Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TEAHOUSE)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Contents

WP teahouse logo.png

Trouble with accounts[edit]

I am a disabled musician with a large library of music and recordings. I thought I was doing the right things about logging in,etc. But,I have only been on-line for about one year. I am almost 60 ,and have been allowing my Macbook to guide me with Safari passwords,but they are too complicated for me to remember. So,I use my Preferences thing to retrieve Passwords ,and I keep being unable to log in to contribute anything. I am worried about adding more User Names,but the one I thought was yours isn't connecting,and I find i have 4 different attempt files saved with the letters "wiki" attached. I needed more help setting up,but I tried to do it by myself and here we are.

      I  don't have much money ,but I believe if I can get this solved and not have an impossible time of trying to connect,or get answers  about which group I should be using ,etc. ,then I could donate a very small yearly sum to help keep this encyclopedia running. I worked in my college library ,so I am big on encyclopedias.Can you help me do this right ?2605:A000:D014:8A00:4860:4724:C443:21DF (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

are there more images like {{oldsmiley|10}}? I need them, now that I know there probably are more![edit]

Please tell me there is a list of emoticons! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Plenty! Way before my time on Wikipedia, apparently, someone decided that they would rather have the smilies in the {{smiley}} template, so they moved replaced them and moved the previous versions to {{oldsmiley}}. I (obviously) don't agree with this change, so I've continued to use the "old" smilies as I find them more visually appealing. There is also {{smiley2}}, {{emoji}} (you can use this if you know the Unicode code of the emoji), and you can see a grab bag of icons on Template:BotComment#See_also. Clicking any of the links in my answer with {{}} around them will bring you to a page explaining all of the different smilies available in that template. Happy editing! SCongratulate.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: Tournesol.png Thank you
 DennisPietras (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How to merge 2 wp articles[edit]

@Dodger67:Folks, believe it or not there are wp articles Variants of unknown significance which is a stub and Variant of uncertain significance which as best I can determine was almost abandoned until moved out of the draft space by Dodger67 earlier this month. I am determined to bring the second version up to high quality. The question is, what to do with the stub? Is it OK if I just delete everything on that stub and make it a redirect to the longer article? It was created by an unregistered user, has only 1 reference (from 2000) and nothing on the talk page. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello DennisPietras and welcome back to the Tea House. SCongratulate.svg We always enjoy your visits here. Guidance is provided in this case by WP:MERGE. I believe that this is an obvious merge, so I would simply go ahead and be WP:BOLD and perform the redirect as that page recommends, and then follow the process only if there is a conflict. After you do the merge you may consider adding the source in Variants of unknown significance to some of the statements in Variant of uncertain significance as appropriate, as Variant of uncertain significance has problems with not having enough reliable sources. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll just do it. BTW, the least of the problems with the long page is not enough reliable sources, IMHO, and the one from the stub isn't going to help! I'll be adding lots from my own searches. Maybe even an image or 2, if I can strap up my courage and delve into that quagmire again! SCongratulate.svgDennisPietras (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I noted on your talk page, if you need help with images just let me know what you want them to look like, maybe show a copyrighted image I can use as a guide, and I can take it from there SFriendly.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is a additional citation needed?[edit]

When one wikipedia page has a list that contains other wikipedia pages, along with a summary of those page, is an additional citation needed?

Specifically, Beth Chayim Chadashim was addded to the "Landmarks and Attractions" section of the Mid-City, Los Angeles page, followed with a summary of the opening paragraph of their wikipedia page. Someone then added a "citation needed" after this entry on the Mid-City, Los Angeles.

I am new to this, but it seems a citation wouldn't be needed there because the Beth Chayim Chadashim has its own page with citations. Can I remove this request for "citation needed"?

Please advise. Phatblackmama (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phatblackmama and welcome to Wikipedia! SCongratulate.svg Yes, all pages on Wikipedia must have reliable sources, even if their content is a summary of the content on another Wikipedia page. But, you must not cite the other Wikipedia page, this is a WP:CIRCULAR violation. Instead, you should verify the citation used on Beth Chayim Chadashim and then copy it to Mid-City, Los Angeles in place of the [citation needed] tag. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Psiĥedelisto. I am still a bit fuzzy with this. Can you look at Mid-City, Los Angeles under "Landmarks and Attractions". Directly underneath the entry for "Beth Chayim Chadashim" is a listing for "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles". They each have their own Wikipedia page to link to, but "Beth Chayim Chadashim" needs a citation and "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles" does not. I don't understand why one needs a citation and the other doesn't. Phatblackmama (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Both need a citation, Phatblackmama (insofar as they are WP:MINREF material, which it is safe to assume that anything more detailed than WP:SKYISBLUE is).
The relevant guideline is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle." – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank youFinnusertop. The last sentence you quote gives me the guidelines I was looking for.Phatblackmama (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not BeenAroundAWhile, so I do not know why he tagged Beth Chayim Chadashim but left the waffle house alone, I can only guess. The point of citing is to source quotes and other perhaps controversial statements in articles. Claiming that a synagogue is the first LGBT friendly one in an area and also quoting "cultural significance" raise the bar for a citation, over just that there is a waffle chain in Mid-City, LA. (see WP:FACTS) However, I agree with you that there is a double standard here, in my opinion, both should have a citation; and not because the fact that the waffle chain does have a restaurant in Mid-City may be something that can go without a source, but because I am not sure that a waffle restaurant chain is necessarily a landmark or an attraction, so citations asserting that, are in my opinion, needed. (see WP:NOTBLUE). I would also like to point out that in general, on Wikipedia, adding a "citation needed" tag to one statement does not mean that the editor is endorsing the fact that all the other statements in the article without inline citations don't also need citations. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Psiĥedelisto. But regarding your last sentence...I am aware that tagging one thing doesn't endorse another...but that lack of obligation on the part of said tagger leaves me disappointed in wikipedia. As a contributor, that randomness is discouraging. Phatblackmama (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Please do not take it personally Phatblackmama, we can both agree I think that BeenAroundAWhile's edit was correct, your added statement does need a citation. The way Wikipedia is improved is oftentimes random: some sections of an article will be amazingly detailed and clear and others will be lacking; the thing that is important is that the article is always moving in the right direction. SNice.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unable to upload photograph[edit]

I am unable to upload my profile photograph FinancialEducator (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello FinancialEducator. You appear to be trying to write an autobiography. This is very strongly discouraged in Wikipedia: please see WP:Autobiography for why. In any case, you are writing it in the wrong place for an article, and Exemplo347 has already nominated it for speedy deletion. Your user page may contain some information about you if you wish, but it is about you as a Wikipedia editor, not about your activities unrelated to Wikipedia.
If, despite the recommendations in the guide I linked to, you decide to press ahead and create an autobiographical article, please read and follow Your first article, and create a draft in draft space that can be reviewed by other editors before it is moved to main space. And remember that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that the subject of an article says or wants to say: it is only interested in what people with no connection to a subject have published about the subject in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello FinancialEducator and welcome to Wikipedia! SCongratulate.svg Unfortunately you have not provided us with enough information to help you properly. What happened when you tried to upload the file? Did your file go through, and then it was deleted by an administrator? Here is some general help: If your image is free to use (see c:commons:Licensing), try your upload at c:Special:UploadWizard. If your image is copyrighted but you believe it is fair use, I recommend that you use the WP:FFU process. You may also read about WP:FAIRUSE and use WP:UPLOAD yourself. Be sure, of course to follow ColinFine's advice above: your article has bigger problems than a missing photo. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ok,

Sorry guys i am totally new to putting anything here and I though I had written this like everyone else's.

Not sure what im doing wrong.

Ill leave the photograph for now as I rthink it was due to the number of edits at the time but ;its more important to have the page and understand how to write it firstly.

Ill sort the photograph upload later. FinancialEducator (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So when they delete my page am i never able to upload one again? FinancialEducator (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, definitely not. Having one page deleted does not prevent you from contributing to Wikipedia, but if you ignore Wikipedia's policies over an extended period and refuse to engage with other editors trying to help you you may be blocked from editing. However, you're engaging with us now and show a willingness to learn, so you are doing great SCongratulate.svg! There is an excellent guide that I recommend you read before recreating your user space draft, and that is Wikipedia:Your first article. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Psiĥedelisto (talk)

Time Zone[edit]

Hi, the time stamp when I use my signature does not match the local time zone I am currently in (America/Chicago). I tried changing and saving the time zone selection under my preferences, however, the time zone stamp remains the same...always a couple hours ahead of what my time is now. Can someone help me? Verdagj (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Verdagj. The setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering only affects software-generated times like in watchlists, user contributions and page histories. Time stamps in signatures are saved in the wikitext and treated differently. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
PrimeHunter Oh okay. Thank you so much for your help! Verdagj (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec)Hi Verdagj all Wikipedia timestamps use the UTC timezone. If each user's timestamps were set to use their local time it would be practically impossible to keep proper track of the sequence of events here. Wikipedia has no "downtime" nor does it keep "office hours", it is a global 24/7 project, thus making it basically impossible to cater for a multitude of local time zones. Central Standard Time is 6 hours behind UTC and Central Daylight Time lags UTC by 5 hours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A Second Opinion?[edit]

Hello Wikipedia,

I'm curious if there would be consensus among the Wikipedia guard in evaluative rejection of my proposed article on The American Musicianship Suite? I am a Wikipedia novice, but it’s difficult to imagine that such a modest, abbreviated, accurate entry on such an important organization and work as The American Musicianship Suite is unsuitable here.

If unambiguous validation and specific praise from the eminent professionals who've publicly endorsed this work—including no less than Elliot Carter and Sylvan Kalib—are insufficient justification for a Wikipedia entry, then indeed, this work, and its article, have no place here. If this is the case, I will pursue it no further. Are others of similar mind?BelaB (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BelaB. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by the existence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. You haven't cite any sources in your draft at User:BelaB/sandbox, so it's hard to tell whether the subject is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I establish notability for this article?[edit]

I've been working on an article about the fastest growing content recommendation company, Revcontent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Revcontent). However, the article has been rejected twice for lack of notability. I am using what I would consider reliable sources, including The New York Times, Forbes, Entrepreneur, The Huffington Post and Ad Age. Additionally, Revcontent's main competitors have Wikipedia articles using similar sources: Taboola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboola); Outbrain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbrain); and an even smaller competitor called Zergnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zergnet). Additionally, the founder of Revcontent has his own WP article: John Lemp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lemp). What else can I do to establish notability? I'm a Wikipedia newbie. Please help! Writepunch (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Writepunch. To expand on the notes added to the draft by reviewers: The first reference (Geektime), after an introductory paragraph, quotes John Lemp. It is thus not independent of the company, and of no value in establishing notability. The second reference (Forbes), after an introductory paragraph, quotes John Lemp. It therefore also has no value in establishing notability. The third, Adotas, is evidently an announcement by Revcontent, and so does not contribute to notabililty.
I haven't gone any further; but if you have any solid independent references, I would expect them to occur in the first couple. Please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything said by the company or its personnel, whether in their own publications or in interviews or press releases. An article on Revcontent should be close to 100% based on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about it. If there are no such independent sources, or the ones that exist are slight, then there is literally nothing which can be put in the article, and nobody will be allowed to create one (that is what Notability really means).
Wikipedia has no interest whatever in comparing articles about competitors; (in fact, it shouldn't even mention competitors in an article unless an indpendent sources has discussed the matter). Every article is evaluated on its own merits (see Other stuff exists). If you think that Taboola or Outbrain is inadequately sourced and fails notability, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion and argue the case. But I note, for example, that the second reference in Taboola (Fortune), though it quotes the CEO of the two companies, is clearly written independently of them.
On a quick look, I doubt that John Lemp has adequate sourcing for notabililty, and I will consider nominating it for deletion. But even if he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, that does not mean that his company is necessarily so: notability is not inherited. (By the way, he hasn't got "his own WP article": nothing in the universe "has" a Wikipedia article: Wikipedia has articles on many subjects, but they in no sense belong to the subject, and indeed the subject of an article is strongly discouraged from editing the article. See WP:OWN). --ColinFine (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

have i used an allowed source[edit]

I am taking part in #1lib1ref so am totally new to this. I added a citation about "Mick Lally" appearing in ads for home equity release by providing the details of the company's website which has links to the actual ads. Is this allowed? I am now thinking this might not be as it is a primary source and a form of advertising in itself. Thanks Janlib (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure which names to use in a biography[edit]

Hi,

I am working on my first article and not sure how to display the person's name. Her birth name is Dorothy Lamb. She is an archeologist. She then married Lord Brooke and after that a Lord Nicholson.

As a writer of books, she is listed as Dorothy Lamb Brooke Nicholson (Lady). In reading "Writing about Women", I want to be careful not to use information that is about "the other"--her husbands and not her.

How should I display her name in the title and how should I refer to her in the article? Most of her archeology research was done as "Lamb" and I believe the books were written when she was Lady Dorothy Brooke.

thanks MauraWen (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Wikipedia prefers articles to use as title the name by which the subject is most usually known. For example, Tony Blair, not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. As you examine reputable sources on the subject, you will be able to assess the most usual usage. But my quick check with Google suggests that it may be "Dorothy Lamb". And in the article, you should refer to her by her surname, "Lamb" rather than "Dorothy". Maproom (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging two usernames?[edit]

Hi there! I'm a long-time Wikipedia reader, but never really got into editing (except for a few minor edits here and there). I wanted to start contributing more with the project, but I couldn't remember my username, so I searched my email and found the login details for this username. I was a bit surprised to see this username had no edit history at all; I thought I would find the few edits I've done before. Turns out, I just remembered I made those edits under a different username!

I would rather keep using this username instead of the one I had earlier. Is there a way to "import" the edit history under my previous username so that it shows under this username? FlyingAce (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey FlyingAce. Unfortunately there is currently no method for doing a history merge for contributions under multiple usernames. The most you can do is to put a notification on your user page that you have edited previously under a different account. This may help avoid some of the suspicion of sock puppetry that sometimes happens when accounts with very few edits show a relatively advanced understanding of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

is it plaigarism if I use my own words in 2 different wp articles?[edit]

Part of me doesn't want to know the answer, but I probably should. I wrote a sentence for one article, then used almost all of the same sentence in another wp article. If I had copied somebody else's sentence from one wp article and inserted it into another it would be plaigarism, but what if I'm the author in both cases? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that in neither case it is plagiarism (see WP:Plagiarism. When we submit text to WP, we give up all copyright, so your words can be used here on WP by yourself or any other editor. If you copy a large part of an article and put this into another, or a new article, you should leave an edit summary to state where you have copied from so that other editors are correctly attributed. DrChrissy (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi DennisPietras. If entirely your own work, this is neither plagiarism nor copyright infringement. When you are copying material across from one article to another material that is not yours, it is very important, but not difficult, to comply with copyright attribution (and also to avoid plagiarism). The nitty gritty is set out at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (shortcut at WP:COPYWITHIN), but all you need to do is to provide in your edit summary at the time of copying, disclosure of that copying and include in it a hyperlink to the copied-from source location, where the page history is available. That complies with the two free copyright licenses our content is released under. The model form for the edit summary is: copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. The edit summary requirement is modified for the specifics, but is at base the same when copying or translating from a different language Wikipedia; from other Wikimedia project; when merging content; when splitting to a new location, and similar acts that use others' work and copyrighted material. You can also place on the talk page the filled-out template {{copied}}, though this is belt and suspenders to the main form of required attribution of an edit summary disclosure, plus hyperlinking. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a technical correction to DrChrissy's comment: we don't "give up all copyright" to our contributions. Instead, we retain copyright but give others the freedom to use our contributions for any purpose under the license terms. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that important clarification. DrChrissy (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My page creation has been rejected for notability[edit]

I'm trying to create a page for the Cacoo product (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cacoo); the product has been featured in a number of prominent articles including Mashable, Tech in Asia, CNET, Lifehacker, but I've been rejected twice on the ground of lack of notability. I was looking at similar product pages that have been published on Wiki and they appear similar in content/source and were accepted. Can you please recommend how I should address thisBhan33 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My page RAID - (Rebreather Association of International Divers) was deleted, why?[edit]

Hello, I work for Tribe Sauce - an advertising agency from South Africa. One of our clients, RAID, has asked us to create a Wikipedia page for them. I have attempted to do so but once saved the page keeps on being deleted. Can you help me?Tribe Sauce (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tribe Sauce and welcome to the Teahouse. There are messages on your talk page which explain why it was deleted. The first time it was nominated for speedy deletion because it was a copyright violation. The text appears to have been pasted in from pages on diveraid.com. The second time because the text was considered blatant and unambiguous advertising. Before proceeding any further, please read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for what is required here for articles in general and articles about organizations/companies in particular. Even more important is that our Terms of Use require paid editors to declare this as well as the names of their company and the client on whose behalf they have written the article. WP:PAID explains this more fully. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains why conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. I'll also leave a note on your talk page concerning your username which is also the name of your company. Such usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia per our Username policy. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, before I could leave the note, an administrator blocked the account as a username violation. The block notice explains what to do next if you wish to change your username and be unblocked. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Hi, i think a glitch got onto my talk page, and the wikipedia sidebar came onto the editing space everytime I edit. Can you check if this if it happens on you and how to fix it, thank you! Josvan Talk 03:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JosVan. The Wikipedia menu appears on the left side of every page by default. That includes the edit window since people may need that information while actively editing. I am not sure why you see this as a problem. There may be a custom setting to suppress the display of this menu, but I see the menu as helpful rather than as a problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@JosVan: It happened for me too. You commented out a table end in your edit notice.[1]. I have fixed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you so much! Josvan Talk 07:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing a page[edit]

I was editing a page on a friend of mine and I put in true information but the page admin, Oshwa, flagged me for vandalism. (Zman9er (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zman9er: You added information that did not comply with WP:NPOV. This is why Oshwah reverted you. All information must be verifiable, neutral and encyclopedic. -- Dane talk 02:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate on what Dane said, these edits added information about a living person that was not supported with a reliable source. Making exceptional statements like "he is referred as the greatest athlete who ever attended Walter Johnson" requires exceptional evidence. this edit added an infobox parameter that, while invisible, would be considered vandalism and a violation of the WP:biographies of living persons policy. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful feedback. In which format should references be cited? (APA, MLA?) Zman9er (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Zman9er Try taking a look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some more details. As explained in WP:CITESTYLE, Wikipedia does not have a house style when it comes to citations, so either APA or MLA would be acceptable. The important thing is to try and remain consistent and use the style being used in the article per WP:CITEVAR. If all the citations are being formatted a certain way, then you should use that format as well. If a bunch of different citation styles are being used, then perhaps you should post something on the article's talk page and try to establish a consensus for one particular style. The fact that different styles are being used may not be ideal, but it's not a uncommon thing to find in a Wikipedia article and not something that is technically a major problem requiring immediate action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, would the website of a baseball organization Keith once coached for reliable? Zman9er (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That depends on how the information being cited. If it's simply just to support a simple statement such as "He coached the ABC baseball team from XXXX to YYYY.", then it's probably OK. If, however, it is for something pretty extraordinary such as "He is the greatest coach ever in the history of baseball", then it's probably not. Sources are required to be used in proper context per WP:RSCONTEXT and extraordinary claims, especially about living persons, require citations to some pretty solid well-established, well-respected unquestionably reliable sources. Any sources which may be seen as connected to the subject of the article are going to likely be considered to be primary sources and using primary sources in articles about living people needs to be done with extreme care per WP:BLPPRIMARY.
Finally, since you seem to have just started editing yesterday and the total focus of your edits so far has been to Keith Gordon (baseball)‎, it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Single purpose account. New editors tend to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and therefore my find their edits occasionally being undone by more experienced editors for a variety of reasons. News editors who focus on a single article about an individual and refer to the subject of the article by their first name in posts, etc. often are connected to the subject in some way and have a conflict of interest. Being new, having a COI, and being focused on a single article are not automatically bad things, but they are things which in combination can easily create a perfect storm of problems with other editors if you're not careful, so it's best to know how to avoid that from happening. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

writing about my grand father and his family history[edit]

I wish to write about the life history of my grand father, He was a freedom fighter in India. However, being a right wing never came to lime light after independence. I have very few references with me, but hope to find more over a period of time. Can I write an article about him. I also wish to write about the family tree in a separate article. My ancestors were on the battle field and were a link between the Britishers and the Nizams. My great great grandfather the last among them fought vehemently the last battle at Nagpur but got killed. His wife reclaimed the town which was jahagir and brought up her only son ie my great grand father. Can I create this page? No references right now though. Please reply. Advandana (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Advandana, welcome to teahouse. The very nature of an encyclopedia is we do not allow original research. An encyclopedia does not write about a given subject; rather we write about what is written about a given subject. If you have no references to detailed discussions of your relatives published in reliable sources, you have no basis for an article. Further, you are strongly discouraged from writing about subjects you have a close connection with, such as your family. See WP:COI for further information. John from Idegon (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to publish new article but cannot find "move" tab[edit]

Hi,

I finished my draft and saved it. I'm in a "read" mode but I cannot find the "move" tab. Can someone help me find a way to make this visible to public please? Or any help in finding the move tab is appreciated.

Thank you!Bahn.jh (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bahn.jh and welcome to the TeaHouse. I presume this question relates to Draft:Glow Recipe. Do you have a conflict of interest here? I ask because the article reads rather like a press release instead of an encylcopedic article. If you do have COI, then be sure to follow the instructions at WP:COI.
The reason you can't move it is because you are not an "autoconfirmed" editor yet - that will come with time and more edits. To nominate your draft for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. It will then be reviewed and moved if appropriate.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with my article?[edit]

I am currently creating an article entitled "List of Meet the Press episodes." There are over thousands of episodes that feature a variety of famous guests from U.S. Presidents to professional athletes. Can anyone help me with my draft Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Meet_The_Press_episodes

PoliticalBuff (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there PoliticalBuff. Your Articles for Creation submission was declined due to missing a good lead paragraph explaining the importance and/or notability of the list, and the list itself is incomplete. I noticed that you have since added one, but you should expand it to demonstrate notability. You should work on filling in the blanks before submitting again (it looks like that may take a long time!). If you're looking for editors to assist you in adding content, I'm not sure where that would be, but hopefully another editor here can provide that information. As an aside note, I think it will be a fascinating list and a good addition to Wikipedia - seeing our political/social system change before our eyes based on the guests on the show. Good luck! Justin15w (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

please check my firs article[edit]

Hi there,

recently i created an article about a new art called sand picture,

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

my grandfather 50 years ago had one of them, and now i buy one of them. but after 50 years this type of art is unknown for too many people so there's no many things in internet about it, but i searched and found about 12 reference, please check my links and edit my article and don't let my article be deleted. 868,383,950edits (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Related link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sand picture.

How can I fix incorrect sorting in World population table[edit]

The problem occurs on this page: List of countries by population growth rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

The sort for the CIA WF 2014 column incorrectly sorts the negative population growth numbers. Whether you sort that column ascending or descending it incorrectly sorts the negative entries. The negative entries are sorted in the inverse order of what they should be while the positive values are sorted correctly.

This is only the case for that column as all other columns sort the negative values correctly.

I was planning to edit this but I cant figure out how to change the sort of a column to fix this particular problem.

Leighton 2602:306:BCCA:CD00:E023:1F01:25D0:B61 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Same as the answer to another question here recently, you need data-sort-type="number"| . See this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
... and presumably the reason why that column behaved differently is that the column concerned had one entry with a dash rather than a number. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Uploading photos to Wikipedia article[edit]

I am preparing a Wikipedia article on my Mother Choreographer Director in Ballet Ireland in the 1950's60.. I have photos taken of her and her productions in our private family collection which were used for theatre professional purposes.Photos of her were taken by her brother and given to our family. Both my Mother and her brother are now dead. Can I upload these photo's ? Penelope.Collins (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Penelope.Collins. If your mother's brother left all rights to those photos to your family and you are an authorized representative of your family's estate, then you can freely license the photos under an acceptable Creative Commons license and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. They can then be used in the article you are writing, and by anyone else for any purpose, without restrictions other than attribution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Penelope.Collins. Images can be important to help enhance articles, and what Cullen328 posted about copyrights, etc. is quite important. However, it's important to try and not put the cart in front of the horse when it comes to article creation. After looking at your draft User:Penelope.Collins/sandbox, the thing that stands out is that you have provided no citations to any reliable sources for verification purposes or more importantly to show how your mother satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). The basic criteria for a subject to considered to be Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it is that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, preferably sources which are completely independent of the subject itself. Without clearly establishing the Wikipedia notability of your mother, it's going to be very hard for any article written about her to last very long and is something which will most likely end up being deleted.
In addition, since you've stated you're writing an article about your mother, I think it would be a really good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing . Many people who try to write articles about subjects that are connected to either personally or professionally often have problems because they are not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Writing an article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do, but writing an article about a subject you have a conflict of interest can be extremely hard because most of what you may personally know about the subject is not suitable for inclusion in the article for one reason or another. COI editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something that is highly discourage because COI editors often find it hard to maintain the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires. You can keep working on your draft, but I suggest when you finish that you submit it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that it can be reviewed by more experienced editors. These AfC reviewers will point out any problems they find with the draft and provide suggestion on ways to fix them as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating and placing an image graph & Publishing a draft[edit]

I've created a draft for a page to a football coach. i have 2 questions. 1. How do I create the image and the listed information that shows on the top right of a bio page? 2nd question is how do i move it from a draft to an actual article so that people can find it? Msboogaloo (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Msboogaloo. Your draft looks better than many first attempts - well done. However, I haven't looked through the references to see whether they are adequate: this is partly because you have presented only the title and the URL for most of them, rather than the more important information identifying the name of the publication and the date: please see referencing for beginners.
The table of information is called an infobox. I'm not sure which one is appropriate: if you look at an article about another coach in a similar position, you'll find which one they use, and in fact you can copy it from the source of another article and change the data in it. To add an image to it, you'll need to find a suitable free image: if you can take a picture yourself, you can use that, but otherwise you may have difficulty finding one which meets Wikipedia's copyright requirements. If you can find one, you need to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then you can use it in the infobox. See Help:Upload.
You could move the article to main space yourself, but I recommend that you submit it for review instead, by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it (with the double curly brackets). There is a backlog, but when somebody gets to it, they will either accept it and move it to mainspace, or reject it and tell you what they think you need to do to improve it. You can carry on improving the draft while it is waiting for review: I would strongly advise you to improve the citations, as more bibliographic information on them makes the reviewer's job easier. It is worth adding an infobox, but I wouldn't worry too much about an image. --ColinFine (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

a reliable source[edit]

is The New World Encyclopedia a reliable source for articles in Wikipedia?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House Super ninja2 SCongratulate.svg! I believe you are referring to the New World Encyclopedia collaborative project that is a WP:FORK of Wikipedia run by the Unification church, correct? If so, I would be very careful in citing it: anything that is directly copied from Wikipedia with no change is a WP:CIRCULAR violation and cannot be accepted as a reliable source. Furthermore, even citing content on Wikipedia forks that differs from what is currently on the real Wikipedia can be a WP:CIRCULAR violation. Instead, we recommend that you confirm that whatever sources the New World Encyclopedia is using to back up their claims actually do back up their claims (see WP:V), and then you should cite those sources directly instead of citing the New World Encyclopedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a detailed discussion of The New World Encyclopedia in a Reliable sources/Noticeboard archive. Gab4gab (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

how do i delete an page i created[edit]

i recently created apage. but later came to know that it is not elligible as a wikipedia material and has been put up for deletion. i realise my mistake and i would like to delete it. how do i do it? (Paula andersons (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Blanking the page, as you did, is taken as a request for deletion, so I've deleted the page. Should the same situation occur in future, you can accelerate the process by replacing the content with the code {{db-author}}, which will alert an administrator to the need for deletion. Yunshui  16:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a page[edit]

I wanted to delete a page, currently a redirect page From–rum merger. The page redirects to American English, where the "merger" is barely discussed. I doubt such a deletion would lead to any controversy. Does anybody know how I could do that? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello LakeKayak, welcome to Wikipedia! SCongratulate.svg I agree with you that this is a useful topic for an article if you can find adequate reliable sources, as we do have articles about topics such as the wine-whine merger and the caught-cot merger. I think you are talking about From-rum merger (with hyphen) and not From–rum merger (with em dash), though. To do this, go to this page, click either "Edit this page" (Visual Editor) or "Edit source" and delete the redirect and substitute it with an article. If you're not ready to do that, you can make a WP:Userspace draft first. Thanks for your contributions, and let me know if you need any help - I also edit linguistics topics (like Deseret alphabet, Baybayin, & User:Psiĥedelisto/Tagalog profanity) here on Wikipedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to remove the page altogether, not want to instate the information on a different page.LakeKayak (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi LakeKayak. The place to request deletion of a redirect page is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Be patient - it's pretty backlogged at the moment... Yunshui  16:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very sorry for the misunderstanding, LakeKayak, but I disagree with Yunshui. I do not think you'll have much success at RFD at all, but I can agree that currently the redirect definitely goes to the wrong place. After some research, I have determined that in the Received Pronunciation from is /frɒm/ while rum is /rʌm/; this merger is therefore closely related to the father-bother merger (involves [ɒ]) and I have accordingly redirected the page to Phonological_history_of_English_low_back_vowels#Unrounded_lot. I would ask that all involved parties reconsider listing the redirect for deletion to (1) keep the backlog down and (2) in light of the fact that I found a more suitable page to redirect to. Perhaps RFD would have come to this same decision, I am hopefully saving my fellow Wikipedians the trouble. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Psiĥedelisto, I actually developed the section "Unrounded lot" myself, as an expansion on the section Father–bother merger. The section "Unrounded lot" refers to the unrounding of [ɒ] to [ɑ]. The pronunciation of "from" as [fɹʌm] is a separate phenomenon. I don't think "Unrounded lot" is a suitable redirect.LakeKayak (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good work SCongratulate.svg—I read it many times before this discussion, as I linked to it heavily in Deseret alphabet#Alphabet. However, I disagree with you about the suitability of the redirect - in one place in the section, /ɔ/ is referred to. It may be a separate phenomenon, but I would like to point out that /ʌ/ is also an unrounded vowel, and the phenomena are surely related. I think we can both agree that there is a gap in our English phonology merger coverage here - maybe we can work together to fill it, as either a subsection to § Unrounded lot or its own section in Phonological history of English low back vowels? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
/ɔ/ is specifically referred to because of Boston English where the /ɒ/ was raised as opposed to being unrounded. I don't really see the gap in the section, possibly because I was the one who made the expansion (anonymously). My real problem is that "from-rum merger" is not a recognized name. AJD also reported that it was not even a merger. I have no objection to retaining the information on the page American English. However, I see no reason to have the redirect, especially when not every merger and split has a redirect.LakeKayak (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't add Infobox Company using Visual Editor[edit]

Hi everyone. I am having some issues adding a Company Infobox on 2 pages I am working on. When I search for the template (using visual editor) if it finds it and I press INSERT it doesn't show the pre-set fields. If i create them one by one and then add the information when I save the changes it doesn't create the entire infobox. The pages I am talking about are: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atradius for this page I can't find any template and if i try adding them manually it doesn't create the template.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atradius for this page i can find some infobox template but not the company one.

Can anyone please help me with some information? Many thanks in advance :) Clau clau19 (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me like you had some success[3] in adding the infobox to the Norwegian Wikipedia, it just displays at the bottom of the page. To insert an infobox using the Visual Editor, you should make sure that your cursor is at the very beginning of the article, before the first word ideally. As far as the Swedish Wikipedia is concerned, I don't know the language; but you should be aware that not every Wikipedia project will have every template as every other project. The Japanese Wikipedia is especially notorious for this, on w:ja:柴犬, a table is used instead of an infobox! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Psiĥedelisto. The infobox for the Norwegian page was added in one of my "try out" but if i edit it now and add information in the fields they don't show up in the infobox. Although it's goo to know that not every wikipedia project has every template. I will try working around it somehow Clau clau19 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I may understand your problem - if you add information to an infobox, you may only add the fields defined in the template, exactly how they are spelled in the template. Normally, you can find a list of all of the fields that a template has for you to choose from and use those in the Visual Editor, but some templates will not have this information. Digging into the source of your edit, I can see that you attempted to add the infobox to the Norwegian Wikipedia with all of the template parameters in English. However, if you look at the source of w:no:Mal:Infobox company [4] you will see that the parameters have names like "organisasjonsnummer". You're going to have to use the parameters under their Norwegian names, and note that not every enwiki {{Infobox company}} parameter will have a Norwegian version. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey Psiĥedelisto I managed to add with the Norwegian Company Infobox! It worked, yey! Thank you. The only issue I still encounter is at the logo & headquarters image, there are some extra markup words that I dont know how to erase. [[Fil... Clau clau19 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "extra markup words", the page looks fine to me... Very sorry.gif Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Somehow it is fine now. But either way, many, many thanks for your help Face-smile.svg Clau clau19 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with references formatting[edit]

I need some help with figuring out reference formatting.

I've got an article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Rubel

I need to get the references in line on the article and I'm not sure where to find the processes for making a reference list and how to insert that into the article. I'm sure it's not that hard I just couldn't easily find it.

I also need to set up disambiguation for "Robert Rubel".

If anyone can give me a hand/link/or some time it would be greatly appreciated.

All respects,

Klok kaos (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find the process for references explained at Help:Referencing for beginners, and the disambiguation process is explained at WP:Disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that, it was really easy I just needed to figure out what the format was.

Now I just need to make the disambiguation page and that's one project down! Woo hoo! Klok kaos (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Robert J. Rubel Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you will need to replace all the Wikipedia citations with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Would this article be allowed for publish?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark_Alchin

Its my first time to submit an article and would like know if this article falls under the criteria for allowed contents to be published.RamonaJF (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No. In fact, if that wasn't a user page I would have already deleted it under WP:NOTRESUME. For proper criteria, see WP:42. Basically, you need to cite multiple professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources with no connection to the subject (but which are still specifically about the subject). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I am confused that you are referring to the user page User:Mark Alchin when your account is RamonaJF. Are you using both accounts? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming they were just using that as an example. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It had something to do with the offsite link being in a top right hand box, and was in something like -((reflist))- (very unsure of this it was a while ago), but the gist of the message ws that I'm not allowed to alter reflist :( Deadvoodoo (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Correcting a link on a WikiProject Albums page.[edit]

Trying to correct a broken or moved link/citation to the AllMusic website on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Sail Was told I didn't have permission, and got no response on the TALK page. Just want to make a very simple edit to make Wikipedia better. Deadvoodoo (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deadvoodoo. There have been no successful edits to Four Sail since last September. Is it possible that you were trying to add a link to a blacklisted website? That is one possible explanation for your story. This is an article that gets little attention from other editors. More details would be helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don"t see why it would be blacklisted - the link is still at AllMusic (with a favorable review, as are all of Love's AllMusic's Love reviews), and Love was a band that was very influential in it's time. One of the band's many famous fans was Jimi Hendrix, who actually played on one of their albums, and the band is listed by many famous musicians as being influential to their musical styles. Deadvoodoo (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Deadvoodoo: I just fixed the link. Do you remember the specific text of the error message you got when you tried? Funcrunch (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe it was part of something called a (reflist) in a box at the top right corner. It said I didn't have permission to access reflist Deadvoodoo (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
PS thank you ::@Funcrunch:! Deadvoodoo (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a magazine that has been sold in stores since 2006.[edit]

Walk into a 7-11, and other stores in the Boston area, and you'll see the "South Shore Puzzle Journal" on the magazine racks next to more famous magazines. What is the best source of information that would make Wikipedia realize that the "South Shore Puzzle Journal" is real enough to have its own Wikipedia page2606:6000:6011:D400:25C2:766F:A1E8:CDAD (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, 2606. Existing isn't the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is. If the subject has been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources, it is notable and can have an article. If it hasn't, it can't. Generally, magazines that only circulate in a limited area would not have the requisite coverage. Can't speak to the specific magazine in question, as I have never heard of it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Automated Huggle Welcomes.[edit]

Recently I found out that Huggle for me sends all users, whose edits I encounter a welcome message. I Had a discussion about this on my talk page. Is there any way to stop this? I searched all preference pages and found nothing. FriyMan talk 06:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@FriyMan: Hi there, how do you skip to next edit in Huggle? I mean, do you use any shortcut key or just jump to next by clicking? Some shortcut key could be causing this problem. I used to use Huggle but never faced it. — RainFall 07:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@RainFall: I skip by pressing good article button or revert warn button. FriyMan talk 07:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding an article for a company when one already exists under that name, but for a different company[edit]

I would like to start an article for Phoenix Labs, an independent game studio based in Canada. There is already a Phoenix Labs article for a company that no longer exists, so I'm not sure how I should move forward. Thank you! Kogath (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not just rewrite the page putting the current company info with valid citations first, and then keep the current info at the bottom of the page under a heading like "former use of the name by a company that no longer exists"? If they aren't in biz anymore, I don't see why anyone would object. After a while, if no one objects, ask if you can remove their info completely since it is an out-of-business company of no relevance, and therefore not worthy of wikipedia inclusion. Deadvoodoo (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deadvoodoo: I object, and I expect many others will. An existing article should not be quietly destroyed without a dicussion process. And being defunct is certainly not a reason for deletion, see e.g. Digital Equipment Corporation. Maproom (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kogath. I do not recommend you follow the advice that Deadvoodoo gave above since doing such a thing may lead to a number of problems and create a situation requiring an administrator to clean up. We simply do not overwrite entire articles about a subject just because we want to create a different article under the same name. Wikipedia notability is what we use to determine whether a stand-alone article can be written about a particular subject, and the fact that a company may no longer be in business does not mean it loses its Wikipedia notability. What is typically done in such cases is that one of the article titles is disambiguated to differentiate it from other articles of the same name. Which title is disambiguated depends upon which of the subjects is considered to be the primary topic, which can sometimes be fairly easy to determine and other times be fairly hard. Since you want to create an article about a company, the first thing you need to determine is whether it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you think it does, then you can begin working on a draft version for submission via WIkipedia:Articles for creation. New articles can be really hard to write because they must be written in accordance with various policies and guidelines, so I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Your first article. The AFC process is optional, but submitting a draft to it will give experienced editors a chance to review your work and offer suggestions on how to fix any problems they might find. These reviewers will also be able to help you with diambiguating the title of the draft if such a thing is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kogath
I agree with Marchjuly, may be someone needs info about old "Phoenix Labs", I am in favor of keeping both the articles.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 15:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Errors corrected?[edit]

I'm quite new at writing entries for Wikipedia. Three days ago a notice was put on my Wiki page indicating that I needed to use a common style for my footnotes. I believe all my footnotes now conform to the same style. Can someone take a look and let me know what they think about my corrections? I'm open to all suggestions for improving the formatting of my entry. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873 WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What is of more concern than the format of the footnotes is the question of whether the material has previously been published elsewhere. Google searches for many of the phrases in the article lead to https://www.joomag.com/magazine/la-gazzetta-italiana-italian-heritage-2016/0187751001475346350?page=26. This is a subscription service so I can't see the text concerned on the website, but if the text was previously published in "La Gazzetta Italiana" it would presumably be a copyright violation for it to be published in Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I will cut the copyrighted section and keep my original commentary that precedes it. Thank you for pointing out the violation.

WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation corrected, my original content footnoted.

Thank you so much for calling the violation to my attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873 WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Pages for the newspaper citations need to be added. Will do so later, when I received the information from my assistant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873

WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the references was to Wikipedia. That isn't permitted (see WP:CIRCULAR) so I've removed it, but of course if there is a valid and relevant reference in that other Wikipedia article you could use the same reference in your article. And when you want to link from a talk page like this to another Wikipedia page, it is neater to use a wikilink rather than a URL, so [[Coal miners' strike of 1873]] renders as Coal miners' strike of 1873 rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_miners%27_strike_of_1873. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your removal of circular reference. Thank you.

WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Citations on Non-Online Info[edit]

Hi, I am somewhat new at this and have been trying my best at editing some articles that I am knowledgeable about. This seems to be a great community. I was wondering, when referencing a source in an article that is something I have seen (movie, TV show, etc.), how should I cite? To be clear, these are things that don't have an online link that I can access, like specific plot information. Thanks! Dragontrip1 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Edit: I also wanted to ask another question, sorry if this is the wrong place. When revising outdated information that cannot be updated, such as specific statistics that cannot be verified in the years since a source was last updated, should this just be removed?

Dragontrip1 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dragontrip1. Sources cited in article do not have to be found online, but they are required to be reliable, be published and be used in proper context. Of course, being online makes does make it easier to verify sources, but being offline does not mean a source cannot be verified by someone somewhere. Please take a look at WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and try to provide as much information as you can about the source per WP:CITEHOW to give others a better idea about it.
As to the second part of your question, outdated information should be replaced as needed if the new information can be supported by a citation to a reliable source. Care needs to be taken, however, and cited information should not simply be removed because it is old or because the website, etc. being cited is dead since it may still have some value to the reader per WP:RECENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How to cite Gartner magic quadrants[edit]

Background: Gartner is a company that provides analysis and advice on information technology/software products to corporate customers. They describe themselves this way: "the world's leading information technology research and advisory company". Gartner evaluates software products by categories and rates the top products in each category in what they call "Gartner Magic Quadrants".

My question: As Gartner is highly respected in the IT industry, their Magic Quadrants would be relevant as a citation for an article and for establishing notability. Can anyone suggest what would be the correct way to cite a Gartner Magic Quadrant? One of the difficulties I find is that Gartner requires a (paid) login to access their quadrants, so generally on the public internet one only finds press releases from companies announcing that their product has been named by Gartner in the latest Magic Quadrant for a given category.

Thanks in advance! Mmundt (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Mmundt, welcome to the teahouse. There is no requirement for a source to be publicly available on the Internet for it to be used as a reference. That is always preferable but not a requirement. And I agree with you, the Gartner articles, especially the Magic Quadrants are often very valuable references for topics in Information Technology. You can site them the way you would any other reference to a journal article for a publication that wasn't freely available online. As long as people can get a copy of the article without undue effort and I think that is possible for the Gartner articles. I'm pretty sure I got one a while back via the Resource Request feature because I needed it as a reference for an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request I think that some of the older Gartner articles are also freely available so its a good idea to check to see if you can find it but if not its Okay to use it anyway. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

This was turned down[edit]

Good day, I was trying to put up a entry on our magazine Backroads. I know it is frowned upon writing your own entries, but I closely followed other like magazine entries.I did my best to have it not sound like an advertisement. Here was the reply we got back...

User talk:Brian Rathjen#Your submission at Articles for creation: Backroads Motorcycle, Travel & Adventure (January 17) Any thoughts?Brian Rathjen (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome Brian Rathjen. Here is what the reviewer stated: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." I agree with this assessment. You need more reliable sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. In addition, you may have a conflict of interest. Justin15w (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Brian? What articles about magazines did you model your article after? Also, there is no maybe about it. You are in violation of our policies on WP:COI and in violation of this website's terms of use in regards to PAID editing. As the founder of the magazine, you stand to financially benefit from an article on this subject here. Your draft is not an encyclopedia article, it's a press release. A cursory web search showed absolutely nothing written about your product by reliable independent sources. I'm going to request your draft be deleted as advertisement and you would be well advised to heed the warnings you stated you were aware of about writing about yourself or your company. If and when your magazine becomes notable, someone will eventually create an article on it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Can I create an entry for a non-profit educational organization if I am a member of that organization?[edit]

Hello,

I'm a member of the Vintage Fashion Guild (my role varies year to year -- I'm currently on the Board of Directors). I just read in the instructions that you can't write about your own business enterprise. That makes sense -- it's akin to advertising and is unlikely to be unbiased. But the VFG is a non-profit and its online reference libraries and public forums are accessible to anyone. What are the rules here? I don't want to put a lot of work into this already time-consuming volunteer gig only to have the article pulled down. Best to ask up front. Thank you for your help.

Liza

Sparky091601 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sparky091601. You definitely have a conflict of interest so I suggest that you create a user page where you declare that conflict. Please read Your first article and take a close look at whether the group is notable. Write a draft article and submit it for review through the Articles for creation process. Experienced editors will review it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there an advantage to a commons user page?[edit]

I'm a newbie with, apparently, quite a juvenile sense of humor, but that's beside the point. I've been uploading images to the commons, and have finally come to realize (I think...) that the reason I keep seeing my username in red on the commons is because I haven't started a commons user page. From my point of view, it seems that by starting one the only thing it would do for me is to force me to keep track of yet another page. Is there some benefit to having a commons user page that I don't realize as a newbie? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. A one sentence user page stating that you prefer discussion here rather than at Commons would facilitate communication and eliminate the red link, which hints "newbie". Of course, there is nothing wrong with being new. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You can also make a global user page. See meta:Global user pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Bewildered[edit]

How can I remove an obsolete Wwebsite URL from the infobox at Baby Phat? There is no 'website' field shown in the infobox while in edit mode yet a weblink appears in the article. What am I missing?-- KeithbobTalk 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It will be another intrusion from Wikidata. I am concerned that English Wikipedia articles are being altered by edits being made in Wikidata. Hopefully you can correct it via the "Wikidata item" link on the left-hand toolbar. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have edited it out in Wikidata, we learn something new every day, had me bewildered! Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks folks!! -- KeithbobTalk 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

CONTENT ELIGIBLITY OF AN ARTICLE[edit]

Dear house,

Can I create a page on a yet to be launched Movie series, giving detail about the series, it's cast, producers, directors and other related info?

Ohamsugo (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. If the film has begun principle photography and is so heavily anticipated that the production process itself is notable (i.e. has been written about extensively in the press) then perhaps, but generally Wikipedia doesn't want to have articles on films until they have actually been released. See these guidelines for the specifics. Unless you're writing about something like the next Avengers movie, the answer is probably "no". Yunshui  16:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission/discussion to edit article?[edit]

Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia, and am just starting to get my feet wet. I am naturally gravitating towards familiar subject matter as a goal for my first edits, and noticed some errors/ key omissions / citations and was wondering about etiquette on edits. Should I add a summary of what I want to change in the "talk" page of the article before making any edits, or can I just go ahead with the change? For example, I want to edit the section "Still Photography Division" to correct the note about the NFB becoming the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography in 1985 (it didn't) and note about the splitting of the archive and fix footnote 83 (not related to content) and 84 (dead link). It's a start! :)

Thanks! Ottawaorrell (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ottawaorrell and welcome to Wikipedia SCongratulate.svg! Actually, the etiquette in this case is that you be WP:BOLD in updating pages, and if there is a problem with your edit which you did not catch, it will be reverted. This is called the WP:BRD cycle. Make sure that everything you add to articles is properly sourced, of course! SNice.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Psiĥedelisto! I will give it a try and be bold! ;)Ottawaorrell (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
And, Ottawaorrell, I strongly advise you to write meaningful Edit summaries, so that nobody will mistake your edits for vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Leopold Fowler[edit]

The atricle has a tag for speedy deletion and as I am new I am worried it will be deleted. They are citing poor reference and reliance on youtube. This person's daughter has posted on youtube original footage of her father and the building of Shsakespeare's birthplace and Anne Hathaway's Cottage in Armadala, Western Australia. Unfortunately, this happened in the 70's so not much online! I did include references to articles in newspapers and web links that do mention the information about him. I asked where the 'contest speedy deletion' button is, but the focus was on how poorly formatted the article was. I guess I need help in many ways but trying to not get this remarkable man deleted is possibly number one. Thewayweis (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thewayweis, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've removed the deletion notice (which was through the proposed deletion process, not speedy deletion, to be exact). Be sure to put those references after the sentences or paragraphs supported by them, rather than just at the end of the article. Please read referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can soomeone add information about Aquarius Group, in the USA. 2602:306:36B4:CF00:A143:42BB:3BA7:322 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[edit]

It is about cell phone towers, and their use for mind control. Thank you! :)I do not know much more than that.2602:306:36B4:CF00:A143:42BB:3BA7:322 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a conspiracy theory but in any case, material such as this would need to be accompanied by a very reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I finish this article?[edit]

Other languages have articles about their profanity, but I'm wondering if User:Psiĥedelisto/Tagalog profanity was really such a good idea after all...what do you think? I started it because I was reading Spanish profanity and noticed that Tagalog language has no similar page. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Seems a shame to waste all that work! Sourcing seems OK, so why not? If you're getting bored, rember there's no WP:DEADLINE! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The topic is quite juvenile SFriendly.svg I am also concerned, because I currently have an open Wikipedia Library request at WP:Gale, that if a reviewing editor sees this in my recent changes they may be less likely to approve my application (I didn't think about this when I started the article) because it is a juvenile/offensive/risque content. SInnocent.gif I also was not aware of WP:DEADLINE, that's a relief SCongratulate.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think WP:Gale are probably made of stronger stuff. They probably hear worse at faculty meetings :) Wikipedia, as you know, is a broad church and caters for all tastes. never mind juvenility: if it's sourced, neutral and independent, we want it. Actually your article is almost Critique of the Gotha Program compared to some we have! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto:I just read the article and had about half a dozen belly laughs! I guess that means I have a pretty juvenile sense of humor...8-( Please finish it and let me know when you do! And dumi on Gale if they don't like it! DennisPietras (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the help guys, I won't abandon it. SCongratulate.svg Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How much information to include?[edit]

I am considering editing an article about a mountaineer. The wikipage about this mountaineer is very specific to his mountaineering history and specifics about the mountains he climbed. He has been in some small and larger films & there is a very small amount of information about his life growing up and what he does with his time besides mountain climbing even though this information is easily publicly available in magazine articles and interviews. Is adding this type of information to an article appreciated or does it create a cluttered article with too much information? I could not find guidance on this anywhere. Thanks to whoever can help! :) Adorabutton (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As long as you don't go overboard (see WP:TOOMUCH), all of that stuff sounds like useful additions to me that would appear in other biographies on the project. The appearances in films and widely cited facts about the personal life of a notable person are useful additions. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Adorabutton. Your in luck. One of our regular hosts here is somewhat an expert on mountaineering articles. Let's shoot a ping at Cullen328 and see what he can add! John from Idegon (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Adorabutton. Yes, I have written and edited quite a few biographies of mountaineers. A biography should be an overview of the person's whole life, so if you have information about date and place of birth, education, career outside mountaineering, place of residence, spouse, children and so on, add that information with references. Rely as much as possible on respected mountaineering publications since general circulation newspapers often screw up articles about climbing, because the reporters often lack a deep understanding of the sport. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem with "Copyright, notability and conflict of interest"[edit]

Reviewers marked web page [made by me] for quick deletion. They accused me of:

  • copyright problem - I have removed the list of topics that our journal is interested in but I think it is hard to use own words for e.g. software engineering
  • notability - Journal is included in many notable scientific search/index engines - especially open access - references are included at the bottom of the page. Citations of journal paper are available on Google Scholar.
  • conflict of interest - as preparation of the web page by the owner is strongly discouraged, I have put only neutral and informative words and sentences.

What could I do to be in compliance with Wikipedia rules?

Wojciech Thomas (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wojciech Thomas, welcome to the Tea House! SCongratulate.svg. As per the provisions of WP:COI, you should not edit any articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. You should be transparent about your conflict of interest and disclose it on your user page. This does not mean that you get no say in what the article about you or your company says, but you must request edits be made to your page and not make them yourself, so a non-involved editor can review and make them if he feels that the sources you propose to use are reliable and that what you wish to include really exudes a neutral point of view. (See WP:EDITREQ) Lots more good information is available at WP:PSCOI, I recommend you read that whole page. Remember that you can make edits about topics unrelated to your conflict of interest the same as any other editor. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

how to add image to my articles.[edit]

Hello everyone, my question is how do I post my contributions with files, like image. And can I upload a pdf file to an article ? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Daniel (talkcontribs) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Samuel Daniel and welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload files here. Follow the instructions very carefully. We take copyrights especially seriously. PDF files can be uploaded using the same process. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Village[edit]

How to make a Wikipedia page of my village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhavkengg (talkcontribs) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jhavkengg, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are confident that the village meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jhavkengg. All villages should have Wiki pages, especially your own, but try to keep it impersonal and well referenced. I've mainly done Nottinghamshire ones from scratch over the years. My lead is usually about whereabouts and population, unless Isaac Newton, say, was born there, or it grows the tallest tulips in the Fens. Short, sharp subtitles cheer up a page no end. I usually go for some of the following: ==Governance==, ==Heritage== or ==History==, ==Historic buildings==, ==Notable people==, ==Nature==, ==Amenities==, ==Transport==, ==Schools==, in no particular order, I'm afraid. Here's one I did about a year ago that's been topped up by others in the meantime: Scarrington. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?[edit]

In the question "How to add images into an article ", which is located 2 questions above this question, one can see that there are two questions not related to each other that have been asked. I informed the user that made a question, below the user that made the question on how to add images to articles, that they placed the question in the wrong place. Did I do the right thing? If not what should I have done instead? Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought new questions get posted on the bottom of the page, like talk pages. Its the second or third to last question. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. On any other talk page new questions do get added to the bottom, but those who set up the Teahouse perversely did it the other way up (and confuse new editors by so doing). Most of us would like this to be corrected.
But to get to your original question, yes, it was good to tell the other user that they had apparently posted in an existing unrelated section. What some of us might have done would be to add a section heading for the new question if it obviously doesn't relate to the one above.
If you want to refer to an existing section you can link to it by preceding the section title with a hash sign, so in this case it is #how to add image to my articles..--David Biddulph (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I spotted this too and have moved both of the questions to the top of the page and given the second one a heading. Thanks for informing the second editor of their mistake, Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Natalia Toreeva[edit]

Hello, I was restricted to do editing the Draft:Natalia Toreeva saying COI, and someone was suggested to create the sandbox, so the volunteer editors could use the material from the sandbox and move the info from there to the Draft. I created the User:Toreeva/sandbox, so it can be used as the source for the Draft. What is the next step? Can you find the editor(s) can help with the article, and who is not bias politically, with good faith, and has enough knowledge in Russian/Soviet art, specifically to 1970th time. And after the editing the Draft, can someone to submit it for the article? Thanks in advance,(Toreeva (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Natalia Toreeva has not been submitted for review, and it hasn't been edited since November 2016. It appears that you have carried on editing User:Toreeva/sandbox instead of the draft. I get the impression that probably some of what you want to use is in the draft and some in the user sandbox. If that is the case, you need to put the 2 halves together in one file, sensibly the draft, and then submit it for review. The article shouldn't need anyone to have detailed knowledge of the subject, because it should be referenced to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
David Biddulph, I was told that I need to create the sandbox with any additional info I have, so any editor can use the info from the sandbox and include it into Draft to improve the article. And then the Draft would be resubmitted by that editor. So, I need help with this kind of editing. Thanks,Toreeva (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I now see from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing that you are not permitted to edit the draft directly. (This wasn't clear from your original question.) The question then is whether there is an editor who can spare the time to put your sandbox material into the draft, tidy up the duplication, and who could then convince themselves that they could legitimately submit it for review. Because such an editor would need to satisfy themselves that each of the references does indeed support the relevant text (and that overall the sources demonstrate notability in Wikipedia's terms), this would be a very time-consuming exercise for the amount of material which you are proposing. I would have thought that you would have more chance of success if you had a smaller draft which was clearly able to demonstrate notability. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva does suggest that the article as it stood at that stage was not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. We'll wait to see whether another editor comes to a different conclusion. You will, I hope, now understand why Wikipedia recommends that editors should not try to write an autobiography; if the subject is really notable, someone without a conflict of interest can write an article in due course. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
David Biddulph, that's why the suggestion was made to create sandbox, so other editor(s) can use any info from the sandbox and to put into Draft. The article does not need to be as big as sandbox, even it can be smaller, just use any info to improve the article, so it can be submitted for review. Hope, the Teahouse has someone with the good faith to do this small task. Thanks,Toreeva (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

How to edit a misspelling in a title that I composed.[edit]

I just created a new entry the title of which contains a misspelling. I wrote "Coalminers' Strike of 1873..., instead of Coal Miners' Strike of 1873... It's not apparent how to edit titles. WarrenRicheyKid (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, WarrenRicheyKid, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you have probably found out by now, you can't change the title of an article in the same way as you edit its contents. Instead, to change titles, articles are moved. Since you are not autoconfirmed (yet; it requires 10 edits from your account that needs to be at least four days old) you cannot do this by yourself. Since all Teahouse hosts are autoconfirmed (I imagine), you can ask us to do so, as you have done. But you really should read up the policy on article titles to find out what's wrong with your request as it stands. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
WarrenRicheyKid: As it stands the article is The Coalminers' Strike of 1873, NE Ohio and NW Pennsylvania. I suggest moving it to Coal Miner's Strike of 1873. As FinnUserTop stated, we can move this article for you. Let us know. Justin15w (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Why the extra capitals & why that positioning of the apostrophe? Wouldn't it be Coal miners' strike of 1873? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
D'oh. Yup. My bad. Justin15w (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rick Wakeman appears on BBC Radio 4, mentions Wikipedia[edit]

Rick Wakeman was on Clive Anderson's "Loose Ends" program on Saturday, in the course of which he mentioned Wikipedia and a fact he claimed we'd got wrong about him; from memory, he said that he played on the second Clive Dunn single in the early 70s and which didn't become a hit, not the one which became a No. 1 single (Grandad).

I think it's fair to say that he doesn't like us, and going by the article it's clear that he's made very adverse comments about us in the past. Is there a forum somewhere where his comments, and whether or not they should be responded to and if so how, has been discussed? Or would anyone think it more appropriate to comment on the subject here? Meltingpot (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wakeman is professionally grumpy. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure (and thanks for replying), but my impression was that he meant what he was saying rather than saying it for effect.

Anyway, I take it you think we should just let it go? Meltingpot (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a forum for discussing the process of editing Wikipedia, Meltingpot. We're glad you found us and we're happy to help you with any issues you may have editing Wikipedia. Obviously, this is off-topic. The only conceivable place this discussion might be topical is at the talk page of our in house newspaper, The Signpost. They have a regular feature on Wikipedia in the media. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse! If you want to return here with a request for help we welcome you, but please add your question at the top of this page. I know it's the opposite of everything else in Wikipedia, but that's where it goes. John from Idegon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
To add to the above, it certainly would be appropriate to fact check the article he referenced. I'd encourage you to do just that! John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't do that without Rick's help since no one else is likely to know, for example, what records he played on as a session musician, and that isn't likely to be forthcoming. Also, though I have some of his music I am not an expert on his career. Meltingpot (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, Meltingpot. If a claim requires help from the subject to verify, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Period. If reliable sources say that he played on a certain recording, then that is what we say. If his denial of this is published somewhere long-lasting, then the article may say that he denied it, but should not attempt to resolve the disagreement. If reliable sources don't mention it, then the article should not. The article Rick Wakeman doesn't currently mention Clive Dunn. --ColinFine (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Meltingpot, as usual ColinFine hit the nail right on the head. You see, what makes an encyclopedia different from other sources is this: We don't write about a given subject, we write about what is written about a given subject. Remember that little nugget of wisdom and you'll be a very successful Wikipedia editor! John from Idegon (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You could log this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, Meltingpot, although that page seems rather inactive as the most recent incident is something I logged in 2015. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Some editors seem to be logging radio coverage at Wikipedia:Press coverage instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. I have updated the "Wikipedia on TV and radio" page now. Meltingpot (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

How to make friend in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaMeShk (talkcontribs) 17:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a social networking website, but it is an encyclopedia which welcomes new contributors. You can find more at WP:Welcome. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you change an image's Infobox format in an article?[edit]

For example, the article for the 1995 Baku Metro Fire, has an image provided on its own with a caption. It doesn't have any of the "location" or "date" sections in it yet and I'm thinking off adding that Infobox. Am I allowed or can only the user who uploaded the image allowed? Depthburg (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Depthburg:: it's articles that have infoboxes, not images. An article should (usually) have no more than one infobox, which must be about the subject of the article, and will often contain an image of the subject. You can certainly add an infobox to that article (though I don't know if there's an infobox specific to fires), and move the image into it. You don't need to ask permission of any other editor. Maproom (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The Infobox will be "rail incident" by the way. Depthburg (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't exist, Depthburg, and I see you have used {{infobox event}} instead. But I wonder if {{infobox rail accident}} might be a better fit. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Depthburg (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert and Warn[edit]

Hello, which is the easiest way to revert a vandal and warn him with the fewest possible clicks? Bertdrunk (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−3)

Hi Bertdrunk: That's an easy one. WP:Twinkle Justin15w (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)