Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TH/Q)
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

Draft:Maryam Elisha[edit]

I reviewed Draft:Maryam Elisha and declined it as reading promotionally. In my opinion, it passed notability but had tone issues. It was then declined by another reviewer on notability grounds. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors as to whether it satisfies notability. I will also ask the author whether they have an association with the subject of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

CVUA[edit]

Hello, I am new user in wikipedia and I want to Join CVUA. So, Please help me to join CVUA ? SRZA002 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors who use deceptive edit summaries would not be welcome at CVUA. Also please read the statement near the top of WP:CVUA which says "Check that you have already made sufficient mainspace edits (generally around 200) and that you have addressed any previous advice or warnings about your editing." --David Biddulph (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Review of translation from French[edit]

Hi, I translated another French article fr:Ligne de flanc into Draft:Flanking line (meteorology). This time, I specified in the comments the origin of the translation (I hope that it should be OK this time). Could someone review this article and ensure that it is OK. Also, I did not hear anything more about the article Draft:Castellanus. Does it mean that I should move this article into the main space? Thank you for your help. Malosse (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about a page which was moved and blanked[edit]

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I have a question about a page which I just came across named Ganeriwala's. It was moved by its author to Ganeriwala family and blanked. Should it be turned into a redirect, deleted, or left alone? Thank you. Peterye2005 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to our attention, Peterye2005. I have tagged the blanked redirect for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 00:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

How do I add a picture to a Wiki page? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Where is the picture now? Maproom (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I see that you have successfully added a picture to Euphrosyne (mythology). As far as I can tell, you have done it correctly. It might be good if you could explain in the caption which of them is Euphrosyne – but as they're all fictitious, I doubt it matters. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Stubs[edit]

Hello, Editors. I am doing fairly well at editing, and have been working on a specific page, titled "Euphrosyne". When I started edited, it was considered a "stub". I just want to know how much more I need to add to it for it to become a regular page. Thank You GrecoRomanNutGrecoRomanNut (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The page is in fact titled Euphrosyne (mythology). Maproom (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome again to the Teahouse GrecoRomanNut. As for when an article can be moved from stub class to start class, that's a matter of judgment and comparison with other similar articles. Once an article has 3 or more sections, contains a good half dozen sentences and references, is not orphaned, has some categories applied, and has suitable outbound wikilinks, I think most editors would agree that it is no longer a stub.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How to explain not to delete article in talk page[edit]

We want the Clay Blaker notice of deletion to be removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Blaker

It not looks like its up to date with sources, etc.

What would be our next step? I understand that we have to explain why it shouldnt be deleted on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Blaker but I am not sure how to do this. Please advise. AngieBocas (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I looks like the article is going to be kept anyway, but it may take a few days for the discussion to wrap up. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Ping @AngieBocas: TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, AngieBocas. The place to contest the deletion would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Blaker (which is linked from the message at the top of Clay Blaker). But as Timothyjosephwood says, after the improvements that ubiquity has made to the article, there is nobody arguing for deletion, and it is almost certainly going to be kept.
What concerns me in your posting is your use of the word "we". Usually, Wikipedia editors work alone, and the fact that you talk about what "we want" makes me think that you may be working for Blaker in some capacity. If you are not connected with him, then I apologise for my suspicion; but if you are, then you must read Conflict of interest carefully, and you should declare your connection with him - if you are in any way paid for working on this, you must declare this (see WP:PAID). --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the deletion debate is going to end with an uncontested "do not delete". If the deletion notice gets removed before the the debate has closed, it may have to be rerun, and the premature end of the first debate will count against it. If you want the article to be kept, I recommend that you do nothing. Maproom (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How do i find info[edit]

Hell, editors, I have a wee problem. I have been looking for things about "Euphrosyne", so I went to the Wiki page about editing articles. They said I should try NexisLexis and programs like that. But I don't know how to do that. Can someone please help me? Thanks GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you are looking for? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Velella, haha, that is the page I am editing. And I have found out how to work those programs. I am now editing smoothly, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrecoRomanNut (talkcontribs) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Being attacked[edit]

I am being attacked on the Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport page. I was correcting USer: 213.114.171.165 and he/she said by saying let's not vandalise and this was his responce; "well then you've been doing a wrong thing for years which is potentially a sign of mild retardation. And vandal is your dad who destroyed some whore's pussy to conceive you" Please block the user and undo his vandalism.86.190.240.190 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, but not really the right place to report another editor for bad conduct. The place for that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I have just filed an ANI complaint against the rude IP. Their behavior isn't right, and their latest edit summary seems like a veiled threat ("don't walk down this alley"). Update: the profanity has been deleted by an admin. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Help wanted[edit]

Who can help me with a new publication?

Macha van Beusekom (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Macha van Beusekom. Judging from your question in Dutch, (which you have now removed, together with my answer), you are wanting to create a new article. I think it is unfortunate that so many new editors are determined to plunge straight in and try one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, which is creating a new article; so I always suggest that they spend a few weeks working on improving existing article, and learning how Wikipedia works. But I also suggest that you study Your first article carefully, and come back here if you have specific questions or problems. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I get rid of unwanted bullets?[edit]

I have edited an article that includes several bulletted lists under separate headings. (These are lists of books and other publications written by the subject of the article.)Directly under each heading an unwanted bullet appears. I can't get rid of them. They do not show while I am in the editing page, only when I am looking at the published page. I have looked in the source editing page and cannot see anything there that looks like it could be causing the trouble. Any tips would be appreciated. (The article is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Leslie_Gold )AuroraMax109 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that you're using two stars in front of each entry, so they're sub-lists. Either reduce them to one or, if you still want the double indent, use a prefix of :*. The leading colon specifies an indent without a bullet.
Example with *:
  • One
  • Two
  • Three
Example with :*:
  • One
  • Two
  • Three
Example with ** (unwanted):
    • One
    • Two
    • Three
71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! The problem is fixed now.AuroraMax109 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong communication[edit]

Hi! I got an email from White Arabian Filly‬ about a page I created. I was redirected to User_talk:Silvano.martello

where I read:

A tag has been placed on French operations research society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. ... If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion".

However, the page, Société française de Recherche Opérationnelle et Aide à la Décision has no deletion tag and no button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion".

Best regards, Silvano Martello Silvano.martello (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Silvano.martello: the tag was placed in February this year shortly after you created the articleFrench operations research society. However in the intervening period the nomination to delete the article was declined and it was moved to the new title using the French title of the organisation rather than the English version. Nthep (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Do I understand correctly that everything is now fine and there is nothing I have to do?

(Strange however that a communication releted to something settled in february was just sent yesterday.)

Best regards, Silvano Silvano.martello (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Silvano.martello. The message was left on your user talk page on 21 February. Another post was left there yesterday, so perhaps you only then noticed the first one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, @Silvano.martello: - yes, everything is now fine and no further action is required.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing Multiple Issues Template[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wiki and after my first article I received a template listing several issues with my page. I have fixed the mentioned issues, but now cannot remove the template box. How can I do this? (Anniegotterson (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Anniegotterson: and welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you have already removed these tags in Wageble in the meantime. However, "no footnotes" remains an open issue. When you add references (or footnotes), you should put a reference directly behind the sentence(s) it verifies (not in the "References" section, where it will be added automatically with the "reflist" template). It should look like this in the article's source text: Content.<ref>reference details to verify content</ref>, resulting in a small numbered box behind the sentence. Help:Referencing for beginners contains a lot more detailed (and better) description of Wikipedia's referencing for new editors. Please note, that all non-trivial information in the article should ideally have such a reference. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Updating Subash Chandra Bose[edit]

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

The above mentioned weblink is the wiki page of Subash Chandra Bose. However for a long time, there has been number of files that has been dis-classified by the Government of India.

I wish to add those details for providing authentic details of Mr Bose. The details available is not authentic after files were dis-classified. Amit Mishra 07:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriamiy (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sriamiy. Declassified government documents are primary sources and we should rely mostly on secondary sources, especially for historical topics. If these documents are significant to understanding this person's life, then historians will discuss them in secondary sources, and we should summarize what those historians have written rather than trying to interpret those documents ourselves as Wikipedia editors. The relevant policy is No original research, which says, in part: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone explain these sub templates?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Latest_preview_software_release/

Marvellous Spider-Man 04:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marvellous Spider-Man. See Template:Latest preview software release. They are often used by Template:Infobox software#Moving release data outside the article. If this does not answer your question then please be more specific. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Templates link articles. The templates in articles, link to similar articles. In categories we have to click the category link to view all pages in that category. In templates they have an expand option. And links marked as V, T, E. view, discuss and edit. I can understand infobox software. If those sub-templates are created, then how are they used in any article? They are transcluded in 1 article. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marvellous Spider-Man: Templates are used for many purposes. You are apparently thinking of navigation templates which are just one type of template. Some of the software release templates are used in many articles so the information only has to be updated in one place. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Latest preview software release/Firefox where uses of Template:Latest preview software release/Firefox are marked "(transclusion)". The infobox in Firefox uses it and has "[±]" links to edit the template. It's also used by several list articles. Many other types of templates dont display any link to edit them when they are used. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Is article abstract acceptable source?[edit]

Is an abstract of an article an acceptable source to cite? Gordon410 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gordon410 and welcome to Teahouse! Could you provide us with more information about what you want to refer to? Ilyushka88 | Talk! Contribs 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you know what an article abstract is? It gives a summary of the article. Gordon410 (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Gordon410. It is always helpful to provide more information when asking such a question, such as a link to the abstract in question, and the assertion that you want to reference to that abstract. A few generalities: An abstract of an unreliable source is also unreliable. Do not cite such a source. An abstract of an indisputably reliable source may be of some use for referencing something stated clearly in the abstract. If you have access to the full source, then cite the full source. There is no requirement that sources be readily available to all readers online. If that full source is hidden behind a paywall, providing a link to the abstract in the reference may well be useful to readers. In conclusion, citing the full source is always preferable to citing an abstract, but if the abstract is all that you can read, and the factual assertion is clear, then cite abstracts sparingly and cautiously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Ilyushka88 and Cullen328. I was in a hurry.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/174581711X13103897378311

This is the abstract. I am able to access the full text. Gordon410 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410, go ahead, and reference the complete article then. If that is behind a paywall, you might provide a link to the abstract in the reference. A source does not have to be freely available on the net to be used as a reference, and linking to the abstract is the next best thing. This is commonly done.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
A little miscommunication so I will rephrase. The Wikipedia article paraphrases the abstract directly from the words of the abstract. Is this acceptable? Gordon410 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Gordon410: seeing as the abstract is expected to constitute a truthful summary of the article, that should not be a problem. I would still suggest that you make out the reference itself to the paper rather than the abstract (if that was your intention), to guide the reader directly to the more in-depth source.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

My proposed article was declined bc it needed footnotes, what sentences should I footnote?[edit]

Hello there, nice Wikipedia editors. My recent article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_Lambert was declined for needing footnotes. I have looked it over, but without specific citation needed notes I don't know what parts or claims require these footnotes. Could one of you kind Wikipedia editors please let me know where footnotes are needed? I will gladly insert them. I have researched how to do so. The helpful Robert Mcclendon was the editor who cited this requirement.

Also cited was the Wikipedia discouragement towards creating an article for oneself which I am aware of. I apologize. It has been 8 years since my 2008 Wikigrain was created and no one else other then me seemed willing to do the work required to update it to 2016. My intention in doing so was to enrich Wikipedia, not promote myself. In 8 years I have published a lot of things and built notability. I have researched the Wikipedia pages of my contemporaries Myriam Gurba and Wendy Ortiz who are at the same level as I am and have Wikipedia pages. I have also been published several times internationally which they have not.

Thank you for humoring my efforts and providing further instruction towards perfecting this article. I am ready and willing to do the work. - Andrea Lambert (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Andrea Lambert. Please be aware that many experienced editors disapprove quite strongly of autobiographies and you can expect intense scrutiny of your efforts. But such articles are not forbidden, so you are entitled to try, and Articles for Creation is the right process. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for authors and artists. In order to be accepted, your draft article must demonstrate that you meet our notability guidelines. A major problem with your draft is that it lacks inline references. Instead, your references are clumped at the end of the draft article, making it difficult for a reviewer to know which claim is supported by which reference. Read Referencing for beginners to learn how to properly format inline references. As for what requires a reference (or footnote), that is anything likely to be questioned. You do not need to reference that the sky is blue or that the sun rises in the east or that London is the capital of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, any factual or evaluative claim about you as a person must be properly referenced. Please also read and study Your first article and Conflict of interest. Read these over and over again, and comply in every way. As I said before, your efforts will be scrutinized, and your best course of action is scrupulous compliance with all of our policies and guidelines. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As for Myriam Gurba and Wendy C. Ortiz, the first article is unassessed, and though it is better developed than your draft, it has some problems at first glance. The second is already tagged for various problems, and though it has a large number of references, most of those seem to be primary and not independent. Do not model your article on those with problems but rather strive to approximate the quality standards of peer-reviewed Good articles and Featured articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The Original Poster referred both on my talk page and above to Wikigrain. What I do see is that the subject had a biography in Wikipedia in 2008, but that it was then deleted following a deletion discussion. What is Wikigrain? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Like Deletionpedia and Wiki-Bin, Wikigrain is a store of articles nominated for deletion specializing in Russian and English articles. I am not sure if it is still being updated, as the copyright notice (which it shouldn't have if it is storing Wikipedia articles) states 2008-2014 - I assume that the reference "It has been 8 years since my 2008 Wikigrain was created" relates to the Andrea Lambert Wikigrain entry (which I can't link to because Wikigrain is a Blacklisted site) - of course, it has not been "updated", because Wikigrain is a repository of deleted articles, not live ones. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Format for Wikipedia footnote or Bibliography[edit]

I am writing an article and have used many sources of information, books,the Internet, and Wikipedia. How should I write a footnote or bibliography reference taken from an article in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia? Loren Stone Loren stone (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Loren stone, and welcome to the Teahouse! See Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 01:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Your question wasn't entirely clear. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a reference (see WP:CIRCULAR), but you can use a relevant reference which was used in the other Wikipedia article (in which case see Help:Referencing for beginners as mentioned in Finnusertop's answer). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Loren stone, I want to add that you are welcome to reuse references that you find in other Wikipedia articles, but you must actually read the source material yourself, and personally confirm that the source is reliable and verifies the content. I am not saying that you need to read a book from cover to cover. But you need to read enough of the relevant pages to understand the context. Do not trust another Wikipedia editor to have done so. The obligation is yours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How to view history of article's title[edit]

How is it possible to easily see the evolution of an article's title, starting with the article's original creation. When I look at an article's history, it shows edits, but does not show (as far as I know) exactly what the article's title was at the time of the edit. Thank you. KamelTebaast 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kamel Tebaast. I often miss such a feature. Instead I click "500" in the page history to see more revisions, and then make a browser search of the string "moved page" with Ctrl+F. Repeat after clicking "older 500" or manually editing the url to say a number up to 5000. There will often be a talk page with fewer edits but the same moves. "View logs for this page" at top of the page history will show moves away from the current name but not moves to it, so it's often useless for this purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

orange for DAB links?[edit]

All of a sudden I'm seeing links to disambiguation pages showing up in orange, which I don't recall ever seeing before. Am I going amnesic, or is this something new? Not that there's anything wrong with it; good idea. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, I think it's a new feature. A while back I saw a discussion at the Village pump about making links to drafts and dabs show up in different colors, so I guess it was instituted. It's a good thing, though, and helpful. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thnidu: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". It's off by default. User:Anomie/linkclassifier can add various colors for differnt types of links. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@White Arabian Filly and PrimeHunter: Thanks, both of you. I must've turned it on at some point and clean forgotten about it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Correcting the Date Someone Was Born[edit]

Hi, I'm the author of MAMA ROSE'S TURN about Gypsy Rose Lee's infamous mother, Rose Thompson Hovick. She's listed on here as having been born in 1890, but she was born in 1891. I corrected that, but still she's turning up under "People Born During 1890." How can I get that fixed?

Kind regards,

Carolyn Quinn www.carolynquinn.net Sequinrosette (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sequinrosette, you need to change the category the article has been assigned to. When in edit mode, at the bottom of the article you will see a line that says [[Category:1890 births]]. Change that to 1891. BTW you also need to change the date in the first sentence of the lead. Rojomoke (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Making A Page[edit]

Hello there, my name is Axcii. Just call me TheInnocentFox. (that's my nickname). I just joined yesterday because I wanted to help out the community that helped make Wikipedia relevant but I have one issue.

I don't know how to make a page.

Now, don't get me wrong; I've read some help articles but they just are irrelevant and they don't help me. So I'm asking you. The community of Wikipedia. Yes, you reading this. Help me out by replying to this. I'll be greatful. Now, if you'd excuse me, I need to take a break. I've replied to a lot of stuff on Google+ today.

From TheInnocentFox (Axcii) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcii (talkcontribs) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The page you need to read is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have read that, but I am still stumped. It's very lengthy and the language is in a format that I personally am not a fan of.
From TheInnocentFox (Axcii) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcii (talkcontribs) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If you tell us which part you don't understand, someone can explain it to you. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Axcii, welcome to Wikipedia. The reason that Your First Article is quite long is not because it's difficult, technically, to create a page (it's super simple, in fact), it's because it's difficult to write an article. We don't have articles on anything and everything here, so in order to understand what is and isn't an appropriate topic to write about you need to read our guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia articles are also written and formatted in a particular way, so you need to learn how to use wiki markup, how to write in an encyclopedic tone, how to reference, and be familiar with Wikipedia's style and conventions. As you can see that's quite a lot to get your head around, so usually we advise new editors not to leap straight into writing a new article from scratch, but to take some time to practice editing other articles first. However, if you're ready to learn and up for a bit of a challenge, you are certainly welcome to create an article.
As a new editor, the best way to do that is the Article wizard. It takes you through the all the steps and submits your article as a draft for a more experienced editor to review. They will help you get the article into shape before it is published. Joe Roe (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yo, Axcii, one more thing you should know, not related to your question. Sign your name with four tildes — ~~~~ — and the software will automatically convert it to your name, linked to your userpage, + a link to your talk page, + a UTC timestamp. That's what Joe Roe and David Biddulph have done above, and what I'm doing right here. --Thnidu (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Image Copyright Release[edit]

Hello. I have been given permission to use a photo by the image creator (volunteer) and the organization (non-profit) hosting the image. Do I need to submit a form for both parties? Thanks! Deedeefleur (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deedeefleur. Unless you mean by "use" that the owner is willing to release the copyright of the image to the world, irrevocably, under a suitably-free copyright license, allowing anyone to take the image and use or modify it, even for commercial purposes (so long as they give appropriate credit to the author(s) and post the license when they use the image), the answer is, "neither". We cannot use images by permission while the owner(s) maintain non-free copyright. If the owners are willing to provide such a release, they would have to do so directly (not secondarily through you as intermediary). For some of the methods that can be used to verifiably provide such a release, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Deedeefleur (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

want to add a city article, that's name Nagarukhra.[edit]

Dear Friends, I am trying to add a article about my city, where I live in. The name of the city is Nagarukhra, but when I creating this page after few hour later it has been deleted by other users & does not show proper information about the city on Google as well as on Facebook. When I am going to add my hometown as Nagarukhra, it doesn't show any result, even in Wikipedia also. Again & again the article's name/title convert to Nagarukhra to Ukrah, but our city's name is Nagarukhra. So guys, please help me build a article about my city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo500 (talkcontribs) 02:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

But it isn't called Nagarukhra - of the five references you have cited Census 2000 and Accuweather both call it Ukrah The tribune calls it Nagar Ukhra and the other two sources do not mention Nagarukhra, Ukhra or Ukrah at all. AFAIK Nagar is a Hindi word for city, which you are trying to add in front of the official Census name Ukrah. - Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
and Wikipedia already has an article on Ukhra. Maproom (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Maproom: They seem to be two different cities: Ukhra is in Bardhaman District while Nagarukhra in Nadia district (of the same state of West Bengal). --CiaPan (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ukhra is not the same as Ukrah - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
To quote Census 2011 "Ukrah is a large village located in Haringhata of Nadia district". The population statistics of this village, are those used in the Nagarukhra article, which Neo500 describes as a city. As mentioned above, AFAIK Nagar is a Hindi word for city, and I wonder if the editor is trying to make his village appear more important, by tagging "city" on the front. If it has been renamed since the census. there must be reliable sources covering this, which need to be cited. - Arjayay (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Not going to support any option, just for information: The United Bank of India seems to maintain a Nagar Ukhra branch in Nadia district: [1]. And their address is 'PO-NAGARUKHRA, DIST-NADIA, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 741242'. Same name we have in Nagarukhra High School and Nagarukhra Kshetra-Mohan Girls' High School.
Other official and almost-official uses: Google nagarukhra site:gov.in --CiaPan (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Video game notability standards?[edit]

I was wondering if Wikipedia has standards for notability, specifically on video games. I checked the categorical standards, and I couldn't find guidelines for video games. Do such standards exist, and if so, where can they be found? Thanks a lot! Joshualouie711 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Joshualouie711, I couldn´t find any specifically for videogames (slightly surprising, that), but if you check WP:GNG with WP:VG/RS maybe you can get something out of it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Then again: Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I need help with editing and formatting[edit]

Hi- I am desperately trying to make edits to the following page, which has many innacuracies. I am an expert in this field but sadly not with Wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_soul

My edits keep being rejected due to formatting etc etc. To help me along, can you advise how I would insert a line such as this? At least it will get me started.

The Kings Hall, Stoke has operated as the best attended UK All Nighter since 1996.

Thank you Gaynorjones (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The important thing to remember is that we can't include anything based on your own knowledge of the subject, unless it is backed up by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Your user talk page has a number of useful links regarding sources, citation, & references. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Need Help Again[edit]

Hello, probably Gestrid. I am severely sorry. I really am. But I need help again. I am truly sorry. I messed up anouther reference, but I know where I messed up, so can you tell me how to edit them? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut. You left the http:// off the web page address. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
But the URL didn't have that. Also, I just need to know what all I need to fill in. GrecoRomanNut (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The url= field of citations would prefer to see https:// prefixes, if they work, but needs http:// otherwise. Browsers are pretty flexible about accepting strings without the prefix, and can even test the destination to see what variants might work, but here on Wikipedia, the prefix has to be included.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
To amplify User:jmcgnh's comment, the URL does have that prefix. All URLs have a protocol: prefix, it's a required part of the Uniform Resource Locator#Syntax. Many browsers have taken to hiding http: and https: because they're almost always the same (a feature I keep turning off on my browsers), but it's formally a required part of all URLs. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikitables[edit]

So I've been told that the tables on List of parrots do not fit onto the screen. The only solution I can see is shrinking the table, but that'll only fix the problem for certain size screens. Are there any parameters or templates that can be used so it will auto-fit onto any sized screen?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77. Tables work best in Wikipedia if you don't try to specify size of the cells and just let the cells adjust to the content. Leave out all the cell formatting stuff. Don't try to specify the size of the text. See Help:Table and keep it as simple as possible. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
StarryGrandma, the tables wouldn't all be the same size (wide), they'd look all wonky. These are all separate tables, so the cells won't be the same size for each table (as far as I know)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77, see this diff in my sandbox where I put a copy of your first table. I took out only two lines. I removed some formatting and the table declared inside the table. (Why is there a table inside the table?) The table sizes to the size of the screen. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Additionally you will have to control the size of the pictures in the table. See List of the 72 names on the Eiffel Tower. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The tables do not have to be all the same size, but it's good if they are readable. And when they are that wide they are un-readale – one must scroll fore and back to see the whole row, one can't catch the whole row with a single glance. Think also about those who read Wikipedia with their tablets or smartphones...
Additionaly, when you force big cell widths you waste the screen space: images are quite tall, so the text can pretty well be split into several shorter lines instead of extending 'forever' in a single line. And that also improves readability, because the whole piece of information is in a small, compact area, available for reading 'at once'. --CiaPan (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have removed unnecessary and very annoying width:1690px from many tables. It looked abysmal on my and a huge number of other screens. Never demand a large table width in pixels. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How Do I Delete A Footnote?[edit]

Hello, experienced editor, I have a question pertaining to the Wikipedia page about Euphrosyne. I have the same reference at the same spot twice. Do you know how to delete a reference? Please help!GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GrecoRomanNut, and welcome to the Teahouse! Were you talking about the citation problem in the section "Greek mythology"? If so, I've gone ahead and fixed it for you. You can see what I did here. It appears you accidentally put in an extra "reference end" tag, if that makes sense. (For other editors, the specific page seems to be Euphrosyne (mythology).) -- Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, GrecoRomanNut, I would suggest you take a look at our guide for Referencing for beginners. That should help you with any future referencing problems you may have. Judging by your contributions, you should probably read it. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Olympic medals[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

In the article All-Time Olympic medal count Poland's medals are added up incorrectly. T totals should be 73 gold, 91 silver and 138 bronze. Thank you. Thanks.2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:77 (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, IP user! It looks like you've already fixed it. Great job being BOLD! -- Gestrid (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

how can i create a specific page in that side.?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User was blocked for advertising.

i want to create a specific page in en.wikipedia.org side such as quickbooks supportSumit143143 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)my page name is related to quickbooks customer support phone numberSumit143143 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sock of a blocked editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anhinhhhd Meters (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Before it was deleted, the user's page was overt support phone spam. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Fair use and pictures extracted from scientific documents[edit]

I would like to scan a figure from a scientific paper (or a book) in order to illustrate an article. Is it legal to upload this figure into the English wikipedia where the copyright attribution will be performed? Thank you in advance. Malosse (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, Malosse. Unless the figure is explicitly released in the paper under a compatible licence such as CC-BY-SA (unlikely, but not impossible), the only way to upload it would be as a non-free image, in which case its use would have to satisfy all the criteria in WP:non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I think that I will get a picture from the French Wikipedia which will make things easier. Malosse (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Malosse, there are a number of scientific journals that do publish under the requisite licenses. PeerJ and Frontiers in Earth Science come to mind. If you find suitabble illustrations in articles published there, those would be fine to use. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Article ownership[edit]

I'm not naming names, however recently there's been an editor who has, out of the blue, began editing two pages which I too edit. I'm thrilled, I love it when new editors join to constructively build an article. However, this user appears to be quite obsessive in the article. They've rewritten every section - despite there being no real need to. The editor has also been rewriting/reverting virtually all edits made by other users since they started working on the article. One user in particular cleaned-up the article last night, to which the new editor rewrote the work of that user. This editor is also particularly obsessive over an episode summary they've written. If anyone tweaks or cleans-up the summary, they're edits are overwritten by the editor.

I've not come here as an annoyed editor, however I do believe that this user has come to the article and literally taken over, as if this article is officially their article. I've considered issuing a level one article ownership warning, but I wanted to come here first to ask what other editors think of the situation. Is it obsessive editing, or more "perfectionism"? I'm asking because I've never experienced a situation like this. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that one of the articles is Too Old for This Shift? It does look like they are trying to control the article and their edits are not really helpful, in particular the bloating of the plot summary. You might have to ask an admin to look into it. I did once have this happen to an article I wrote, where somebody basically made lots of minor edits with no reason to make them. They were a sockpuppet and were eventually blocked. I don't think this editor has gotten to that point, but they do need to understand that they're not helping. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You are right, White Arabian Filly, the other article being Casualty (series 31). Is there any chance you could look through the edit history of Casualty (series 31) and tell me what you think? Any other editors advice would also be much appreciated. I've even written a message on the user's talk page telling them it needs to be shortened. I had, in fact, written a plot prior to theirs, which was much shorter and outlined only the major details, which they also completely overwrote. I also noticed that they were warned about producing excessively detailed plot summaries in the past. I'm trying to get the article to GA-status and potentially FA. Like I say, I'm not annoyed, I just want guidance. I think I'm going to have to take your advice and maybe ask an admin to look into this. Thank you for your reply and advice. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like they're doing the same thing there. They just don't seem willing to listen or discuss, either, based on their lack of talkpage communication. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I'll leave this until tomorrow night to see if any other editors comment on this section, and if not, I'll speak to an admin – which leaves me with one more question: do I go to any admin? And how do I find an admin? Thank you again White Arabian Filly for your help, it is much appreciated. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably go to Wikipedia:ANI, and inquire on the talk page of one of the admins who hang out there. I don't think it's worth filing a complaint about the editor there yet, but you can get an opinion and maybe more eyes watching the articles. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no it definitely isn't worth filing a complaint yet I agree, but I will definitely inquire on the talk page, and get another opinion. Thank you for your help. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

COI and New User ignorance[edit]

Hi everyone, It is great to finally be able to contribute to a body of knowledge like wikipedia but the challenge now is that every article written comes with several warnings like i shouldnt make changes again and many others. It made me feel like am doing the wrong thing. i created a page "CFi - Christian Fellowship International" and it seems to have been deleted.

Please i need advice on what to do Cfireal (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cfireal. I'm sorry you're having a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, this is quite a common experience of new users because so often they plunge straight into the rather difficult job of creating a new article. I would always advise a new user to spend some weeks improving existing articles first, to get the hang of how Wikipedia works. They also need to read Your first article carefully.
The message that Melcous has put on your talk page is based on the assumption (probably from your user name) that you have some connection with CFI. If that is the case, you are strongly discouraged from writing about it in Wikipedia, because it is likely to be difficult for you to write neutrally about it. Please look at the links Melcous put on your talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Cfireal, I suggest you change your username because we don't allow usernames to represent businesses. For example, Cfiinc or something similar would likely get blocked, but Cfirick might be acceptable. See this page for more info on usernames with business names in them. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the candid responses. Its quite frustrating you know...Want to be part of this big family. I love to write. I will take it one step at a time.

Once again, Thanks. Cfireal (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: CityU MFA[edit]

Hi all, I am referring to Draft: CityU MFA, the draft I added several days ago, based on the advice from multiple editors (Thank you so much!) Since I have not seen any responses, either approval or decline, or further advice, I am wondering how long the CityU MFA needs to wait till being live for public. Thanks. Knoxtennessee (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Knoxtennessee. You have not submitted Draft:CityU MFA for review. Please add {{subst:submit}} to it (with the double curly brackets) to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
When you originally submitted the draft, the primary question was whether a stand-alone article was in order or whether the information could be added to City University of Hong Kong. That would still be the primary question that you should address when you resubmit the draft. Also, the discussion of the controversy about the program's cancellation will be reviewed very carefully with respect to neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine! Will do. Hi Robert, I hear ya and yes, these are what were kept in my mind when writing, editing and multiple editing following each editor's advice. I appreciate all the reminders, suggestions and directions, and I hope the community recognize the value of the topic and support its existence, and perhaps share more advice on how to make it even better. Regards. Knoxtennessee (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Knoxtennessee, in my opinion, this is not a notable topic as Wikipedia defines notability. This MFA program should be given due weight at City University of Hong Kong, but I see no need for a separate article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Iphigenia Wang/sandbox - Splitting an article via a draft[edit]

I reviewed User:Iphigenia Wang/sandbox and declined it as being better to add to Decorative box rather than to spin off into a separate article on Snuff box. The author then inquired on my talk page:

with Wikipedia UK, and may I ask some confused questions in here? I am a bit confused why the Wikipedia UK doesn't allow an independent article of " snuff box" exist? In my sense it's a notable cultural stuff in European cultural art.Here are many different styles of snuff boxes in my placement museum, they include both aesthetic and practical value, and I also found an independent article “Snuff bottle” which refers Chinese snuff decorative box in Qing Dynasty. Qing Dynasty is a similar historic period with Victorian period,it seems both snuff bottle and snuff box could represent both different special cultural sense and similar cultural link together. Also in my placement museum, here are some touched snuff boxes'stories with soldiers.For example, here is an interesting Highlanders’ Regimental tradition adopted by General Wemyss about recruiting the new soldiers. The General with a “snuff mull” in his hand and followed by an attendant with a bottle of Whisky, went down the ranks, and to every young man that he wished to enlist he offered snuff. This signal was perfectly understood, and the young man would step out of the ranks and take the snuff and his dram while the clerk recorded his name.Another example is a rectangular tontine silver snuff box which has four hinged compartments for snuff. On the lid is an inscription explaining ownership, which was the last remaining Officer on the list who was serving with the Regiment.It's normally considered this box is belonged to four different regimental officers who purchased it together, and when an officer died in the battle, the others kept it until the last keeper. It stands for a precious friendship of these officers. So why do you highlight the art value of snuff bottle, but ignore the same value of snuff box? Thanks indeed for read my long questions, looking forward your reply, and have a nice day! Iphigenia

Maybe I wasn’t clear that I thought that a discussion of whether an article should be split off an existing article should be done on the talk page of the existing article, Talk: Decorative box, rather than just via submission via Articles for Creation. I don’t have a definite opinion on the content issue of one article or two, but I do have an opinion on the process question of where to discuss creating the new article within the context of an existing article. Do other experienced editors want to comment either on the process question or the content question? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised that Wikipedia does not already have an article titled "snuff box". I believe it should have such an article, and I would encourage Iphigenia Wang to go ahead and create one. Her sandbox is a good start, but needs some work – I am willing to help. I used to use a snuff box myself – they may be much less common than they were, but they are not that obscure.Maproom (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Iphigenia Wang, I agree with Maproom that a separate article on snuff boxes is appropriate. About two hundred years ago, collecting elegant snuff boxes was a hobby of many famous people, including Frederick the Great, Horace Walpole, George IV and Beau Brummell. Reliable sources are abundant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If two experienced editors think that a separate article is in order, I will concur with their judgment. In general, however, is there agreement that discussion on the parent article talk page is an appropriate way to address splitting an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, Robert McClenon, Decorative box is a lightly edited article with no previous talk page discussion. The most developed section of the article is the one on snuff boxes, to the point that an article intended as a broad overview of all types of decorative boxes is skewed. In my opinion, that article could easily be improved by expanding the other sections, and having a much shorter proportional section on snuff boxes, linking to a separate article on that notable topic. If the article had been heavily edited and was well developed, I would agree that talk page discussion would be best. That would also be appropriate if the topic was controversial. But in this case, I think that bold editing is the operative principle, to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir/ Madam
Thanks indeed to consider my opinion. I am a Chinese MA Heritage student who currently do placement work in a Highlander Regimental Museum. And I found there are some interesting cultural stuff in the Museum may attract international visitors. After the discussion with the leader of the Museum, we decided to publish some cultural topic on Wikipedia. And he strongly supports me to use the resource of the Museum to edit these articles. This is the first time for me to edit English version Wikipedia article draft, also is the first time to participate the Wikipedia project. This article may still have many issues, such as grammar mistakes, copyright and others… I would like to hear any advice about improving the issues of this article, please feel free to guide me. And may I ask a question, I have read the rules about CC-BY-SA copyright, but still have no idea how to solve this issue with my article? I used all the reference of texts and images from the resource of The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Regimental Museum (Stirling Castle, Scotland), and have got the permission from the Museum’s CEO to publish recourse on Wikipedia Project. So may I know what shall I do next, what shall I offer to support the copyright? Also the CEO hopes if I could publish the article successful, I may continue to edit Chinese Version for same topic.
Many Thanks
Iphigenia Iphigenia Wang (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was my "The Art and Craft of Knitting" article rejected?[edit]

Hello. My name is Stacy Goodyear. Why was my article rejected? Please answer. I cited the one source I had for the article. The rest of the information was what I believed to be general knowledge. I cited a Wikipedia article under the heading of Culture. I don't remember the exact title or author of the page.

Stacy Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your sandbox draft was only one sentence and doesn't really add any content to what we already have on Knitting. Please read some of our existing articles for a while to see what we consider to be an article, as opposed to a one-sentence comment on a subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This looks more like a nomination for the Wikipedia:Did you know feature on our home page than an actual encyclopedia article. Was that your intention, Stacy Goodyear? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry. It was not my intention to issue only one sentence. I was distracted from writing the rest of my article.
Stacy Goodyear (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Stacy Goodyear, you should only submit or resubmit your article for review when you think you're done writing it and you think it's ready. Also, you should probably read Your first article to write a better article than the one you currently have there. It would also need some reliable sources to back up what your article would say.
Also, as Cullen328 asked, was it your intention to write a Wikipedia:Did you know, or were you trying to write an article?
-- Gestrid (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see my page "Death Wish (2017 film)" which I created starring Bruce Willis[edit]

Hi all, the page "Death Wish (2017 film)" that I created which stars Bruce Willis is now move forwards, with the name of the producers the a few casts announced. Can I have the article back, please, I can't see the page. Also, the page "Flatliners (2018 film)" which I also created is in the limbo, that I can't see the page because I predicted the wrong year, when Sony announced that the film will be released in 2017, that's my mistake :(. I don't want to talk about this page but can I received my page "Death Wish (2017 film)" again ? Giangkiefer (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Giangkiefer. According to our notability guideline for films, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."
Do reliable sources report that principal photography is underway on these films? If not, you should wait until then to begin writing the articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Giangkiefer. It can be frustrating to lose track of articles you have worked on. In this instance, it appears your efforts were either deleted or merged with an existing article because they did not meet notability guidelines for films, as Cullen328 advises above. However, you can still see the latest version of Death Wish (2017 film) you edited in your contribution history, here. But there is currently also a redirect to Death Wish (film)#Remake, which has several paragraphs about the remake with much the same information as you wrote. It looks like your version may have been merged with the article on the original film. The Flatliners (2018 film) is also a redirect to Flatliners#Remake, and the latest version you edited is here.
Your choice is either to further develop the "Remake" sections of the existing articles, and/or to discuss on the articles' talk pages whether to split the information to new pages once the remakes have "commenced principal photography". Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with Draft: Pamela Schulz[edit]

I wrote an article about an Australian academic called Pamela Schulz. It was rejected twice, on the grounds that the language was too 'salesy' and notability had not been established. I removed the 'salesy' language and engaged one of the reviewers in discussion. During that discussion it became apparent that the reviewer did not know about the Australian Honours System and this lack of knowledge had led to the question mark over notability. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines, an academic is considered to be notable if they are awarded a major national Honour. In Australia, an OAM is such an Honour - it is awarded by the Queen, via the Governor General of Australia, after a rigorous process of nomination and review. I referred the reviewer to Wikipedia's own pages about the OAM and Australian Honours, and the reviewer said he/she would revisit... but nothing. That was several weeks ago now and the draft has still not been reviewed. Can anyone help? It seems strange that Pamela Schulz meets Wikipedia's own guideline regarding academics and notability (due to her OAM) and yet the draft is not progressing.ShazzaMD (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if we ping User:SwisterTwister they'll see this message and respond. Rojomoke (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, ShazzaMD. According to our notability guideline for academics, a person is presumed notable if they have received a "highly prestigious academic award". The Order of Australia is not an academic award. The order has five classes and the medal (OAM) that Schulz received is the lowest of those five classes. The higher classes have quotas, while the OAM does not. Accordingly, this neither a highly prestigious award nor an academic award by any stretch of the imagination. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. When I checked just now, the notability guidelines read 'highly prestigious academic award or national honour'. The OAM is a national honour. Whether it is highly prestigious or not is a matter of opinion. Many Australians would say that it is highly prestigious. Your comment 'by any stretch of the imagination' is your imagination, therefore, and you do not speak for others.ShazzaMD (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too hung up on using the OAM as a measure of notability, it's not going to fly. There are similar issues surrounding the lower levels of the Order of the British Empire and having an MBE, OBE or even CBE and using that as the main indicator of notability almost inevitably leads to failure. Concentrate on her academic works instead. Nthep (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not a Teahouse host but this may help. Are we all looking at the same guidelines page[2]? ShazzaMD quotes 'highly prestigious academic award or national honour' but I am seeing '2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.' which differs in meaning, not just in the spelling of honour. I think it would have said 'The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or an honor at a national or international level' if non-academic honours were intended to be included. SovalValtos (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I choose the article title for a singer when there is more than one with the same name?[edit]

I am in the processing of making an article for the Atlanta-based singer Abra. I was going to name the article Abra (singer), as there is a rapper called Abra (who has an article called Abra (rapper)). However Last.fm informs me that there is also a Polish singer called Abra. A quick Google didn't fetch any information about this singer, which suggests that if I make an article called 'Abra (singer)' it will not cause problems, but I just wanted to check what other people think? Sarahstaniforth (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be completely fine to name the article "Abra (singer)". If we don't have an article about the Polish singer with the same name, they might not be notable anyway, at least for the English Wikipedia. In general, if a title isn't taken, use it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Adana derby and previous deletions[edit]

I reviewed Draft:Adana derby and declined it for notability reasons. I commented that there had already been two deletion discussions. I then received the following snarky comment from User: Abcmaxx: "You didn't review it though did you, you just hashed out the same old stupid argument. I'd like to know which bit of it has no reliable or independent sources because clearly there's a) a lot of them b) they're significant and c) reliable"

I did review it, several times, and was prepared to comment on it and defer it to another reviewer, but the AFCH script then showed me the three previous deletes, two deletion discussions and a WP:G4. As a reviewer, one of the instructions is to consider whether the article will survive a deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion. Since the deletion discussions have already been held, and the consensus has been Delete, if I were to accept the draft, it would either be tagged for WP:G4 again or get a third deletion nomination. Being sarcastic to a reviewer should not in itself result in a draft being declined, but it does not increase the likelihood of acceptance. I would suggest that, if the author thinks that the deletion discussions missed the mark, rather than just resubmitting, the author should go to WP:WikiProject Football and ask them whether they think that this rivalry (when rivalries are not ipso facto notable and require general notability) is notable.

Do other experienced editors have comments on what either a reviewer or an author should do in this situation, where a topic has already had a deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right about this not having a hope in hell of surviving CSD under WP:G4 as it's the exact same content. In the AFD I think Fenix down has the right response - if this were a game between two clubs under any other circumstance would it be notable. Just because they share the same ground doesn't elevate this above the norm. Admittedly this is closer to meeting the notability threshold than some football rivalries I've seen articles attempted on. Nthep (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw the draft and had it been moved to the mainspace I would have G4d it as essentially the same as the previous version. To be honest I am baffled why this has come through AfC in this state. Fenix down (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure what User:Fenix down means by "come through AfC in this state". It is in AfC in this state because User:Abcmaxx submitted it to AfC in this state. I see that User:Nthep says that it is the exact same content as when it was deleted, and I assume that they mean that they have used admin glasses to view the deleted version. If Abcmaxx thinks that it should be accepted, I would suggest that they ask for opinions at WP:WikiProject Football. I will comment that, in the second deletion discussion, at least one editor said that the title should be salted to prevent tendentious re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It is salted. Nthep (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, Abcmaxx: CSD G4 is a general criterion, meaning it applies to all namespaces (and this draft is not "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement"). Of course, it can be difficult to place G4s with confidence if you can't see the deleted content to compare, but you can always ask an admin to check if it's G4-able – including by using {{db|reason}} containing your explicit query as to whether the deleted content is substantially similar. Here, as Nthep states and I confirm, it is, and so I have deleted. Abcmaxx, you participated in both articles for deletion discussions, and yet created this as a draft and submitted for review knowing you had changed nothing substantive since the second AfD debate was closed as delete on the merits. Your path, if at all, is to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review, showing that the deletion debate close was against consensus, or on the basis of significant new coverage of the topic in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic and treat it in substantive detail. Just recreating it again is in my view disruptive behavior.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, but none of you have said any of the above at all before. Been left with just a bunch of warning messages and weird threats instead without much explanation or alternatives Abcmaxx (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Submitting a draft that was the same as a deleted article was an attempt to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion is underway at WP:ANI#User not assuming good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The transition innovation in the classics.[edit]

Good day! I am a famous historian, my book ( www.rusocka.ru/irs.pdf ) for two years, downloaded about 35,000 times. I spoke at the Congress of historians in city Rostov- on -Don, held numerous debates, met with authoritative historians in person or corresponded with via the Internet. However, on Wikipedia I remained blocked, since then my book was unusual, as the theory about the roundness of the Earth in the middle ages. However, while I was blocked, some articles in Wikipedia, which I relied, were distorted by hackers. I understand it comes from lack of training on the history of the managers of Wikipedia. Maybe this is a reason to allow me to write the amendment? Can you take me to the managers of history? Rusocka (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rusocka, welcome to the Teahouse. This is your first edit at the English Wikipedia so I guess you refer to your block at the Russian Wikipedia. Each language edition is edited independently with its own policies and administrators. We have no authority over the Russian Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As a new user, if I want to go about making a change to a template, what is the right etiquette?[edit]

Hello everyone,

I may want to make a small change to the following template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_India_district.

Looking at the Talk page of this template, it was last edited several years ago. I am not sure whether it is okay for me to make a small change to it. Also, it seems to be a well-used template and thus will impact a lot of pages, and therefore I am even less sure about changing it.

Any input will be helpful.

Thanks. Amiwikieditor (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Amiwikieditor!

I would like to suggest you that Yes!, you can do change the contents in the Article as you said that it has not been changed so it might be a very good thought to edit it so that it is updated. If you have ample knowledge about it then go ahead!

Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Careful, Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003. While in general your advice is good, for a template that is used in 378 pages a little more caution might be required. Amiwikieditor, it depends a bit on what is the nature of the change you want to make: does it have the possibility of breaking any pages? Is it likely to be at all controversial? Unless it really is minor, I suggest that you make your suggestion on the talk page, and also notify WT:WikiProject India. If there has been no comment after a few days, then go ahead and make your change. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Amiwikieditor, it would help us answer your question if you described the change you want to make. Joe Roe (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses folks. Joe_Roe, the change is minor - but it sprouts from my OCD about certain things. The template has some logic which links to the list of districts in which the current district resides. That linkage is serving two purposes - it acts as a label to describe that the current district (the one on which the template is) is a district of a given state. And it links to the list of all the districts of the said state. My problem lies in the fact that the label is singular - for instance, on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurgaon_district, it says District of Haryana - while the page it links to is a List - thus implying a plural target. So, ideally it should say "Districts of Haryana" - but then it doesn't serve the purpose of adding information to the page where it is shown (where it wants to say that "Gurgaon District" is a "District of Haryana").

Not sure if you are with me so far or I made a hash of trying to explain this. The change I want to make is that the place where it says "District of state name", it follows it by text which says something like "list of all districts of this state" with the link to the list of districts.

Makes sense?

Amiwikieditor (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the link is correct: Gurgaon district is a single entity which belongs to a superior single entity – the Haryana state, and that is what the label says: a district of Haryana. Of course, it links to a list of all districts of Haryana, because there is no 'a list of a single district', and a description of a single district is just a page we're reading (the one containing the template). That's quite obvious to me, and I do not agree with your point of view that the singular/plural need unification here. --CiaPan (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks CiaPan - The label in its display context on that single district page (and others like it) is correct, of course. But imagine a hyperlink on the internet which says "District of X" and it points to a page which contains "Districts of X". That's my only concern. I made a suggestion on the talk page on what it could be instead to see if I get a response from those who originally worked on the template. My suggestion will result in the following being displayed instead: "District of X (all districts of X)" wherein, the "all districts of X" part will be the link. Is that not better? Amiwikieditor (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
No. Much too cluttered. It's fine as it is. David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I notice that you had put your message at the top of the template talk page. It will often not be noticed there, because the general practice on Wikipedia talk pages is that new topics go at the foot of the page (so I have moved it). You may have been confused because new topics on this Teahouse Questions page go at the top; experienced editors have frequently pointed out that new editors will get confused by this non-standard practice, but the bright sparks who dreamt up this page wouldn't listen. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha David_Biddulph on the Talk Page comment placement. And I guess I accept both yours and CiaPan's input on this. Even though it will bother me personally :) - thanks for taking the time. Amiwikieditor (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tye Leigha Hagood[edit]

im new to this im trying to create a new page about Publicist Tye Leigha Hagood shes a very well known publicist but never had a wiki page, she does have a few articles but unfortunately as it is in the public relations industry alot are well known internally but not alot of articles but she does also have a imdb that list alot pf her clients... ive created and posted the page is there anyone that csn help me with editing im so lost please feel free to search the page and give comments i also included a lot of references but not sure if i did it right Tlhpr (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to its own section, Tlhpr, as it was likely to get missed where you had placed it, in the section for another editor's question. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Tlhpr. As I'm not an administrator, I can't see the article which was deleted. But here's the thing that probably explains what's going on: Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody (or their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or publicists) say about themselves. None. It is only interested in what poeople who have no connection with them have published about them. It follows that nothing published by Hagood, or her clients or associates, will contribute in any way to her notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and that unless there is substantial material which has been published about her by people unconnected to her, there will be literally nothing that can be put in an article about her.
I also observe that your username suggests that you are connected with Hagood: if you are, you need to read our policy on conflict of interest carefully.
If you can find some substantial independent published sources about Hagood, and decide to go ahead with writing an article, I suggest you read Your first article carefully, and use the Article wizard to prepare your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

i need help getting my bio published[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User blocked for self-promotion

i am frustrated because i made a bio page and it was marked for deletion and cant get anyone to repsond. i fixed it and it still says the same thing(06:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FULLCIRCLE (talkcontribs)

Note: user has been blocked for self-promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Viewing a more detailed TOC[edit]

Some pages that I visit and edit regularly have very long sections that are quite reasonably subdivided for several levels down; e.g., Ingress (video game) has two levels of subsections, down to h4 (==== ====). Also quite reasonably, the TOC on such pages tends to be limited to displaying top-level (==h2==) sections only. But often when I go to such a page I want to get to a particular sub(-sub(-sub))section. If I know its exact name I can add it to the browser bar after a #, but I'm not always certain.

Is there any way for an editor to view a TOC in more detail without editing the page?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Thnidu. While it does involve editing, this method will only take but a moment. Click edit → search for TOC → remove the TOC limiting template such as {{TOC limit|2}} → click show preview → voilà. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: D'ohh! Thanks. Of course! Using Preview, getting the link or URL, then cancelling, will get me to the § I want without changing the TOC and messing up others' experience. Thanks again. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

How to propose a redirect for removal[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask how to propose a redirect for removal. The page in question is Dhammakaya ordination, and the redirect to Upasampada doesn't make much sense. I'd like to address this, and have done so, by indicating the reason on the talk page and using the g6 template. Some other editor grumpily said it is the wrong template and removed it, but hasn't informed me which template to use or which procedure to address this issue. Could you advise me? S Khemadhammo (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, S Khemadhammo. The proper venue for resolving this issue is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't find it.S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
According to my watchlist, Dhammakaya ordination has been marked as reviewed. On Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, it says "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]" next to the entry. What is next? According to what I have read about this procedure, it should be deleted automatically, but right now, Dhammakaya ordination hasn't been deleted yet.S Khemadhammo (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
It won't be deleted automatically. You list a page on redirects for discussion so that other editors can discuss it. If there is a consensus that it should be deleted, then an administrator will close the discussion and perform that action (this is what the [ closure: ] links are for). However, there hasn't been any discussion in your entry yet. You don't have to do anything at this point, just wait for others to chime in. It usually takes a least a week for a discussion to run its course and be closed.
The entry on your watchlist saying it has been reviewed has nothing to do with the RfD you initiated, it refers to the new page patrol and simply means somebody has checked to make sure the page doesn't violate Wikipedia's basic policies. Joe Roe (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Joe Roe. S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Recover a pitcure[edit]

Hi there. I need help with recover a picture. Here is the link of the draft article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hongchi_Xiao. The picture was "deleted" and the copyright issue was resolved via email. I was told from email that I did not need to re-upload the picture, but I could not get it to show up right. The original file name is: Hongci_Xiao_at_Central_Park,_New_York_in_2008.jpg. I have asked in the email that the file name be changed to Hongchi_Xiao_at_Central_Park,_New_York_in_2008.jpg because I made a mistake spelling Xiao's first name (wrong spelling being Hongci, and the right spelling being Hongchi). I'm not sure if the file name was changed. I have tried both ways. It would not work. Thank you for any help you can give me. I appreciate it. jdxzhu 15:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jdxzhu. Your image was deleted on Wikimedia Commons in November, 2015. A notice was placed on your Commons talk page by a Commons administrator called Mys_721tx, who edits only occasionally here on English Wikipedia. I suggest you ask for further information on their Commons user talk page. We can't help with Commons image issues here at the Teahouse. Commons has completely separate administration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Jdxzhu: the file File:Hongci Xiao at Central Park, New York in 2008.jpg was deleted from Commons on 10 Nov 2015 for being a copyright violation. You would need to ask for it to be restored at Commons:Undeletion requests referring to OTRS ticket # 2015111210002462. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I have sent a request to Mys_721tx a while back, never heard from him. I will try asking for help from Commons again. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. I appreciate it. jdxzhu 15:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion requests page does not exit any more. :( jdxzhu 15:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdxzhu (talkcontribs)
Jdxzhu c:Commons:Undeletion requests is the full name of the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Your signature isn't working properly, Jdxzhu. You might want to check that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your preferences isn't ticked. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328 Let's discuss it, StarryGrandma (talk) , and Cordless Larry (talk) for your help! I found the right place to ask for help with recovering the picture. I think I also got my signature working properly. Fingers crossed! :) I appreciate all your help! jdxzhu (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Your signature works fine now, Jdxzhu. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen328 Let's discuss it for confirming it! :) jdxzhu (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)