open to directors of U.S. and Canadian academic bioethics programs based in accredited universities or colleges meeting ABPD's criteria.

Just my $00.02. Currently it's a draft to avoid its being deleted. But I had not thought of this is (in any sense) as 'my' article (or focus) UNTIL I tried to help improve it with easily accessible biodata and other relevant information. MaynardClark (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Dsuz2018's question about saving

How do you save the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsuz2018 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How and where do I know that my work or article is saved? Can I keep it private for just few or designated people to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsuz2018 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Dsuz2018. Each time you clicked "Publish Changes" you saved the content of your draft to your sandbox. Although it is visible to everyone, nobody was likely to notice it until you clicked "Submit your draft for review" That drew attention to the draft, and if the reviewer were to accept it, they would move it to the title you entered when you clicked it. —teb728 t c 17:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Cutting the word 'Draft'

I wrote an article recently named 'Cingöz Recai(2017)' which is now saved in Wikipedia as 'Draft:Cingöz Recai(2017)'. How can I cut the word 'Draft' from it ? Can I change the article's name if needed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IfazTheWikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

IfazTheWikipedian, I have moved the draft to Draft:Cingöz Recai, removing the "(2017)". Article names are sometimes followed by something in parentheses to distinguish them from another article with the same name, but there's no need for that here. The draft currently cites no sources at all, and so does not meet the standards for articles on English Wikipedia. If someone were to make it into an article by moving it to Cingöz Recai, it would therefore be in danger of being deleted. If you want to improve it, I recommend you to read notability and Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi IfazTheWikipedian, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've moved the draft to Draft:Cingöz Recai (film) to distinguish it from the Cingöz Recai character, and I've added a box to the top of Draft:Cingöz Recai (film) that gives you resources for working on your draft. Please read "Your first article", which has some useful tips. Once the draft is ready to be published, just click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page, and a reviewer will look over it. If the draft passes review, it will be published as an article at Cingöz Recai (film). If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 06:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How to avoid articles reading as advertisements when writing about a business or organization?

Hello! A few months ago I had an article rejected about my family's 150-year-old business in which I explained its history, its publications (it's a newspaper-publisher / media-group), and the awards it has won. I made sure to establish COI and removed most of the links from the article to make it seem less like an advertisement and more like existing newspaper-publisher articles but it was still rejected for reading as an advertisement. I've mulled it all over in the last few months since it was rejected and deleted and I wish to try again while I'm home from school but want to make sure I do it correctly this time.

So my question is aimed mostly at people who write about pertinent businesses and organizations: What steps do I need to take to avoid my article looking or sounding like a business advertisement while still capturing the essence, history, and pertinence of the company?

Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamishMc (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@HamishMc: If it's your family's company, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for you to write a neutral article about it, as you are obviously predisposed to view it favourably (consciously or unconsciously). That is one of the main reasons we strongly discourage COI editing. The other is that, as I'm sure you can appreciate, it harms Wikipedia's reputation as a reference work to have articles written by people closely involved with their subjects. Please consider dropping the attempt. If the company is notable, a neutral volunteer will start an article in time. – Joe (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

J.I.D

How do I edit some of the critical reception on DiCaprio 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahwarrior11168 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Josiahwarrior11168, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to answer your question without knowing what it is exactly that you'd like to edit on the article about DiCaprio 2. All I would say is that any content you add needs to be supported with a citation (reference) to a reliable, published source. Don't just add critical remarks you've heard online without citing where it came from. Ignore blogs, social media and so forth - use only respected music magazines etc. Should you need to remove content, then consider whether discussing the issue on the article's talk page first would be a good idea. Always leave an 'edit summary' explaining why you've made the edit you have, so that others will understand your reasoning behind any edit. Does that answer your question, or is there anything specific you were thinking of? If so, please supply a link to the relevant article, or we probably can't assist much further. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

creating a page

looking for someone to create a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C1:4500:B57A:98EE:112C:E803:45A9 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello there and welcome to the Teahouse. If you would like to create an article, generally the best way to do so is by using the article wizard. Once you finish this, you will be instructed to create a draft which you can submit for review to become a "normal" article. Before creating a draft, however, please be sure that the topic is notable, all statements are supported by a reliable source, it is written from a neutral point of view, and most importantly, there are no copyright violations. This page summarizes all the key things to remember when creating an article, so I strongly recommend that you read through it. If you would like to request an article but don't want to actually create it yourself, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but beware that the backlog is quite large there and it's more likely that you're article will be published quicker if you create it yourself as a draft and submit it for review. Once you've finished your draft, you can add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of it, and within a few months, usually just a few days or weeks, a reviewer will look over it and either accept or decline it. I hope this helps and good luck if you do decide to create an article.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

resizing a picture on an existing page

On "Keith James Topping" I just tried to upload a picture I just took and succeeded but it is much too large. I see the "image size" line in Edit but whatever I put in doesn't seem to change the picture size. 17:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjtopping (talk • contribs)

 Done

This has already been fixed but you should not have put brackets around the file name. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Help!!!

Hello.. I am new and I don't know much about adding information or editing anything..But I want to contribute towards Wikipedia..So can I get some tips and guidelines?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpit1805 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arpit1805 and welcome to the Teahouse; we're glad that you want to contribute. A great place to start would be the Wikipedia Adventure, which guides you through screens which tell you important information and guidelines about Wikipedia. If you have questions about anything in specific, you are always welcome to ask at the Teahouse and us volunteers will try to help you out soon. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Flippin, Kentucky

I can’t seem to embed a link for a name that is not footnoted, but after an attempted insertion the butchered link pops up in a footnote, and all that remains of the name in the text is a footnote number that wasn’t there before.

Isn’t this the correct format?

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLevelBoy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi BlueLevelBoy. Welcome to the Teahouse. You've not done at all badly for a new editor, so well done. However, you used <ref>http://sites.usdaughters1812.org/flippin1812/|Thomas H. Flippin</ref> to create the reference. That doesn't work (the vertical pipe character shouldn't be used - just put a space after the url to create a hyperlink from Thomas H. Flippin) - indeed many of the references in that article aren't as well-constructed as they could be, and some are repeated three times, when, ideally, you should only cite the source once, and then re-use the citation. But let's not fuss about trivia - three repeated references are far better than none at all!

May I make two suggestions? Firstly, do have a read of Help:Referencing for beginners, which teaches you the basics of citing sources. Then I'd suggest you look for the "cite" button in the editing toolbar, and click that and then simply fill in the relevant fields in the template that appears. If you've chosen to use our more WYSIWYG editing tool (Visual Editor) you can generate some citations automatically from just a hyperlink, ISBN or DOI number or even a Google books url. Using VE's automatic citation generator, you get this much more helpful citation: <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://sites.usdaughters1812.org/flippin1812/|title=Thomas H. Flippin Chapter USD 1812|website=sites.usdaughters1812.org|access-date=2018-12-09}}</ref> which looks like this, when used.

Later, as you grow in confidence, you might wish to know about how to use a single reference more than once. Don't worry if this seems daunting right now - just ignore this bit. But, to reuse a reference, we need to give it a unique name and then 'call' that name up again. To do this we use the "ref name=" field - unfortunately this isn't available in Visual Editor, so I always revert to the source editor to work on our markup directly. (Not as easy to start with, but so much better when you get stuck in to editing regularly). There's guidance on how this is done at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations.

If it helps to know: I'd been editing here for many months before I discovered that we actually had a 'cite' button. Instead of faffing around for ages trying to type wikimarkup, I suddenly found I could simply enter the key reference information via a template. It made life so much easier! I hope it does for you, too. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

@BlueLevelBoy: As you can see in this guide, you would really go with <ref>[http://sites.usdaughters1812.org/flippin1812/ Thomas H. Flippin]</ref>. Without the space, the "|Thomas" portion reads as part of the web address. You might want to use Template:cite web for a more complete citation (you don't need to fill out all the fields, just one of each type that you can, like author, title, url...). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! BlueLevelBoy (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Image

Old celluloid film rolls - less coding is needed to add this image to an infobox than was needed to add it to this page. Explanation below.

Hello, what's the best way to add an image in a infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Celluloid Film Fan, and thanks for your question. The best (i.e. easiest) way is to add an image that is already available with the correct licence. You can search for these at Wikimedia Commons (see this link). If you can't find one, but assuming you do have an image for which you own the copyright, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons yourself. (But you may not upload screenshots, other people's photos, or images you've found on the internet).

Having got the image you want to use, edit the article (via the Edit source Tab) and look at the top of the page where the infobox template will be found. You'll see a line saying "|image = " and another saying "|caption =". (Note that some infobox use "|photo = " and "|photo_caption=" - but the effect is the same) Simply add the filename to the "|image=" line without any "File:", double square brackets, captions or anything else. Just the file name, usually ending in .jpg So, for the celluloid roll image I've just added, in an infobox you'd simply want to add "|image=Old celluloid film rolls (5201105455).jpg" (without the quote marks, of course). One good way to work out how to do anything on Wikipedia is to find a closely related page which has already done it, open it with the source editor, and look at how the wikimarkup has been used. Copy that style, and you can't go far wrong. For anything else, you'll find more guidance and links to follow at: Help:Pictures. Does this help you? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes! Thanks for the tip and great choice of a sample image! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to improve my personal page, any tips?

Any help would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolitiCalder (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean your userpage? For god's sake, don't look at mine. It's not exactly conventional . Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Check User:EEng, that has the required minimum ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• This user should not be spending time tinkering with their user page, they should be learning how to write an article, and learning how to use Wikipedia in general. To do so, they should be making small, incremental edits to improve existing pages, and not attempting to create articles, as their writing and researching abilities are simply not up to it. They've started to try to run the 100-year dash when they are barely able to walk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

edit article option disappeared

I'm not sure if I'm missing something but when I go to a subjects page the "edit article" option is missing now. I have the options to edit other parts of the article, but not the article itself. What am I missing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

never mind I think I went blind for a minute. I found the edit source on the tab on the top right corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celluloid Film Fan (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

New article, how to improve and publish

Hi, First thanks for your efforts and help, I am interested in learning how to improve my article and finally publish it. My article is about the international art association the Chamber of Public Secrets, this group of artists and curators has form an influential movement and has been active in Northern Europe during the last 10 years. Kindly advice what steps I need to take before the article can be published. Note: the article is in my sandbox. Thank you indeed, Anouti Abeid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoutiabed (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Anoutiabed, as far as I can tell you don't have a sandbox. Maybe you're referring to a sandbox of some other account. Can you please give a link to the sandbox you're asking about? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd like to know if it's allowed to cite locally-published magazines as reference to an article. Here in the Philippines, some of the city government have their own magazines without any online presence. Thanks. Carlobulletinph (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing an image

Hello. Is it possible to collapse an image? So that viewers need to click "[Show]" first in order for the image to appear. I've looked at Help:Collapsing but it only talks about tables and none about images.

Thanks! AdaCiccone (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi AdaCiccone. I've seen some images (usually a screenshot of some type) used in infoboxes which can be collapsed, but I'm not sure how that's done or whether that's what you want to do. Unfortunately, I cannot remember any examples at the moment, but perhaps someone else can provide you with some.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that images are supposed to be contextually relevant to the reader's understanding of whatever's written in the article; in other words seeing the image improves the reader's understand of the corresponding article content to some degree. So, collapsing an image sort of seems like admitting that the image is not really needed in the article in the first place. I realize that some people may collapse tables, etc. for formatting or aesthetic reasons, but that too in my opinion indicates that the relevant information is probably extraneous and not really needed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Of course, I'm just speaking in generalities here and there may actually be some good technical reasons for collapsing some things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Carl Freer

Dear Sirs,

Further to our earlier communication, we are instructed to inform you that our client, Mr. Joe Marten, ended his association with Carl Freer in or around 2016 and has had no further dealings with Carl Freer since such time.

Further, the words appearing and still remaining in your post below in as far as they falsely and wrongly state that our client was subject to a fraud investigation are libelous of our client and that our client will be taking further steps in this regard. The alleged link supporting this wrongful and malicious allegation of our client being a party to a fraud investigation does not exist and the link presently provided directs to the present front page of the Times.

Quote:-

"Freer's long-standing business partner for Singapore company iQNECT Carl Freer and Joe Marten. Joe Marten was also the Director of Gizmondo Europe Limited with Carl Freer at the helm during one of the biggest company fraud investigations in recent British history, totaling 215 million pounds (UK).

Carl Freer's new businesses are[23] all associated with his partner Joe Marten. "

Unquote

In this regard, all of our client's rights are reserved. We would be grateful if you would put us in touch with your legal department or your outside counsel.

Thank you.

Yours Faithfully

Messrs TITO ISAAC & CO LLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.228.48 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We refer to the captioned matter wherein we act for Mr. Joseph Mathew Marten

We are seeking the editing of the post in respect of Carl Freer. We note that it is still pending review.

We want to remove all reference to Mr. Joe Marten in this post.

Kindly confirm when the changes will be accepted.

Thank you.

MESSRS TITO ISAAC & CO LLP SINGAPORE

10 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.228.48 (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, your edit on 29 November to Carl Freer was rejected on the same day. You can see that in the article history. If you believe that you have valid reasons for removing the sourced information, you can start a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Carl Freer, but since you claim to represent the person you have a paid conflict of interest, and should not attempt to edit the article directly. More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP 121.7.228.48. If there's something in Carl Freer which you think shouldn't be there, you can either be (1) WP:BOLD and remove it yourself, or be (2) WP:CAUTIOUS and try to establish a WP:CONSENSUS for its removal at Talk:Carl Freer. However, since it already appears that you tried to be bold and were subsequently reverted, my suggestion to you is to discuss things on the artilce talk page, unless you're going to claim the content clearly violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as explained in item 2 of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits. In that case, you should leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why your removing the content and then follow up with a more detailed post on the article's talk page further explaining why. Be advised, however, that negative content about the subjects of articles can be included as long as it complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and properly sourced content will not simply be removed just because its negative. Please look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia for more specific details on this. Please also note that relevant Wikipedia policy in this case not only applies to Carl Freer, the subject of the article, but also to any living person mentioned in the article; so, you might wish to seek more specific assistance about this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you have any further questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That said, the article could use a BLP-check. I'm unsure about if for example realtid.se is a reliable source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

IP user, you should also be aware of Wikipedia policy on no legal threats. That page also has a link for contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation. You are free to pursue your grievances on Wikipedia or in the courts of your country, but not both. The above posts give very good advice about this situation and I urge you to heed it. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Our article clearly needs updating, but volunteer editors here do not respond to threats of legal action. Companies House shows that Joseph Matthew Rohan Marten was indeed involved with Gizmondo as director but resigned on March 9th 2005. Mr Freer resigned on October 18th that year. If Mr Marten would care to withdraw the threat of legal action, then the simplest solution would be to update the article. I can find no other British company connection between Mr Marten and Mr Freer. Dbfirs 10:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, the text in question was introduced in October 2016 with these two edits, the only edits by the user, and was promptly reverted by this edit. It was restored in May 2018 by this mass revert. Although I am not an expert in BLP issues, I am inclined to think the removal was correct. —teb728 t c 12:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Invictus Groups

I am trying to publish a couple of pages on Wikipedia, and I will not lie. Its proven to be messy. How much content to I need in order to have my article approved? I would like to post about 2 business and 1 public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papique (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Papique: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should read Your First Article to learn what is expected of new articles. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial which will give you additional information. As you have found, successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia.

Based on your deleted pages, I would tell you to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about a business. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage states about article subjects that are notable as Wikipedia defines it. For businesses, that is defined at WP:ORG(please review). Not every business merits an article here, even within the same field. Independent sources do not include things like press releases, basic business announcements, staff interviews, or any primary source.

If you are associated with the businesses you are writing about, you need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this response! I truly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papique (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing Articles

I have been reviewing a large number of articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability. Someone has come on to my user page telling me that I need to review fewer articles. They also said that as a new user, I can only give articles stub,start and C class ratings because I am a new editor. Is this true?

Also, one article John Slessor had already been given GA status by several other wikiprojects, but on the disability project, it showed up as unassessed. I tried to put it into GA status on disability, but this user has told me I'm not allowed to do that. How can it be put into the GA status on the wikiproject:disability catagory if I am not allowed to do it?

CircleGirl (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CircleGirl, Good article help might be a good place to ask. Good articles has a special nomination and review process. An article that is a good article for one WikiProject might not be a good article for another. In the case of John Slessor, I'm not sure it would be considered a good article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability as there's only the brief mention that he had polio as a child. Between the experts at Good article help and at WP:DISAB, I'm sure they can take a look and determine whether John Slessor meets the criteria for a Project Disability Good Article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Schazjmd and CircleGirl: I've restored CircleGirl's edit to John Slessor's talk page and notified Chris troutman (I was working up a reply here and got into an edit conflict). I don't think it's correct that "a good article for one WikiProject might not be a good article for another"; I'm pretty sure that once an article has gone through a formal GA review (this one has), it can be assessed as GA for all WikiProjects. GA reviews are not project-exclusive; they apply in general.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@SkyGazer 512: Good to know, I didn't realize GA was for all WikiProjects. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!CircleGirl (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How Should one cite a reference while edit?

How Should one cite a reference while edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4099:4DFF:1CE8:4C0F:E89:3CAA (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to cite your changes. Check out the tutorials at WP:TUTORIAL and Referencing for Begninners to learn how to add citations. RudolfRed (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope this helps: Help:Referencing_for_beginners S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I upload a photograph to a page? How do I replace a photograph with an updated photograph?

How do I upload a photograph to a page? How do I replace a photograph with an updated photograph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eadamico (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eadamico: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can find information on how to upload and use images at Help:Files#Uploading files and Help:Pictures. I hope that helps to answer the basic questions. If you have a specific problem, feel free to ask again. Regards SoWhy 16:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism Question/glitch! Help! Gente De Zona Bio (Spanish)

Hello, I'm from Gente De Zona's management and i'm trying to update the history page on the spanish link so that it matches with our other sites. Unfortunately because of that it states that there is plagiarism so it won't let me update it. How can I get around this? The quote on quote plagiarized sentences were our original content just on a different site. Thank you, Magnus Media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnusmediallc (talk • contribs)

Note: OP already blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations

I sometimes find it difficult to determine if a site is appropriate. Specifically, that it isn't a Wikipedia mirror (they often don't say).Michael E Nolan (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Michael E Nolan

Hey Michael E Nolan. There are indeed a large number of sites that mirror Wikipedia content, and which we therefore do not want to use as a reference for our articles. You can view a list of known sites at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks GMG^talk 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Michael E Nolan. One of the most important skills for a Wikipedia editor is Identifying reliable sources. According to that guideline, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Another useful page to read is Identifying and using independent sources. You have to develop your critical reading skills, and evaluate every new source you use, looking for strong indications of reliability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing title of a page

Hi there,

I am new to editing Wiki and made some changes yesterday to a page that had used an incorrect full name for its subject. A more experienced editor mentioned that there might be a case for 'moving' the page, which I understand is a way of changing the title. I can't seem to do it, possibly because I'm a new editor, but I wondered if someone could help me find out how to change the title of the following page from Ernest Erbstein to Ernő Egri Erbstein as this is the person in question's name. Here's the URL for the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Erbstein Tolstoy22

Hi Tolstoy22. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Your account is still too new to move it directly; you can either ask someone else to do it at WP:RM, or what a couple of days until you are autoconfirmed. – Joe (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tolstoy22: That said, remember that Wikipedia uses the most common recognizable variation of a name - not necessarily the subject's full legal name - for its article titles. Before you perform or request a move, please ensure that "Ernő Egri Erbstein" is indeed the most commonly used variation to refer to this individual. In this case for example, "Ernest Erbstein" seems to be cited as the subject's name more often in books and other reliable sources than "Erno Erbstein" or "Erno Egri Erbstein". Regards SoWhy 10:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe. That shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure where you're looking, but Erno Egri Erbstein is certainly the most commonly used name for him. I'm not sure where Ernest came from - an anglicisation probably. In the only English language biography, he is Erno Egri Erbstein, and in most of the major recent news articles about his life - Guardian, BBC, CNN, etc - including the ones footnoted on his Wiki page. So I think it's a straightforward move to "Erno Egri Erbstein." Tolstoy22 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Image upload snag

I have been trying to upload an image today but am receiving a "Something went wrong" message, stating the following: "A file identical to this file (File:BAK_logo_3D.png) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it." When I click on the file in question I am told "No file by this name exists." How can I go about uploading this file, as it won't allow me to do so and I can't find it in existence on the site already. Tolstoy22

Hey Tolstoy22. It looks like the file was deleted on our sister project Wikimedia Commons back in July. If the image you are trying to upload is not licensed for free public use, then it cannot be uploaded to Commons. However, in a very limited number of circumstances, it may be allowed as a local file on the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, but that largely depends on what the content is, and how you intend to use it. GMG^talk 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Tolstoy22. Where did you try to upload it? I see that you have preveiously uploaded that file to Commons, and it has been deleted there. I don't think you should have any difficulty uploading it to English Wikipedia provided you show that it meets all the criteria in the WP:NFCC.

I'll explain this a little (because you said on the Commons Help Desk that you didn't understand). The intention of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all material in its projects (including Wikipedia) is freely licensed, so that anybody can reuse it for any purpose, requiring only attribution to the source. This means that permission from the copyright owner is not enough for uploading copyright material: we require that the copyright owner explicitly release it under a license which will allow this (see donating copyright materials. Wikimedia Commons enforces this condition strictly - which is why the file was deleted from Commons.

Some Wikipedias, including English Wikipedia, allow copyright materials to be uploaded and used in certain specific conditions. The details of these conditions are in the non-free content criteria. Logos are often used in a way which does meet these criteria, so many articles in English Wikipedia have logos uploaded directly to English Wikipedia in this way. See WP:LOGO.

So, if you are sure that it meets all the criteria, you should be able to upload the logo to enwiki, and use it in an article.

One more thing: I see you have tried to sign your posts by putting a link to your user page. If you end with four tildes (~~~~) it will insert this and also the date and time: please do this. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, ColinFine and GreenMeansGo. Thanks for your help, and I'll remember to sign off correctly in future. The image is a logo for a football club - it wasn't me who tried to upload it in July, when it was initially deleted, but a fellow club director. We commissioned the design of the logo and own the image, but it is not copyrighted or trademarked. We would like to add it to our club's Wiki page, but I'm guessing that won't be possible in this case, as I won't be able to fill a form out with any copyright details. Is that the case? Tolstoy22 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tolstoy22. Normally a logo of an organization can be used under a claim of fair use. You can request the image be uploaded at our Files for Upload project and I'll take care of the particulars. I know that page is pretty backlogged at the moment, but I intend to try to clear it out before the end of the week. GMG^talk 19:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo. I'll try to do that. My account is only a day old, so I've not been autoconfirmed yet - perhaps that is going to be a problem too. I'm learning all these terms and restrictions as I go, so apologies if some of it seems obvious. Another terminology question: Would a logo, owned by the club, be considered a 'free' image? I'm guessing not. Tolstoy22 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tolstoy22. As a general rule all creative works are automatically copyrighted by the person or entity that created them, and start out by default as a non-free work. In order to be free, works either have to be freely licensed by the owner of the intellectual property rights (which can be verified for Wikipedia by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT) or the work has to have fallen into the public domain, which usually means it is a very old work, or the person who created it died a long time ago. There's lots of caveats and nuances to it, because copyright law is complicated, but that's the basic gist of it. GMG^talk 19:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo. I think I'm getting somewhere now! I am looking into filling out a form and there is a lot of head-scratching information to take in, I must say. I see that a low-res image is preferred for non-free logo images to be published under 'fair use'. What size is low-res? Can it be a PNG, or must it be a JPG?Tolstoy22 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tolstoy22. As long as you can link to the image, provide evidence that it is the currently used official logo (usually easy to verify via official website) and indicate what article it needs to go on, I can take care of the particulars like image size. Format doesn't really matter all that much. GMG^talk 20:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Tolstoy22, For resolution, see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Image_resolution. It can be png or jpg. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's very kind, GreenMeansGo. I see I need to fill out a license section and there's lots of different suggestions for this, one a logo copyright template license, and another for various fair use instances. I have know idea what to put there, or in the Link to License information section. Come to think of it, should the given copyright owner be an individual or should it be the club? As I said, we created the image but we didn't actively copyright it. Tolstoy22 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tolstoy22. You don't have to actively copyright it (in most countries, although you used to a long time ago). It's automatically copyrighted when its created, and owned by whoever created it. If "we" created the image and there was no agreement between "we" and the club that the club would own the intellectual property rights, then "we" own the copyright as a collective work. But so long as Wikipedia is using it under a claim of fair use, either one should suffice, since I'm assuming that "we" were members of the club (and not like a graphic designer who was paid for a service), and so the difference blurs a little bit, but not necessarily in a way that is meaningful to Wikipedia. The important thing there is that it's not owned by someone like Getty Images, who we explicitly cannot use fair use images from, possibly because they've threatened to sue us or something. GMG^talk

Hi GreenMeansGo. Sorry, 'we' is the club, who own the image, so presumably hold the copyright automatically, given what you've just said (assuming that law applies in Hungary). I'll use the club's name as the copyright owner on the form. Could you guide me on what I need to write in the "License" and "Link to License Information" sections of the form as well, please? I really am clueless. Tolstoy22 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well Tolstoy22, if the club wants to license the work freely, you'll have to send an email following the directions at WP:CONSENT. Note though that doing so will license it freely for anyone to use for any purpose and is irrevocable. If you want to use it just on Wikipedia, then you can just put "Fair use" or whatever is closest.

It's been a long time since I actually clicked through the wizard that files these requests, but if it makes you feel any better, probably half the requests there are filled out wrong or only partially filled out, but they usually have enough information to figure it out. If not, I'll ping you there and ask for clarification. GMG^talk 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi GreenMeansGo. I've filled in the request and published it, so let's hope there's enough info there! Thanks for all your help and for your patience. Tolstoy22 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem Tolstoy22. Like I said, I'm gonna try to work through all the requests before the end of the week and if there any issues I'll let you know. GMG^talk 20:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I edit well?

Hello it's Malcolm and I would like to know what is the best way to edit? I want to do my best on Wikipedia and help people : ^ ) -Hey breej2 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hey breej2. You may want to start with taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure which can help you learn a lot of the basics of editing Wikipedia. GMG^talk 18:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Questin

My question is which step should we use to start and article.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonkah Nommy (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nonkah Nommy. You may want to start by reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. GMG^talk 18:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Many people come to Wikipedia to create an article. Because they have something on their mind and want to share it. That's a hard task, and many fail. Another path is to find existing articles on topics you already know, and see if you can make them better. Also, your User page is for a little bit about you (mostly, what you hope to accomplish at Wikipedia), your Talk page is for others to tell you stuff and you reply, your Sandbox is your practice space. What you write there can be saved by clicking on "Publish" That does not mean published in Wikipedia - it means saving what is in your Sandbox. Welcome to Wikipedia-land. David notMD (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I found a mistake in a picture but I haven't got permission to change it or replace it

Hello,

problem is as titled. What's the procedure in these instances? I am sorry for the silly question but I am quite new to wikiepdia editing.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimiur (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cimiur. Its not a silly question at all, though it would help immensely if you supplied a link to the picture (I assume its on Wikimedia Commons?), and explained your precise concerns to us. My first instinct would be see if the original image uploader is still an active user and, if they are, I'd drop them a note. Failing that, I might consider leaving a summary of my concerns on the talk page on Commons. If fixing the issue is a simple case of downloading the image from Wikimedia Commons, editing it, and uploading a new version, then (unless there's some restriction on creatimg derivative works, most likely do have the right to fix and replace it. But all these scenarios may be irrelevant. Lets wait until you give us more details of the image and the issues you've got with it. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick thanks for your answer, here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SynthesisofGrubbs1stGen.png

The problem in the image is that on the second arrow there are only solvent and temperature without the reagent which would be tricyclohexylphosphine (PCy₃). Most likely the image was made with Chemdraw, so either the original uploader has still got the file and he can change it in no time or it needs to be made again. Or if you are good with Photoshop you can do that as well I guess. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimiur (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cimiur. File:SynthesisofGrubbs1stGen.png is a Commons file; so, you'll have to upload a new corrected version of it to Comomns. The original uploader was c:User:Vdubbs, but that person doesn't seem to be active on Commons anymore or Wikipedia (User:Vdubbs) any longer. You can downloaded the Commons file, correct the mistake, and then reupload it as a "updated version" if you want; just make sure to describe the changes you make. You can also create a new version from scratch, upload it as a separate file, and then just replace the old version with your version wherever the file is being used. If you're not sure how to create/correct the file perhaps someone at c:COM:GL or at WT:CHEM can help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a fix-it shop for images. Click the "Illustration workshop" tab, then follow the instructions. Be very very specific about positioning, font style, size, weight, and explain your thinking thoroughly and systematically. Mention that the original author is inactive on WP. Best of luck!--Quisqualis (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a style consensus on formatting locations?

For example, should country names follow major subdivisions like U.S. states? (Always or only when the subdivision is not well-known?) Can subdivisions be omitted for well-known cities, and what's the standard for whether they're well-known? I couldn't find any MOS guidance that's not about article titles, rather than use in prose or an infobox. Kim Post (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kim Post. I don't fully understand your question, but the guidelines for place names can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). They apply to both article titles and body text. – Joe (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Donations

Would like to donate, but by check only. Give me. An address to mail the check to “Wikipedia Donations”. Or not. David Kline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A180:5490:EC86:EA63:AA7A:803 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an address to mail donations to on this page (clickable link). 331dot (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ball Road Anaheim, California

My Great Great grandfather was a Pioneer in Anaheim, Ca his residence was in Aaheim , California previously he was a Waggoner supplying merchandise from Wellington, California to Santa Fe, New Mexico. At his return trip he did what was called, a turnaround bring the merchandise for Santa Fe, New Mexico to Wellington, California. Stopping at merchant's along the way. Travling with many wagons and many armed guards through Indian territories. He established a well for the different tribes for fresh water.

This information was given to me from the Anaheim Historical Society main Librarian Jane Newell who also communicated with a local historian named Orange county kid. My great great grandfather Hezekiah Wright Ball is who Ball Road in Anaheim, California is named after. How would I go about publishing the article on Wikipedia? What type f document's would I need to establish authenticity? 1st time article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballroad (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ballroad, and welcome to the Teahouse. That does sound quite interesting. However, you may have some difficulty introducing it to Wikipedia, because all information in Wikipedia articles must have been previously published in a reliable source. It sounds as though the librarian has given you unpublished information: if so, then I'm afraid it would count as original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. The job of an encyclopaedia is to summarise information which has already been researched, edited, and published, not to announce new discoveries. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your historical records regarding your g-g-grandfather might be better off being uploaded to one of the genalogy websites. Hezekiah Wright Ball was notable in his time and town, but, today, nobody writes much about him. Unless the Historical Society has published material, like newpaper clippings or books relating to him, he won't be appearing soon in Wikipedia.

Help inserting links to preexisting article

Hi. I see that a couple of links in the Reference Section for Keith A. Schooley no longer are active. Would someone please insert these alternative links for me? For #12 http://www.worldcat.org/title/robber-barons-of-the-big-board-a-feature-screenplay/oclc/785780441&referer=brief_results

and for #13     https://thecostcouldbefatal.com/pdfs/Robber%20Barons%20-%20FuturesMag%20reviews.pdf

Thanks so much. I really appreciate the assistance. Hillary Chase Hillary Chase (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hillary Chase, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I've added the link to Worldcat to reference #12. There are already two links to PDFs hosted on thecostcouldbefatal.com in the article, so instead of adding a third, I've added a link to an archived copy of the Futures Magazine review hosted at the Wayback Machine. rchard2scout (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Many, many thanks Richard! Hillary Chase (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Hillary

Carl Freer

Dear Sirs,

Further to our communication on 10 December 2018 and prior correspondence, we are instructed by our client, Mr. Joe Marten to highlight further inaccuracies in your post as follows:-

a) Carl Freer was never at all a Director of Iqnect Pte Ltd in Singapore. Our client is no longer a Director of Iqnect Pte Ltd and your post fails to highlight this fact and that Iqnect Pte Ltd now has a new and different Board of Directors. Again, we repeat, that your post is malicious and libelous of our client as our client was not the subject of any fraud investigation or allegation in regard to Gizmondo Europe Limited at all. Please immediately take down the references to our client in this regard.

May we hear from you please?

In the interim, we can be contacted at +65 6730 6051 / +65 6533 0288 / niko.isaac@titoisaaclaw.com / angeline.benjamin@titoisaaclaw.com

Thank you MESSRS TITO ISAAC & CO LLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.228.48 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user. Please stop making legal threats. I agree that the article on Carl Freer needs to be cleaned up and checked for accuracy, but the place to bring that up is at [[Talk:Carl Freer|the talk page of that article. Also, your previous post here got some answers, were they of any use to you? rchard2scout (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Broken Link For Archive

At this diff a discussion was removed from the page saying it was being archived. However the link it claims it was archived to is a red link. Can anyone please tell me the correct link to this archive? Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Jytdog. There was a later edit summary correcting the link. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 09:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Unresponsive category editing.

Before I explain anything, I think I should let you know that this bug occured on Gamepedia, but both Gamepedia and Wikipedia are powered by mediaWiki so the solution should transfer.

I recently was editing approximately 58 pages at once. I would have all of them open in separate tabs and when my work was done, I would scroll all the way down on each page, hold my mouse over the "Save changes" button and then click, ctrl+tab, click, ctrl+tab, and so on until all the pages were saved. For every page I was editing, I would either add or remove a category.

The problem I'm having is that some of the pages do not go into the category I put them in. Furthermore, some of the pages the got their category removed remain in said category. What makes this even stranger is that a few pages' edits went through, and were added to or removed from their respective categories like they should have done.

The first thing I did was leave the website and come back to it because at first I thought it would refresh in its own. I came back 2 hours later and the pages still appeared in the wrong category. I've tried purging the category page, but that did not do anything noticeable. I've also tried adding some temporary text to one of the pages to try to refresh the category, but that did not help either.

I'm super confused and I'm not sure how to fix this problem. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Diriector Doc (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diriector Doc, welcome to the Teahouse. Please post an example link to a page with the problem. In the English Wikipedia, category pages are updated quickly when member pages are edited (but sometimes slowly when categories are added or removed via a template and only the template is edited). PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, my edits were not made on the English Wikipedia. The were pages on Gamepedia, more specifically the Brawhalla Gamepedia. I was adding an removing categories from a bunch of files.

These files were removed from Category:Screenshots and added to Category:Character images and do not show up in either category:

• File:Azoth.png
• File:Lord Vraxx.png

These files were removed form Category:Character images and then added to Category:Unused Files (via template) but remain in Category:Character_images and were not added to Category:Unused_Files:

• File:Bear'dvar Icon.jpg
• File:Big Rig Bodvar Icon.jpg

This file was removed form Category:Character images and then added to Category:Unused Files (via template) and does not show up in either category:

• File:Atomic Orion Icon.jpg (although this file has since been edited, so it could be a result of that instead)

These files were added to Category:Character images after previously having no category and appear in the correct category like they should:

• File:Xull.png
• File:Yumiko.png

These files were removed form Category:Character images and then added to Category:Unused Files (via template) and appear in the correct category like they should:

• File:High Impact Sentinel Icon.jpg
• File:Ada.jpg

Not every file was mentioned as it would take to long to list, but from these examples, the results are inconstant and almost random.

I'm not sure what can be said given this info, but maybe some research can be done on the site or something.--Diriector Doc (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Upon Further testing, I managed to fix the problem, but the solution is quite inefficient. I wanted to see what happened if I added it back to the category and then undid my edit. That worked. Before when I was testing temporary edits, it was just some text and not category editing. My theory is that adding a category via template and removing one at the same time causes this glitch. I can't say for certain though, and it is very likely that I am wrong.

Anyway, adding the category back, saving the changes, and then undoing the changes is a valid solution, so if this glitch happens to anyone else, this is one way to fix it.--Diriector Doc (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Signing Edit

Is this how you appropriately sign your edit (Celluloid Film Fan (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

@Celluloid Film Fan: Without the parentheses, yes. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

thank you. Celluloid Film Fan (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Preventing a Vandal

Hi,

I believe that the wikipedia contributor who created an article for my company is now trying to vandalize it by removing it with no justification. The company he was hired through has asked me to provide his IP address so that they can verify that it is him and take action. Is there any way I can get a contributor's IP address if I have his user name? Is there any other action I can take to prevent his continued efforts to vandalize the article? Thank you.Brandmarketing (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brandmarketing: You'll need to tell us the username and article in question. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Brandmarketing. Wikipedia takes vandalism seriously: it is generally reverted on sight, and the perpetrator warned, and blocked if they do it repeatedly. But the definition of vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". Editing that you disapprove of is not necessarily vandalism, and I would caution you against using the word recklessly. Proposing an article for deletion could be vandalism, but the deletion will not happen without review, and must be performed by an administrator, so vandalism of that kind is rare. I think it is extermely unlikely that Wikipedia will make any information known to you about an editor, other than what that editor has chosen to make public. But as Ian.thomson says, we can't really answer any questions until you tell us which article you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine and Ian.thomson. This was a case of an author removing an article he wrote for us completely (not making edits) in retaliation for a negative review on the freelancer website he was hired (and paid) through. I have to decide if I want to publicly call him out because I fear further retaliation or other inappropriate behavior. I was hoping that there was a less public way to have this addressed so that he doesn't mistreat other clients, and I don't want to escalate an already unpleasant situation. Another Wikipedia contributor was finally able to restore the article after an attempted reversal by the original author.Brandmarketing (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Brandmarketing: You can press this link to email me the relevant details (the hired individual and the article in question) if you'd rather not publicly post the information. If I don't have that information, I can't come up with an assessment as to what I can do to help or at least advise you on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When you hire a person to write a Wikipedia article about you, you relinquish any control you thought you had over that article. Anyone can (and likely will) edit it, according to reliable sources, whether flattering or not so much. The person you hired to write the article has a gigantic WP:Conflict of interest, and must declare it or be in much trouble regarding their ability to edit WP (blocks and worse may occur). If your article fails to reappear, you can always sue the hired writer in the courts of your country, but that's about all the control you have here.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How to get started?

Hi newbie here please tell me how to get started?Dabid7 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dabid7: We have a tutorial at WP:The Wikipedia Adventure that may help you. I've also written at guide explaining a variety of things and linking to different parts of the site, which you can find at User:Ian.thomson/Guide.

As for finding articles to edit, pick a topic or topics that you would buy books or magazines about even if Wikipedia didn't exist, and look at our articles to see if there's any information missing. Or just read Wikipedia as usual and keep an eye out for small problems that need to be fixed (e.g. grammar or spelling mistakes). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to #citeref in visual editor.

Want to reproduce the Carlo 1996 referencing here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez#CITEREFCarlo1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

HI Chemicalnasties. References in Visual Editor are tricky but improving. At the moment to use this type of reference, which is {{sfn}}, click on Insert rather than Cite, then choose Template. At "Add a Template" type sfn and click Add template. Now you will see the fields for the template. Put Carlo in "1", 1996 in "2", and the page numbers in "p" then click Insert. The reference will be there. However Visual Editor will not show the reference in the reference list and will not let you preview to see the reference. But it will be there once you Publish. Hope this helps. Currently doing anything complicated with references is best done with the source editor. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Albion Rovers F.C. (aka Cairnlea FC)

Hi there,

I changed the title of Cairnlea FC to Albion Rovers F.C. (aka Cairnlea FC). After doing so, I realised there are other clubs with the same name but have their town listed in brackets. To be consistent on wiki, I would like to change the Albion Rovers F.C. (aka Cairnlea FC) to "Albion Rovers F.C (Cairnlea)".

Thank you,

Ayasliyim (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ayasliyim:  Done, now at Albion Rovers FC (Cairnlea). A bot will shortly fix any double-redirects. I also added it to the hatnote of the article of the main club by that name. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement Infringement

Hi All,

I am trying to publish this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Home_Made - which has been rejected for advertisement infringement.

Can someone help me understand why?

Thank you

Acolombohm (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Acolombohm and welcome to The Teahouse. You haven't been rejected for advertisement infringement. Rather, your article was declined because it simply reads like an ad for the company. Take a look at WP:NOTADVERTISING. Then take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. You might also take a look at WP:GNG regarding general notability requirements and WP:CORPDEPTH regarding corporation notability. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Would Buhle Farmers' Academy quality for an article?

Dear Wikipedia Teahouse I work for the Buhle Farmers' Academy (www.buhle.org.za), a non-profit organisation that trains new farmers from South Africa, and several surrounding countries, to build up and manage profitable and sustainable farms. We have been doing this for 18 years and have many funders and several partnerships with government organisations (e.g. some provincial agriculture departments use our trainers to train farmers they need to empower). This work is important for successful land reform - a thorny and urgent issue - in South Africa. We are non-political, and do not take sides in the land reform debate. We just provide the training that farmers need. We would like to create a page about our academy and its work. Would this be possible? I am happy to edit other entries in order to quality as a page creator, but thought I should ask this question to be sure. Several media stories have been published about our work. I am happy to provide these if it helps. With thanks, Jo-Anne Smetherham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josmetherham (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Josmetherham: and welcome. We're always glad to have someone who knows about things we don't know.

First thing is to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Second, write a WP:User page about yourself, your work, and your intention in Wikipedia.

Third, probably a whole new page is not the best way to start. I notice that Agriculture in South Africa is not a very long article, and you could add a section about farmer education, including of course your own. After other editors have criticised and improved it (it's likely to take at least a week) you should discuss with them the question of separating that material into a new article. Yes, it's a bit complicated, but indirect methods like this tend to be more successful. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Josmetherham I would add that you will also need to review the paid editing policy; compliance with it is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jim.henderson. Thank you. That is very helpful. I shall go about it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.145.82 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on these photos?

An editor added a photo to an article in my watchlist about a dairy. It is a generic photo of a cow being milked. Looking at their contributions they've added the same image to a lot of articles about dairies. Does it add any value to the articles? Should the changes be reverted? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's best to discuss this with the editor, either on his talk page or the talk page of the article in question. It's up to you to form a consensus on how the article can best be illustrated. For my part, I would say a generic picture of a readily understood concept does not improve the article about a specific dairy. As MOS:IMAGE says, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." You may find it easier to come to agreement if you can supply a better picture instead of merely reverting the change. Kim Post (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I went to Wikimedia Commons and entered "dairy industry" in the search box. I got 80 images which you may review here. Note that other keywords will pull up a different assortment of images, any of which you may use as replacements for the milking image you find to be overused.Good luck!--Quisqualis (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How do i find my page on wikipedia

Since Friday (although am new here) i have been trying to get my page on wikipedia so that if someone searches for my name (Cherish Chukwu) on Google it will appear just like others do. So please i need help and support in doing this, my name is Cherish Chukwu and thats also the page name. I will be grateful if some can do it urgently. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherish Chukwu (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, Cherish Chukwu; welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to write about yourself. All topics must meet certain notability guidelines, which generally requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document every single person; it is an encyclopedia and only covers notable topics that would belong in one. If you would like to learn more about Wikipedia in general, the Wikipedia Adventure would be a great place to start. I hope this helps you out and let me know if you have any further questions.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cherish Chukwu, I see you wrote a little about yourself on your userpage. Unfortunately Wikipedia userpages are marked "noindex"; so Google does not look at them. Articles are indexed, but as SkyGazer 512 says, only notable subjects may have an article. —teb728 t c 18:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

i have a doubt

i mean what type of references are required for approval of an article to be feature in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjenni720 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jordanjenni720. Please read Identifying reliable sources and feel free to ask more specific questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone want to help with my peer review

I currently have a peer review of Terminator 2 on so if you have any opinions on how to make the article better, please help as they are much appreciated--I love rpgs (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I love rpgs. I'm afraid your post here is not really that relevant. Not that you aren't welcome here (!), but the Teahouse is aimed at assisting newcomers in editing, whereas WP:PEERREVIEW is a highly technical process, especially as I assume your intention is to take Terminator 2: Judgment Day from a WP:GOOD ARTICLE up to a WP:FEATUREDARTICLE. I think this is well beyond the level we tend to work at, and we don't really want to encourage everyone to post their peer review and other requests here, too. Whilst there is an automatic notification on that article's Talk Page, you could also open a new topic on that page to highlight that you have committed to take the process forward and to integrate any suggestions that arise through it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't add discussion to talk page for semi-protected article

I'm attempting to suggest an edit (error in the link to movie) on a semi-protected celebrity page but when I attempt to add a discussion about it the "save" button on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tom_Holland_(actor)#/talk/new is greyed out and won't allow me to suggest it. I'm not attempting to edit it myself, simply notify the responsible user that there is an error in the lead paragraph.

If anyone is interested it's just the movie link to Edge of Winter on that page should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Winter_(film) Kdawnw (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Kdawnw, for reporting the error. I've corrected the link. Maproom (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kdawnw, did you type something in both the subject and text boxes? The save button is disabled if either is blank. —teb728 t c 18:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No protection please

Administrators: please stop protecting pages on the wiki. This is seen as vandalism. If I become an administrator, I will probably unprotect those pages. Anthony E. Lahmann (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Anthony, not meaning this as an insult, but considering that you have been a registered editor with Wikipedia for less than 24 hours, this is more than a little presumptuous on your part. Please review WP:PP, which explains how and why articles are protected, and WP:ADMIN which explains the process of being considered for the role of admin here (and it is a process). General Ization ^Talk 19:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Anthony, we will not stop protecting pages. Protection of pages is not WP:VANDALISM. If you ever do become an admin you probably wouldn't unprotect all the pages that are protected. If you did unprotect all the pages you probably wouldn't remain an admin. ~ GB fan 19:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to Question

I want to write about baseball but don't know what to write about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyb9 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Teddyb9, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you go and look at WP:WikiProject Baseball: if you don't get some ideas from that page, you can ask on the talk page, and you'll find people who will be glad to discuss this with you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I add a new description of a word that is already there?

To be "floxed" is to have had an adverse reaction to a fluoroquinolone antibiotic. They almost all end in "...floxacin". I put the disamibiguation page for "flox" below. How do I create a new page for "Flox" and a spot on the disambiguation page? Is there some protocol to follow as far as describing this particular "flox"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark A Girard (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mark A Girard, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopaedia. It has a few articles about words, when they are notable in Wikipedia's sense, that is, there has been significant material published about the word (as a word or a phenomenon; for example irregardless). Normally articles are not about words but about the things that words relate to.

My guess is that "floxing" would not merit an article of its own, but may have a section in an existing article, though I confess I'm not sure which: perhaps Adverse drug reaction, but that doesn't seem to have much on particular drugs or families of drugs. I may be wrong in my guess: the crucial thing is how much reliably published material you can find about floxing (see notability). If you would like to try writing a new article, read your first article.

In any case, don't put it in the DAB page until there is somewhere to link it to: either an article, or a section of an article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest that you create a section (or add a paragraph to the section on adverse reactions) in the article Fluoroquinolone--Quisqualis (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Sbandieratori 3.JPG--image description

I am trying to place an English translation of the image description on the above image file. Something is wrong with my syntax, though. Can you direct me to the WP page concerning translated image descriptions and how to make the proper translation appear with the image as it is viewed full-sized when clicked on in the En version of the article? Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Quisqualis. You can see the changes that needed done here. It's basically {{LANGUAGE CODE|TEXT OF THE CAPTION}}, where the language code is the two letter abbreviation, de for German, en for English, so on and so forth. GMG^talk 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! For my future reference, GreenMeansGo, as I am sick today, can you give me a link to the instructions on WP?

Hey Quisqualis. It's a bit more complicated unfortunately. The image is on our sister project Wikimedia Commons, and not on the English Wikipedia. Each individual language also has its own template. So for example, the instructions for the English version is at c:Template:En, the French version is at c:Template:Fr, so on and so forth. But they're all pretty much the same, just the brackets {{|}} with the two letter language code and the text. GMG^talk 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions. I'll make a note of them.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Record World Number One Songs Articles?

I noticed that there is an article about the now-defunct Record World/Music Vendor magazine that published a music chart from October 1954-April 1982 yet no listing of the number one songs on that chart as of yet. Does anyone think a listing of all the number-one songs on that chart would be considered a notable enough subject for an article? The thing is I'm not sure if there's enough reliable sources for the creation of an article. The only two sources I can find are this website (http://hitsofalldecades.com/chart_hits/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1441&Itemid=52) which has all the weekly top 20 charts but I'm unsure if it should be considered reliable enough and this website which only has some of the actual issues (https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Record_World.htm.) What do you all think about this idea and lastly if you think this is notable enough do you think I should do this for each year or have all the songs on one page?

Saf95 (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How do you create the Table of Contents, company, and external links boxes within a Wikipedia page?

No further details then what is stated within the subject/headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.241.219 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Table of contents is self-creating, based on the section headings you create in your article. Section headings are fomatted as:[==Section heading==], without the brackets, with initial capitalization of the first word only (unless any other words are normally capitalized). Sub-sections are formatted as [===Sub-section===], and sub-sub sections as [====Sub-sub section====], etc.

These headings, in American Revolutionary War, will render for example as:

Example sections
Course of the war International war breaks out (1778–1780) Europe Americas India

In a real article, the Table of Contents will be automatically numbered and indented. Notes, Further reading, External links, etc. are just major sections you create, that come after the body of the article. References create themselves from your inline citations. An Infobox is based on a template, such as for a sport, a person, a company etc. You can read about these at:

• WP:Infobox
• WP:Inline citation
• WP:Table of contents←(not for beginners!)

Hope this helps.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Question for copyright experts

Hey - so I'd like to record the "Zouave Cadets Quickstep" to add to United Zouave Cadets. The sheet music (published 1860) is well out of copyright. I have considered two approaches:

1. Perform and record it myself which, of course, I could release as Own Work to the Commons. However, I'd prefer a more skilled pianist than myself record it. Therefore, my second option is ...
2. Commission someone to perform it.

In the case of #2, where a work is done for hire and I was the hiring party, would I be able to upload it to Wikipedia released as "Own Work?" Or, would the performer have to do so? Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you own the copyright to a work, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons (used by more projects than just Wikipedia) and release it under a free license. You wouldn't simply call it an "own work", though; in the description you'd separately identify the performer and the copyright holder. Do note that there is more to a legal "work made for hire" than hiring someone to make the work--you'd want a proper written agreement to that effect. See the U.S. Copyright Office's Circular 9 for a starting point. Kim Post (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

An alternative might be to create a MIDI file and record a computer or keyboard playing it. The result will not sound as good as a skilled player, but can sound much better than an amateur player. Dbfirs 07:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

How do I wiki?????

How do I wiki????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Quiet Man (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Quiet Man. Start by playing a game called The Wikipedia Adventure. It is very informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ann B. Ross page: formatting references

I went through the Wikipedia Adventure thingy and thought I could use "Advanced" to set up headings in an existing page that I was adding to (for Ann B. Ross https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_B._Ross?veaction=edit). But this is the second time (1st was on a sandbox project) I've tried to set up a reference heading but the footnote ended up somewhere else (the bottom of the page) instead of in the References section. So how do I get the link set up? Thanks.Tarkiwi25 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See this edit. The explanation of the process is at WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Need an experienced eye

Hello,

I tried to make one simple edit as a new user and have hit behaviour I have trouble understanding from another experienced editor. I made a simple and factual edit only to have it deleted citing policy. When I could not see how the policy invalidated my edit and asked for clarification, the editor did not give it. He has decided to delete the whole section that my edit was made in again citing, without justification, the policy. In doing so he has deleted content that definitely does not contravene the policy. In addition, he had the page locked so that I could not make edits without his review even though I did not try to nor did I engage in any behaviour other than asking for reversal and explanation on the talk page. I would appreciate someone who is more experienced to look over this. Is this normal behaviour on Wikipedia? If it is I am probably going to quit using or considering to donate because it seems the information quality is debased by this kind of behavior. This has been a very poor experience for a new user who was motivated to join and make a change because something I saw was out of date. The talk page where I have detailed this is Talk:Low-carbohydrate_diet#Position_of_major_governmental_and_medical_organizations. MetabolicMadness (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi MetabolicMadness. You were WP:BOLD and subsequently WP:REVERTed; so, you shoulld now continue to follow WP:BRD. FWIW, when you make a change to an article that is reverted based on specific policy/guideline reasons, the onus is actually on you to establish a consensus in favor of the change(s) you want to make. The best way to do this is to show how relevant policies and guidelines support your position; if your argument is reasonable and follows relevant policies and guidelines, others will likely support it.

As for quiting the project or not donating to the project, you can decide to do one or both of those things if you want. However, claiming you're going to do such things is sometimes seen by others as a bit of WP:PRAM or WP:NOTHERE behaviour and isn't going to help establish a consensus in your favor. Your best bet here is to continue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and give others interested in the subject matter a chance to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I thought I made a strong case as you can see in the talk page. The behaviour to completely delete the section (with existing content) seems to be a further denial because I pointed out these were strong tertiary sources. It seems no one has read or no one cares about these changes and no one except me and the other editor have written anything. As to being WP:PRAM or WP:NOTHERE it's not so much a threat, it's just how I feel at this kind of behaviour (reverting first the change, then when I made a case, locking the page and deleting the whole section to deny the validity of such information at all) when I made a small factual change which I don't regard as WP:BOLD ie contentious at all and worthy of reversion. No one else seems to care about this on the talk page beyond a sole editor who has more rights than a newbie to have a discussion and establish consensus. Wouldn't that make you question the value of Wikipedia's content & make you reluctant to try other changes? MetabolicMadness (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLD means we as editors are OK in going ahead and trying to make improvements to articles without feeling the need to discuss things in advance or get some form of pre-approval. If the edits we make are seen as others as being improvements, they'll stick; if not, they'll probably be undone completely of further improved upon in some way by another editor. If nobody says anything, then it's OK to assume WP:SILENCE until somebody does. If an edit we make is eventually undone by another editor, either shortly thereafter or even after some time has passed, then it's time for us to follow WP:BRD, unless the removal is a clear case of vandalism or a pretty significant policy/guideline violation. The talk page discussion you started is only a day old and is about an article which might not be being watched by tons of editors; so, you're probably not going to get a lot of responses right away. Maybe you should try posting a Template:Please see at some of the WikiProject talk pages listed at the top of the talk page or even at WT:MEDRS to let others know about the discussion. As long as you keep the post simple and don't appear to be WP:CANVASing, there's nothing wrong with trying to get others involved in the discussion. Try and remember that all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs who sometimes get WP:BUSY; so, it may take some time before someone else responds.

You should also try and stick to discussing the content in question and avoid commenting on contributors themselves; moving discussions in such a direction often makes things worse and things are often posted which turn out later to be untrue; for example, the other editor didn't "lock" the article; it was protected by an administrator back in July 2018 because of some serious disruption.

Finally, this is just my own personal opinion, but your edit was not a small factual change and certainly is not a minor edit. The edit you made was very first one made by your account and was made to an article which has a history of being disrupted, and it was reverted by an editor who appears to be very experienced in dealing with these types of articles and with WP:MEDRS; so, it doesn't seem totally surprising that your edit was undone. Now, you just have to establish a consensus for making the change on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Questions

Hello,

Recently my article was declined and I figured out why it was declined. I respect the decision. What are you looking for in an article that would be accepted? And if I was to change it, could i just edit the old article or do I have to create a new one?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey Moody98 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Davey Moody98 and welcome to the Teahouse. You might like to read WP:Autobiography, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Referencing for beginners, and WP:Notability. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about in detail, and summarise what is written in those sources. Most of us here will never have articles about ourselves because Wikipedia does not host autobiographies. Dbfirs 07:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:Davey Moody. In principle, you can work on it and try to improve it; nothing would be achieved by creating a new version. But no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

HTTP 404 Error

Am trying to publish and keep getting an HTTP 404 - Something went wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Chemicalnasties: Editing seems to work, otherwise you couldn't post here. Can you tell us which URL you were on when this happened and what you did? Also, was there an error code? MediaWiki, the software that powers Wikipedia, does not afaik output HTTP 404 errors on any /wiki URLs. Regards SoWhy 09:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks;

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

Simply went 'Publish Changes'. The only message is a dialog box with HTTP 404 - Something went wrong and a dismiss option. Have diabled all blockers etc thinking that may be involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This related?

https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/bug-reporting-33/unable-to-save-wiki-or-list-edits-1424896/?page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually URL of my edit is;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Au_Go_Go_fire?veswitched=1&veaction=edit&oldid=864539670 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see the edits in chrome but when logged in to internet sxplorer cannot see them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I just tried editing the article in both Firefox and Chrome, even using the URL you used and it worked as expected ([1]). Can you create a screenshot and upload it here? Regards SoWhy 10:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't upload any files here. Did a small edit on another tab and it worked so I will just manually redo the changes. Consider this closed. Thanks.

How to link the sfn to the bibliography

Here;

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

How do I link the sfn eg: Ref 2 to the bibliography?

Here is an example of it working (see ref 2 again);

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalnasties (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Chemicalnasties. Please sign all your posts here with four tildes (~~~~). In order to use a reference in that way, the easiest way is to put the bibliography item in a Cite template such as {{Cite book}}, and add the parameter "|ref=harv". You can see how I've done that here. rchard2scout (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To edit 'list of highest grossing indian movies'

I have complained earlier about this issue, a movie named The villain(kannada language)have grossed more than 100 crores and is removed from all theatres.please update that list.

Thank you.