Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:THQ)
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

Create a page[edit]

How do you create a pageangelz (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What sort of page? Do you mean an article page? If so, read WP:Your first article and use the article wizard to create the article in draft space and submit it for review. I will also post a welcome message containing links to various policies and guidelines that would be good reading for new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Is adding to a list considered a ``minor edit ?[edit]

Hello,

I'm wondering if say adding another book to the list of works by an author, or similar actions, is considered a ``minor edit ? To my mind, it would be. I'm new, but I have made a few such such edits and labeled them ``m. However, when I've looked at article edit histories, I've noticed that ``m is not used very often so I began to wonder. Physalis longifolia (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Physalis longifolia. Adding an item to a list is not a minor edit. A minor edit is correcting a typographical editor or adding missing punctuation. Minor edits do not change content. So, please be careful about marking edits as minor. Please see WP:MINOR for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There are a few editors who habitually mark all of their edits as minor. This is considered disruptive editing. It results in frequent warnings. It is not normally considered sufficiently serious to warrant a block, but it may result in a longer block when the editor gets into an edit-war. Please don't become one. As Cullen328 said, changing the content of a page, such as adding to a list, is not a minor edit. Thank you for asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. So what should I do, if anything, about the entries that I have already made ? 143.235.254.194 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears that you, first, posted this question in the wrong section. I have moved it. It also appears that you forgot to log in before posting it. The number of such edits that you made is small, and you are a new inexperienced editor. There is no need, in my opinion, to worry about a few new mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

post to a User page[edit]

How do I post to a user page? I see I can add something to a post already there using "edit" but I want to have a separate post; for instance in order to thank someone for their help. The one method I tried did not work.King.parker3 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Messages should be posted on user talk pages; at the top-left of your screen, when you are on a userpage you should see a "Talk" button. Click on this and there should be a button on the right-hand side saying "New section". Click this and you can entire a title for your post in the "Subject/headline" box, and then type the message itself. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. So what should I do about the entries that I have already made -- undo them and then redo them ? 143.235.254.194 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

how to delete a user page[edit]

I want to delete the user page User:King.parker3/Tadeusz A. Jezierski which I created. This page is empty but I see no way to delete the reference to it.King.parker3 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@King.parker3: I've deleted it for you. For future reference any page in your own userspace you want deleting just add {{Db-u1}} to the top of the page, this will place the page in a category and an admin will delete it for you. Nthep (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Good article status for Solapur[edit]

Im desperate for the Solapur article to be recognised as a good article. I love this city and im ready to give 100 more reliable source citations for it. But what is the correct method im confused. Does it need mutual talks with senior editors or something else useful? Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dongar Kathorekar:, great to read that you are improving an article. For an article to be recognised as a good article, it has to have been reviewed by someone who is aware of the standards needed for an article to merit the status. You can find the procedure and nomination page at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. During the review the reviewer may have questions or suggestions to make about the article which you can discuss with them. Nthep (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To add to what Nthep has said, the exact criteria for good articles can be found at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Taking a very quick glance at Solapur, the [citation needed] tags in the Tourism section should be addressed before the article is nominated for GA status; you should also try to make sure that every statement in the article has a reliable source and maybe copyedit the article (go through and check the spelling, punctuation and grammar). Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

To,

Nthep Sir and Bilorv Sir, I am grateful for your advice and help.

Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

1.How to revert changes in page? 2.What to do to those users who do vandalism? 3.What is category about? 4.How to find coordinates of a place? 5.What are the basic tags needed in Wikipedia for editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talkcontribs) 16:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. See Help:Reverting: from the history of a page, you can undo a user's changes if they are unconstructive.
  2. Warnings can be issued to users who do not seem to be making constructive changes, and administrators can block users if they perform consistently unhelpful actions.
  3. A category is a group of articles which fall under a common topic. They are used for navigational purposes.
  4. I'm not quite sure what you mean; on Wikipedia, co-ordinates are often displayed in geographic articles' upper right-hand corners (e.g. Caldas da Rainha).
  5. You might find Help:Wiki markup and Help:Cheatsheet useful.
Please ask if you want any more detail on any of these topics, or have any further questions. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

References and footnotes[edit]

Most articles have references, featured articles have footnotes, notes and bibliography. In edit tool, i couldn't find any gadget that helps inserting footnotes. Inserting footnotes is not easy. Can an article have reference, notes and footnotes together? Count Chimera 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Count Chimera, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of ways to format citations. See this page, and Help:Footnotes for more detail. It is indeed possible to have references, notes and footnotes all in the same article, and indeed to have more kinds of sourcing than that -- charts and tables can have their own separate notes, for example. But most articles do not need that level of complexity. For most articles, when you enter or edit a fact, you should (normally) have a source that supports that fact. Right after the fact, or at the end of the sentence, insert the following markup: <ref>Source information here</ref>. At the end of the article, in a Notes or References section (I prefer the former, many editors don't) include {{reflist}}. Replace "Source information here" with enough information to allow a reader or editor to find the source. For a book, title, author, publication date, and page number. ISBN if possible. For a magazine or newspaper, name of periodical, date, title of article, author, page number(s). For an online source, title and url, date and author and publisher if available. You can use a citation template or not. That is the basic process and should be enough to start with -- if everyone did that much all would be much better. DES (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There is also information at WP:REFB for help at the intro level.
The "Insert Citation" button on the editing toolbar above the exit box is very helpful, particularly if you are researching via googlebooks (the "Book" subtool) or major online newspapers (the "News" subtool). Just paste the URL in the box and hit the green button. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

missing content[edit]

I created a comprehensive article on a company history but for some reason what I wrote does not show up when the page is viewed. When I go to edit mode all the content is there, but when saved and viewed, over half of it is missing. It was fine before, but I just noticed it this morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taito_of_Brazil LMParadis (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi LMParadis. For whatever reason you had placed a number of citations ending with "</ref><ref". The code is just <ref> ... </ref> or for a named citation, <ref name="Intuitive Name"> ... </ref> for a first use, and then, for a later use of that same citation: <ref name="Intuitive Name" />. By the way, citations go outside of punctuation, so all periods, commas, etc. are placed before the code. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to use the subsequent use of the same reference string that you mention but it came back with an error.

LMParadis (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey again. LMParadis. You posted only the secondary use of the name without defining it first. The first time you use a named reference, you have to provide the full citation but add the name definer to it. The code you used was for the second time you use the same reference after already providing the name. Let's be concrete. What you did was take the existing citation text:
<ref>{{cite web | url= http://augustocampos.net/taito-brasil/ | title=The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985 | accessdate=29 June 2015}}</ref>
and change it to:
<ref name="The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985" />
What you needed to do instead was take that existing citation and add the name to it. So the first use would become (changes underlined and bolded):
<ref name="The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985">{{cite web | url= http://augustocampos.net/taito-brasil/ | title=The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985 | accessdate=29 June 2015}}</ref>
With that you would have you've defined that citation's name name, and the next time you wanted to use the same citation you would just type:
<ref name="The curious history of Taito in Brazil, 1968-1985" />
However, I would keep use a much shorter name, maybe "curious history".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

draft article[edit]

Hi there teahouse hosts I have drafted an article and although I think I could move it myself I think it wouldn’t do any harm to run it through peer review first. I think that if I place {{subst:submit}} on the article, a bot should pick up on that and do the rest, is that correct?CV9933 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @CV9933: Welcome to the Teahouse! All you have to do is place {{subst:submit}} at the very top of the draft and save the page. This will automatically generate a template that will mark the page as pending a review (no bot involvement here). A reviewer should come by and review the article, and either approve it or let you know what needs improving. Note that there is a backlog of drafts awaiting review, so a review could take anywhere from a day to several weeks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's basically correct, although given the current backlog at Articles of creation (the reviewing venue) you might be waiting quite a while for a review. Assuming you're talking about Draft:Frank Gill (engineer), I can see no glaringly obvious reason not to move it to mainspace; there are improvements that could be made, naturally, but it meets Wikipedia's criteria and would pass an AFC review fairly easily. I'd suggest that you move it to mainspace; any serious issues will be picked up by the New Page Patrollers. Yunshui  13:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Unfortunately – and it's an issue that should give everyone who cares some pause – while everyone now having an automatic sandbox link and the creation of the draft namespace have their pluses, they have greatly increased creation outside the mainspace. Concomitantly, these types of moves to the mainspace (and not through AfC) have greatly increased—which entirely bypass Special:NewPages (as well as page curation). So drafts like this are unlikely to be seen in the ordinary course by any newpages patroller.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting; I did not know that. As you say, that's slightly concerning. Yunshui  14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, that was very enlightening.CV9933 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Three questions together[edit]

What is sandbox for? In edit summary Users type "rv" and "ce", why? Can I give Wikilove to Users I never interacted with? Count Chimera 12:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Count Chimera:!
A sandbox is a test environment. You can create drafts of articles or content that is not ready to go public. You can practice complicated markup like tables to see how it works. you can leave notes for your self of policies or guidelines or tools that you want to be able to find quickly. see WP:UP
people use abbreviations because they are quicker. "rv" would be for "revert" or "revert vandalism", "ce" would be for "copy edit"
Yes, you can give Wikilove to users for work they have done even if you have not directly interacted before. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi User:Count Chimera - to answer your questions in a 1,2,3 format
  1. A sand box is for testing and experimenting in - although many users also use them for starting an article or storing useful information. There are a few restrictions as to what can be included, such as no personal attacks, civility, and copyrights. For more information see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox
  2. Rv = revert and ce = copy edit - these and many more can be found in Wikipedia:Glossary
  3. No you do not have to have interacted with an editor, but Wikipedia:WikiLove should only be used for things that you really appreciate, not given to, say, everyone who edited a page. - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rename, move or create new[edit]

Hi,

Recently the company I work for changed their name but many still know us by our old, we have an existing wiki page under the old name. What would be the correct way to create a page for the new name.

I attempted to create a new page based on the new name, and reused some of the content from the old page (company history etc.), but now CorenSearchbot is complaining about duplicate scope and refering to the old page.

It's hard to rewrite the company history enough to not trigger a "duplicate", would it be better to move the old article? How do i make sure it's possible to find the article based on both new and old name?

Hovlandur (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Request a move of the original article to the new title, specifying that a redirect needs to be left in place. As a company employee, your conflict of interest means that you should not attempt to move the article yourself. Yunshui  07:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Hovlandur. You are a new editor deserving of assistance not criticism, and you have openly and honestly declared that you work for the company, which is a great early move to make. I suggest that you declare your conflict of interest on your (currently blank) user page. "Move" is the correct procedure in this specific situation, which is not intuitive. Think of article titles as being discrete entities from article content. When a company (or a celebrity) changes names, and the new name is widely recognized, the article should be moved to the new corresponding article title. The old title will remain as a "redirect", which means that a search for the old article name will yield a link to the new article name. Please do not make substantive edits to the article (other than reverting obvious vandalism) itself, but instead propose edits on the article's talk page, citing reliable, independent sources. A low key approach is best, and please return here to the Teahouse if no one comments on the talk page within a few days. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for excellent answers, Cullen and Yunshui, I will go back and make the appropriate actions, I didn't think of conflict of interest would be an issue, but it makes sense. Is there a easy way to delete the article I created?

Hovlandur (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, I was about to do the move, Hovlandur merging any changed content, but Fuhghettaboutit took care of the matter already. See the page now at Ambita AS. By the way, the article is a bit short and with only a few references. If you can suggest on the talk page (Talk:Ambita AS) any additional independant reliable sources about the company they could be used to expand the article. Any sources in English would be particualrly helpful, as so many editors do not speak Norwegian. DES (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

creating my page - was deleted just after[edit]

I wanted to create a new page for a new word that I have trade mark to - the reason for deletion was copywrite breach of text on a website I own that defines the word - what is the best way of getting this revised - I do not want to revise the meaning of the word as that defeats the object. The history of the word can be changed with different wording although I have written the history. Copywrite how can I use my own content that own copywrite for. I have put this to the person that deleted my page and await a response.

(2.31.172.213 (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; so it generally does not have articles for words. Rare exceptions would be word that have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. The facts that it is a new word and that you have trademarked it makes it extremely unlikely that such coverage would exist. Furthermore, is seems that you want to publicize the word, which would run afoul of Wikipedia’s policy against promotional articles. So it seems to me that it would be a waste of effort to try to license your original text under an acceptable license. Sorry, —teb728 t c 07:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Renaming or moving an article[edit]

I have an article under review with the short Title 'Peter Hore' I want it to come up under the title 'Peter Hore (historian, biographer and obituarist)' I've created a disambiguation link to that name from the main Peter Hore page. How can I rename my page to 'Peter Hore (historian, biographer and obituarist)'?

Imbwiki (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Imbwiki:- Well, you shouldn;t. see WP:DAB for the naming guidelines - we choose the broadest descriptor that distinguishes one Peter Horne from the others, not a laundry list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

promotional content?[edit]

Dear Wiki,

I am trying to update a Wikipedia page of a university. I am checking with other schools to guide me and maintain neutrality while stating important information. I've looked at other university websites (like the New School), but I just saw that Wiki is saying that there is promotional content on the page -- I had made a link to an online source which sends out newsletters and also editorial content for many schools and institutions, but it seems it is more advert related, and thus I have removed it. Could you let me know what the "policy" regarding "promotional content" is? Another question I have though is, if one is trying to expand a wiki page for, in this case, a university, is one not allowed to use any content from the university itself? I just don't want to make another mistake and want to be clear and honest. Also, in the infobox section I am unable to add certain categories, such as “founder” (if you look at the edit, you can see that “founder” is listed but it won’t show up)

If you could help me at your earliest convenience I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you and all my best, Julia 178.165.130.44 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about what other people of relevant backgrounds say about the subject, not what the subject or its subsidiaries say about it. We represent all of the major views of the subject, in the proportion they are held by the mainstream academics in the field. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hi Guys, I have a quick question. I want to create a wikipedia page and am having trouble doing so. Can anyone guide me in the right direction? Thanks MaxDanielLevin (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @MaxDanielLevin. What is the exact issue you are facing? To create a page, you can type the page you want to create in the search bar in the top-right of your screen; if you are certain that there is no page already existing which covers the topic, you can click the red link in the message You may create the page "[page name]", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. and write your article. However, please see Wikipedia:Your first article: all the articles on our site should meet notability guidelines and a few other criteria. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey MaxDanielLevin. For a treatment of the technical mechanics of page creation across all namespaces, see also Wikipedia:How to create a page. This will not, however, provide the guidance on what the page must and must not contain, which is covered by the link to your first article provided by Bilorv above. If the page you intend to create is an article, you might wish to do so through the guided articles for creation process. Just remember that providing citations to reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the topic being written about and which treat that topic in detail is fundamental. You should not attempt to write any article unless you've checked and those sources exist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Picture[edit]

Hi there,I submitted an article for review last week. I was wondering if I can still upload a picture?

Thanks

Kayreif (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kayreif:, yes you can upload a picture, providing it isn't copyrighted- I'll leave a message on your talkpage about the Wikipedia image policy. You can also continue to edit and improve the article. Assuming that you're talking about Michael Andrew Arntfield, the draft has been accepted, and so is now a proper article, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have two books as my reference but I don't know how to cite them as a reference. Please help. Thank you :-)[edit]

Louiejrsalvador (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)I have two books as my reference but I don't know how to cite them as a reference. Please help. Thank you :-) Louiejrsalvador (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Template:Cite book. If you need help knowing how to implement the template within your article, let me know. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Louiejrsalvador (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)may I ask, if these books contain all relevant and important and all information about my article, can i use it as my reference for all of the information given? Thanks again☺ Louiejrsalvador (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I find the question a little too ambiguous to answer. I think the answer is "yes", but I wouldn't want in any way to discourage use of inline citations. Can you give a link that shows the specific circumstances? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Topics for a stand alone article require significant coverage by multiple sources. And 2 books by Lee Smith do not count as multiple. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, louisjrsalvador. I think you are thinking about referencing the wrong way round. I suggest thinking about it this way:

  • Here is a statement I think should go in the article.
  • Can I find a reliable published source for the statement?
  • If no, then ignore that statement and pass on to the next one. The statement may not go into the article, period.
  • Is the source I have found independent of the subject of the article?
  • If so, type the statement into the article, citing the independent source with enough information that an interested reader can find where it supports the statement.
  • If not (the source is connected with the subject of the article), is the statement an uncontroversial factual claim (such as a date or a location)?
  • If so, type the statement into the article, citing the source as above.
  • If not, forget it and pass on: that statement may not go into the article.
  • If after all this, there is hardly any information which can go into the article, then the subject is not notable, and you should give up on the article.
See referencing for beginners for more detail on how to reference.

--ColinFine (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Louiejrsalvador (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)thank you very much. All of your tips is helping me right now how to cite valid multiple references. I will look for more references.... Thanks a lot.👍👍👍👏😊☺Louiejrsalvador (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle[edit]

How I will get access to Twinkle, Huggle, Stiki. Darthvader Skywalker 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darthvader Skywalker:, go to the relevant pages for each of these gadgets; WP:Twinkle, WP:Huggle and WP:Stiki and follow the instructions for the installation and use of each. Twinkle you can probably load immediately, the others need rollback permission which you do not have and other requirements about the number of edits you have made. However you do need to make yourself very aware that for all three - you are solely responsible for any edits you make with these quite powerful tools and that misbehaviour or misuse can result in you being blocked from editing even if your motives were good. As you only have two edits to your name and two of the tools are not immediately available to you I would strongly urge you not to use even Twinkle and spend time learning how to edit Wikipedia manually and what the various policies are that make for good editing. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I had a couple hundred edits under my belt when I enabled Twinkle and the sheer amount of damage I could cause with my fat fingers almost scared me witless. I am used to it now, but I strongly recommend you edit manually for a while. After all, looking up templates every time builds moral fibre and forces you to read the documentation and really check whether you have the right template. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

i want to create an article about a committee, name is China Energy Fund Committee[edit]

I want to create an article in Eng and Chi about a committee, name is China Energy Fund CommitteeSUNREST (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SUNREST. To create an article in en.wikipedia, please read your first article and make sure that you can find enough published material where people with no connection with the Committee have written about the Committee. If you can find these sources, then I recommend you use the article wizard to create the draft in Draft space, so that you can work on getting it up to standard before submitting it for review. Remember that every single thing that goes in the article should be based directly on a published source.
For the zh article, we cannot help you here, as each Wikipedia has its own rules. zh:维基百科:互助客栈/求助 might be of some help. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I try it before, the wizard said the name contains <China>, need to contact administratorSUNREST (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have created the draft for you, where you can write the article, subject to the usual notability, neutral point-of-view, and other Wikipedia policies. You can find it at: Draft:China Energy Fund Committee. When you are finished, hit "submit" on the Articles for Creation template I included. I hope that is helpful, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thx a lot ^^ SUNREST (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Also answered below: #I want to create an article about China Energy Fund Committee.--ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Visual Editor[edit]

I don't know where to inform but today, I pressed Alt+Shift+V to launch visual editor. But it did not launch. What to do?
117.207.31.111 (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the keyboard shortcut but you can click the normal Edit link and then manually change action=edit to veaction=edit in the url. You can also create an account and enable VisualEditor at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. Then articles will have edit tabs for both VisualEditor and the source editor. A lot of customization options is one the benefits of having an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Sir, I used my account, and then tried the shortcut, it failed. The blue bar of loading appeared, and then within milliseconds, it was vanishing. And, it was not on WP, but on a sister project. What should I do and where is the correct place to inform about this?
117.212.136.169 (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. If it was on a sister project, you should probably let them know there. If you let us know which sister project it was, there may be someone here who can find the best place for you to ask. Best of luck! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Some problems are reported at the bottom of Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Please include a link to a specific page with the problem if you make a post. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It was Wikinews.
117.212.136.169 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:WikiProject Maharashtra[edit]

There are have been addition of several articles requiring citations, how can this be updated on the task section? Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dongar Kathorekar. At the top, right hand side of the tasks section display are these links: edit · history · watch · refresh. Clicking on the edit link there will open up the transcluded page Wikipedia:WikiProject Maharashtra/to do and allow you to do the update. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Fuhghettaboutit buddy Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

how to solve "disambiguation needed"[edit]

In my Wiki on "Wilhelm Karl Ritter von Haidinger" the remark "disambiguation needed" was inserted (twice) behind the name of Thomas Allan. The following Wiki gives the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Allan . My reference indeed concerned Thomas Allan FRS FRSE FSA FLS (1777-1833), a scottish mineralogist. Alas, because I am a beginner, I do not know how to introduce the required link to solve the problem of disambiguation. Is there someone out there to help me? Thank you so much! JeffDellbart (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This was actually fixed in this edit. The problem was that Thomas Allen (note the spelling of the surname) leads to a disambiguation page rather than an actual article. However, Thomas Allan (correct spelling) leads to the correct article, and so the disambiguation is no longer an issue. Yunshui  10:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)JeffDellbart, there was just one letter that needed changing – you had written "Thomas Allen", which I have now changed to "Thomas Allan" to link to the page you wanted. Good article, btw! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to Yunshui and Justlettersandnumbers for their help! JeffDellbart (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC) 11:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Akpujiogu page[edit]

Hello, Akpujiogu page was deleted minutes after I created it yesterday, even though I protested. The basis is lack of sufficient content to justify the subject matter. While my protest got no response, I am fully aware that scantier pages have existed on Wikipedia for years, most without even references. This page is necessary as it is a town's history. I need it recreated Please what do I do? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MystiqueOBNOY (talkcontribs) 06:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MystiqueOBNOY. If you want to create an article and do not already have the sources identified to establish its notability, it's much better to use the article wizard, which will help you create it in Draft space. As long as it doesn't contain some serious problem such as copyright violation or an attack on somebody, a draft in Draft space will be left alone for you to develop it at leisure. Note that the fact that other stuff exists is never taken as a strong argument: improve those other articles rather than taking them as justification for creating another bad one. And no page on Wikipedia is "necessary": every single thing in a Wikipedia article should already have been published somewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

STiki[edit]

I have been told by Floquenbeam on my talk page that if I continue to use STiki he will block me for 1 year, without waiting for me to make a mistake, surely that cannot be possible unless I continue to make mistakes TeaLover1996 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. Wikipedia's volunteer resources are limited. Floq is within rights to ensure that the limited resources are not needed to clean up after someone who has been warned that they are inappropriately using tools. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Can i make my own bio on Wikipedia?[edit]

I just wanted to know if it is possible to write your own bio so if anyone searches your name in google a short bio appears. i am not famous at all. Please answer as soon as possible. Thank you!24.205.175.228 (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't. All articles require multiple independent reliable sources* specifically about the subject, and should not be written by the subject. *Reliable sources include professionally published mainstream books (especially academic ones), newspapers, and magazines, but not stuff like blogs, personal websites, Youtube videos, Facebook profiles, or anything else that anyone can throw on the net. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Facebook is good place for your personal bio or Linkedin if it is more profession/business/career oriented. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bal des débutantes complaints[edit]

I stumbled on the article about Bal des débutantes in Paris and I saw that there are quite a few unanswered complaints on its talk page. This article has been written in the style of a press release and a lot of claims in this article are not supported by any sources. It would be good if an editor could look at this particular article. Thanks--Renoiretmoi (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Renoiretmoi, and welcome to thr Teahouse. The article curretly cites many sources, most of which appear on superficial examination to be reliable. The complaints on the talk page are from one or two IP editors with one logged-in editor briefly staing agreement. They cite no sources at all. If you think the article is biased, or gives undue weight to particular views, say so on the article talk page with sources to indicate that other points of view have been reliably published. If there are uncited statements thst you challange, tag them with Template:Trl or challange them on the article talk page, or both. If you can reword to be more neutral, do so. DES (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you have a go yourself?!. We all have to start somewhere and that would be as good a place as any. If you make mistakes they can be undone.--ukexpat (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding pages in categories[edit]

I'm wanting to add a few articles into Category:Association football utility players. How do I do that? Thunder4231Rush (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse! In the source editor, add [[Category:Association football utility players]] at the bottom. Another option is wp:HotCat if you will be doing more category work. hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. So, what exactly is the source editor? I'm really new to this. Thunder4231Rush (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Thunder4231Rush. Happy Squirrel means what you get if you pick "Edit" at the top of the page when you are looking at most articles. Add the text Happy Squirrel gave you - including the double square brackets - at the bottom. Please note that putting a player in that category is implicitly making a claim about what kind of player they are: you should not do it unless the article explicitly says that the player is a utility player; and in turn the article should not make that claim unless it cites a reliable published source which says so. Wikipedia articles should not contain anybody's opinion - yours, mine, or anybody else's, except citing a reliable published source which advances that opinion. --ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Colin Fine! So if I find a source that says that, say, Chris Tierney can play anywhere in the defense and in the midfield, and I put that source on Chris Tierney's article, would I then be able to add Chris Tierney into the category? Thunder4231Rush (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Its whatever you feel is need in the categories man mainly bots your talking to on hereArabAmazigh12 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know much soccer, but I do know I, and most of the other volunteers on here are human beings, even though my user page does claim I am a squirrel :) Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Thunder4231Rush. It's a judgment call. I would have thought that you needed a source describing him as a "utility player", but this is partly influenced by the fact that I had never heard the phrase before this evening, and had to look it up to find out what it meant. I guess that if the phrase is widely used and understood in football, then maybe it is enough that he is described as playing in these different positions. I have no idea what ArabAmazigh12 is trying to say, by the way. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been watching footie for almost 55 years and I have never heard that expression. Sounds rather subjective to me...--ukexpat (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Making the Article Page easier to find[edit]

My Article is an orphan how do i make it visible like when you search on the internet you know what i mean? its still in develpment but im updating it ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ArabAmazigh12 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. What topics are related to the one you are writing an article about? If these topics have articles on Wikipedia, go to those articles and see if you can find a way to link to your article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
My topic is the Ahwazi Arabs presecution and the history of ahwaz

which contains there Unoffical Autonomy claim as well in there.ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I checked your contributions and found Iranian Ahwaz. I edited Ahvaz since you say it is the captial and largest city in Iranian Ahwaz, and that is a start. Ideally, you should have a source stating these facts and add that to both articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thanks for link ah about the inhabtitants of ahwaz are predominately Iranian arabs how do i link iranian arabs to Iranian ahwaz aka al ahwazArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like you did it. I had to make some spelling corrections.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is my page being mark for deletion? the world needs to know whats happening in Ahwaz and the struggle for this country

ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

on top of that on the Iranian arab everything I editied of the actual data has reverted back to the data that should be updated theres 7.5 million Ahwazi arabs and theyre called Ahwazi arabs no Iranian ?? ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To keep this article from being deleted, you will have to find solid sources for everything you claim. A lot of the article is unreferenced. The sources there are may not be the best possible. Where does it say 7.5 million Ahwazi Arabs? You need to add the source that says that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed something you said. "the world needs to know". That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for promotion, but for summarizing what the world already knows, through reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's true but you should update your pages and facts otherwise Wikipedia is just like they say it is an unreliable source it has to be updated numbers been the same since 2001 not possible pops go up not stay the sameArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And we do update it when we have recent reliable information. Or at least we should.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That I agree with you the valiuble source is according to pak defense there are 7 million ahwazi arabs according to the Arab league there are 5-7 million this is facts al arabiyya which is reliable sources who are census poll takers in the middle east discovered it all im sayin is give it a try cant be all the timeArabAmazigh12 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
OK - so you say "according to pak defense there are 7 million ahwazi arabs" and "according to the Arab league there are 5-7 million" you then say "this is facts".
If these are actually "facts", you must be able to cite where they came from, very easily, if you do not, you should not be surprised that people doubt your word.
The same is true for many other statements - we want you to provide Independant Reliable Sources - Arjayay (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah I think I did they were in references than I recall Alborz he took them down each statement had the source of where I got it fromArabAmazigh12 (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

linking to entry in German Wikipedia[edit]

I am trying to link to an article in German Wikipedia (which is easily found by Googling) but I get the red "doesn't exist" message in my preview. How do I do it?Kerrisdalian (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kerrisdalian. Assuming you mean Draft:Richard Rohac, the answer is that you don't until the article is accepted and moved into main article space. Inter-language linking is now handled via the Wikidata database, which does not link to Draft: space. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Two Articles with Similar Names but content variation[edit]

If two articles have similar names e.g. one is Arabs and other is Arab tribes and the first article has been there for quite a while but the second article is newly created, is there any issue of conflict? I have experienced that rather than taking such articles as separate, certain editors often redirect the relatively recent article towards the old one even in cases where the new article has vast content, undisputed research and referenced sources in comparison to the old one. I considered that editors were most likely to choose a merger but the relatively recent article is either tagged under speedy deletion A10, redirected and the entire content of the article is also blanked out. Hence, only one article remains which was the old one containing disputed inadequate research. In such cases, what is the best solution for editors who create the articles with similar names but different content. Pixarh (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is a tribe called Arab otherwise known as the Urpi,UrabU its an old arabian tribe Arab Tribe is an arabic term for Bedouin peoples because Arab comes in 2 different meanings depending on how you word it one means tribe and the other refers to the people.ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. So in the cases I have mentioned above when the editors redirect the recent article to the old article despite differences what is the best solution?Pixarh (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Pixarh hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I often find on these help pages that newcomers and veteran editors have a difference of opinion on what consitutes a proper article. But assuming you are right, since you didn't give us the names of the two articles let's call them Tribes of Arabia (the old article) and Arab tribes (the newer article which became a redirect). You would discuss the issue on Talk:Arab Tribes, and to attract participants, post messages on the talk pages of editors whose names are shown in the history ("View history" at the top) of Arab Tribes and Tribes of Arabia. Or if you can find the deletion discussion, the editors who participated in that. You could find a link to that in an older version of Arab tribes. Of course, you would substitute the actual article names.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer User:Vchimpanzee. Let me elaborate.

I created an article over a month ago by the name Arain (tribe) (the newer article). It contained the origin of the tribe and how its name was coined, who were its ancestors and founders, their lineage, religion, role, etc. All this was presented using sections divided into popular theories given by known authors and sources. As the article was vast and contained almost everything about the tribe even the various theories by known researchers, it was undisputed. Now, another article with a similar name already existed i.e. Arain (the old article).

The old article is based on present day Arain people and provides less research most of which has already been disputed and archived in its talk page.

Day before yesterday, an editor redirected the newer article to the older one. I reverted this change and explained the reason in Talk:Arain (tribe) that how both the articles are different. However, the same editor first placed a speedy deletion WP:A10 (although the above explanation clarifies that the new article was nowhere near a duplication) and after a while redirected again but this time, the history of the older article was blanked out as well as its talk page.

Now I remain clueless and posed this question here because this situation was new for me.Pixarh (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to create an article about China Energy Fund Committee[edit]

I want to create an article about China Energy Fund Committee, But the Wiki said that involve "China", cannot open it. [User:CEFCHK|CEFCHK]] (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Your attempt to create an article on this committee was undone per WP:CSD#G11, due to the concern that this was advertising or promotion. An administrator has opened a discussion with you at User talk:CEFCHK and you should continue there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

World Youth Organization: Article support please[edit]

I was sent here and hoped I could get some guidance with my first EVER Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:World_Youth_Organization

Can someone help me please?

Best Biotiteegg (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • First, welcome to Wikipedia. I don't see too much problem with tone of itself (but see my third point below), you should avoid phrases like "prides itself" unless they can be sourced to a reliable third party.
  • There are other, bigger, issues though. You need to be able to show that the organisation is "notable" in the sense that the Wikipedia community understands the word. This means that there need to exist "multiple independent reliable sources" that significantly cover the subject. Currently the article is supported by a reference to Companies House (which is not "significant coverage") one to a site that re-uses Companies House data, and two to articles written by the CEO of the organisation, which of course are not independent - even interviews are not deemed independent, nor of course are press releases, the company's own web site, most blogs, Wikipedia and most user-generated content. Without passing this hurdle the article is unlikely to be successful.
  • The next issue is that the article does not distinguish clearly between the company and the charity. This makes it very unclear whether the organisation exists, or will exist in 2016.
  • Finally sentences such as "Educational programmes, facilitated by the organisations worldwide representatives, advance the awareness and prevention of dangerous behaviours, which affect the wider perception of young people." are fine in and of themselves, but need to be backed up by examples - or to be made more concrete. For example (if it were true) "WYO has a program in São Paulo working with street children on the dangers of drug use, and with secondary students on the risks of gang culture."
Hope that helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

how to message another editor[edit]

How do I send a message to Anthony Appleyard?King.parker3 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Click here and type your message, then save the page. You can locate any user's talkpage by searching for "User talk:Username". Yunshui  14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
King.parker3 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Another option, if you need to send a private message, is email, if you have an email address set in your preferences, and if Anthony Appleyard accepts email from other users. You can see if he does on the left side of the screen when you go to his talk page. In almost all cases, the talk page will be sufficient.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

extra features[edit]

I am not able to view lots of these edit count below my contribution page.What can i find in page revision history statistics? Are new users allowed to view "edit count" page? Taking very long time to open, then hangs up.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Eric+Corbett&project=en.wikipedia.org

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=High_Plains_Drifter&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=High_Plains_Drifter&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

This is called wikiblame.

http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?lang=en&article=High_Plains_Drifter

--Silver Samurai 12:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Silver Samurai. The tools are often slow to load, and sometimes out altogether. They seem slower than usual for me at this time also. It almost surely isn't anything specific to you, or to new users or non-admins in general. If you didn't have access rightd, there would almost surely be a message to say so comming up quickly. A timeout is much more likely to indicate the tools being down or overloaded. If this persists, try reporting it at the technical section of the village pump. DES (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The editcounter sometimes takes several tries with users who have large editcounts. This is due to a time limit (or something similar) on each database query. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

Checking for neutrality/notability on draft[edit]

I'm currently working on an article about a local humane society whose programs I'm familiar with, and wanted to make sure I was on track with writing about the organization in a neutral tone before submitting to articles for creation. I believe the references I've used (which come from four different sources, excluding the humane society's website) are evidence of the organization's notability; however, if there are any references which seem amiss I'd be amenable to removing them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kdipierro/sandbox/Berkshire_Humane_Society
Thanks in advance. Kdipierro (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to have only local interest coverage, so i am not certain that it meets the requirements for a stand alone article about a company/group/organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, Kdipierro. Note the subsection of the above page, with the link WP:BRANCH, where it says: "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." This doesnt seem to apply to the group in question. DES (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
you are allowed to include brief coverage in the article on the city it's in. Rjensen (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe this is a branch of anything, so that will not be an issue if I am correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What to do with a Nation Register of Historic Places article that is more of a business article.[edit]

I recently ran across Central National Bank (Alva, Oklahoma) that appears to be an article just because it is listed on the Nation Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The info is clearly more generic business info. The source is no longer valid, and searching the pdfhost.focus.nps.gov server yields no similar results. All of the information provided is about the business and not the site. In fact, the bank moved across the street many years ago, and is about to move again, making the info even less relevant. If you remove the basic business history, there is no article. My gut says to reduce the info to "previous home of Central National Bank", but that wouldn't even be stub-worthy. What is the best course of action to correct this issue? Zeugzeug (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Zeugzeug, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have corrected the source to point to the proper NHRP page. However, it is still only one source, now out of date. You could research to see if there is additional info and sources suitable to add to the article. If you don't find any, you could nominate it for deletion. Under the procedure specified at WP:BEFORE, you should do the research first, not just nominate and lev it to others to check for additional info. DES (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the guidance. Following my posting here, several editors chipped in to help clean up the page, including a substantial reduction in the bank general business info by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. I was able to review the changes and confirm, my initial gut reaction was correct, to drastically reduce the 'business fluff'. Hopefully at some point, additional research (locally) will turn up information about the actual site, thereby justifying this article. Thanks again for your help.Zeugzeug (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zeugzeug: The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is pretty active an should be able to help you more. I found something that looked like the application but nothing that really verified acceptance. From the application, it looked like the bank business may not have been the primary tenant of the building since the mid 1980s. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

New task force[edit]

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema/Tamil cinema task force, but I don't know how to expand it and add articles to it. Is there anyone here who knows how to do both? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Kailash29792, I don't know how to help directly but I would suggest also asking over on WikiProject Film or more speciically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, I would suggest you also have a word with User:Dr Blofeld about the subject he seems to have an interest and knowledge of cinema worldwide, and if he can't help will probably know someone who can. I'll have a look at the task-force issue itself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
    OK here is a suggested way forward:
    • On Wikipedia talk :WikiProject Film propose the task force: once you get agreement...
    • On Template talk :WikiProject Film make a request for the task force to be added to the banner. If you need help with the technical detail you can ask here, or as at my talk page. You will need to identify a suitable icon for the task force.
    • Ask someone to produce a list of Tamil film articles, or use categories. There will be someone at WP:Botrequests who will be happy to add the articles to the taskforce.
Hope that helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

How To Handle Bringing Two Similar & Possibly Overlapping Articles to Someone's Attention[edit]

Hello, I recently came across two articles that seem like they cover similar topics:

1 - Cognitive effects of HIV

2 - HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder

The first is an orphan, for the most part - only people's talk pages and the "see also" section of the second article link to it.

Both articles are a bit esoteric and I don't have expertise to make a judgment about the existence of an overlap. I'd like to ask someone who knows more whether it's appropriate for these two articles to be separate instead of merged, but I'm not sure where or how to ask it. Do I ask that on the articles' talk pages? Neither article's talk page is very active. Will someone see the question? Is there a "project" that covers HIV? How do I find that out?

Thank you for guidance. Kekki1978 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Merging for general information on starting a merge discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert McClenon! Appreciated. Kekki1978 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Notable Pageants[edit]

Is anyone able to point me to the criteria for establishing notability of pageants? Cheers Flat Out (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Flat Out. As with any topic, the core of notability is the existence of reliable, secondary and independent sources publishing substantive material about the topic. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). With a topic like a pageant, which has the constituent element of contestants, be careful that the necessary sources you look for are about the pageant itself. You might also find a read of some of these enlightening. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Fuhghettaboutit, appreciate your help. Flat Out (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Joseph W. Papin[edit]

Matthew Vanitas has been helping me make corrections to my article. I believe that I have added the important information that validates its. Since he is on vacation until August will someone else take a look to see if it is good to go? Thanks so much, JanineJaninepapin (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Janinepapin. I'm sorry, but in my view the answer is no. You have 27 citations - but the majority of them are to Papin's own work. You could have a hundred or a thousand of these, and they still wouldn't contribute to establishing notability. The Chicago Tribune is the right sort of thing, as it is a piece of writing by an unconnected third party, which is about Papin: but I don't think it says enough about him to establish notability on its own. I thought the Syracuse catalogue might do it; but it does not appear to contain any writing about him except by himself. As MatthewVanitas has been telling you, you need to find places where people unconnected with Papin wrote pieces about him and got them published. Without those, he does not meet the criteria for notability.
Another way to look at this is by considering the content. You write "Joseph Papin specialized in reportorial art – on-the-scene drawing – the artist as reporter." Without an independent source for this statement, it must count as original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia. Similarly, later, 'Joe Papin started as artist working his way through Ohio State University, made training films for the Army Signal Corps, and represented himself as a freelance artist for thirteen years, “thereby receiving another sort of education and just frequently enough some nice commissions, books to illustrate[15], and challenges to grow on.”' Aside from the fact that this contains an unattributed and unsourced quotation, the whole sentence is in fact unsourced (pointing at an example of a book he illustrated is not providing a sources for the information). So without substantial independent writing about him, there is almost nothing which can legitimately go in the article: which is effectively a restatement of the requirement of notability.--ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Collin, Thanks for the insight. I will certainly change the bio. I did put in direct quotes from Newspaper articles about him in that first paragraph and cited them. They are valid aren't they? ( "Joseph Papin is a reporter who has never touched a word processor. His pen interprets a story with images rather than words."[4] "Joe Papin is a reporter. He works for one of the largest newspapers in United States—the Daily News—and has covered some of the most historic moments in recent American history. His professional title is artist. The tools of his journalistic trade are not the notepad and typewriter, rather an assortment of pens and a sketchpad...Papin has been drawing scenes of life—the grand and the commonplace—for the Daily News, not through the humor of the comics nor the commentary of the editorial page, but from a straightforward, objective viewpoint."[5] Those statements are from Newspaper articles about him. I will only put in quotes from articles and interviews that were about him if that is the case. What about the News-Mafia connection? The news story was picked up the United Press International. But I also cited several newspapers articles that were about the commotion his work caused at the mob trials. Quoting from the paper and citing the writer is the correct way to establish whether or not he is "notable", am I right? There are several T.V. and Radio Interviews that I am currently gathering the information from. I will continue to work on this. Thank you for your patience and help. Janinepapin (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Janinepapin. I noticed that your username is similar to the name of your draft (Draft:Joseph W. Papin). Is this purely coincidental or are you connected to Joesph Papin in some way? If you are connected to Papin, then you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the section titled "Writing about yourself and your work". COI editing is something Wikipedia highly discourages; It's not expressly prohibited, but it is something that is tricky, even for experienced editors, to pull-off successfully. This is because it can be hard to write about something in a neutral manner when you're closely connected to it. If the name similarities are purely coincidental, then you might want to consider changing your username to something else to avoid any misunderstandings or confusion if you intend to continue working on the draft after if it becomes an article because other editors might mistakenly assume that you are connected to Papin in some way due to your similar names. As long as this is only a draft, you'll probably find most editors are willing give you a little leeway regarding possible COI and let you continue to work on the draft. If, however, the draft eventually gets upgraded to article-status, you might find editing the article a bit more difficult and other editors more scrutinizing of any edits you try to make. I'm not trying to scare you off editing, but since you're fairly new to Wikipedia and this draft is pretty much the only article you've been working on, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly for your information. I appreciate your help. Jrptwins (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem Jrptwins. I see that your username has been changed. That's fine, but please be aware that simply changing your username does not automatically mean that you no longer have a conflict of interest. As I said above, if the the similarity between your old username and Joseph W. Papin was purely coincidental, everything should be fine. However, if you are connected to Papin in anyway, e.g., a relative, a representative of his estate, a close friend, etc., then you may have a potential conflict of interest. If the latter is the case, then take a look at Wikipedia: Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to find out what kind of edits are generally considered acceptable for COI editors. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How do I find out if my edits were acceoted by Wikipedia?[edit]

My user name is BOBIEUMACS. I submitted an article about the history of the National Federation of Catholic College Students. It was rejected because of improper sources. I edited it to replace the incorrect sources with ones that I thought met the Wikipedia guidelines. How do find out if the revised article is acceptable? bobieumacs (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

At Draft:National Federation of Catholic College Students, the template message says "This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review." It also says elsewhere "This may take more than 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1,400 submissions waiting for review." The issue is not so much whether it has been accepted yet, but whether it has been re-reviewed yet, which it hasn't.
Before it is reviewed, I would recommend that you re-write the article by only summarizing and paraphrasing sources that discuss it, with explicit citations as to what pages support each instance of article material. Your current draft will take longer to evaluate because whoever evaluates it is basically being told "you're going to have to read the entirety of these three books to figure out what where I got my information." Even if the article was evaluated by someone who just happened to love those three books and regularly re-read them, there's still the potential problem of original research or at least the appearance thereof.
Also, if possible, see if previews of those books are available at Google books. Providing Google books previews with your citations allows for quicker evaluation. I see that Google books has links for Altbach, McAndrews, Anderson. Also, double check your citations: the Anderson citation has shifted the first word of the book's title to the author's name and changed it to "Blank" instead of "Black."
You might want to take a look at this article, this article, or others for examples. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I make an article about me?If so,how would you like me to do it?[edit]

Can I make an article about me?If so,how shall I do it?Brianmbyju007 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Brianmbyju007. You are strongly discouraged from writing an article about yourself, as you are likely to find it difficult to write in a suitably neutral tone. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (i.e., there is a substantial amount of published writing about you by other people) then somebody will eventually write an article about you. Please see WP:Autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Brianmbyju007
Please read guidelines here.
Best regards
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 17:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How do i make a Wikipedia article about a Jetski racer[edit]

Hello, i was trying to look for an for Alex Morgan the Jetski racer I really admired him and when I was checking Wikipedia, he wasn't there So I tried creating a Wikipedia article for him but the guidelines were a bit confusing also when I tried to write the article that too was confusing i would be very grateful if you guys could help me out and explain the guidelines easier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel rick (talkcontribs) 16:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lionel rick, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest the use of the Article wizard. It will help guide you though the process. Please read Your First Article and this summary guide. In particular, remember that you must show that the subject is notable. On Wikipedia, this doen't mean important. This means that other people have written about the subject in some detail, and been published in reliable sources. These must be independent of the subject. So no blogs, no press releases, nothing from the subject's own web site, nothing from social media, no fan sites, no Utube videos except in special cases, no personal knowledge. Discussion in newspapers, magazines, books, or their online equivalents. Sources do not need to be online, nor in English (although it is nice when they are). Enough detail must be given for soemone to find and chewck the source. Ideally the author and date should be given, when available. Page numbers shoudl be listed, when relevant. And content should follow what is said in the sources, not going beyond them, but NOT just cutting and pasting test from a source or site. I hope that helps a bit. DES (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

reviews please[edit]

if there are any experts that have a moment to chime in on a contested page please do so; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vector_Marketing#Proposals_Suggestion

i don't think I Have handled myself appropriately but was getting frustrated. The last part where i just add my proposals... do you think that is a good way to handle a dispute? Then if I am wrong I will carry on. Unless of course I am banned :( Jadeslair (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Skeptic links and Notability[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that on some of the articles at Wikipedia like the page about Near-death experiences, there are links to articles from websites like Skeptic Magazine and Internet Infidels. Question, are links to websites like these and similar skeptical or Atheist websites reliable and notable, in the context of the mainstream scientific and academic community (in particular their assertion that the scientific method can not study supernatural phenomena such as if a God exists or not http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion, http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12, http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters) and are useful to include on Wikipedia pages? Frogger48 (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Have the sites been covered in a significant manner by third parties? If so they are notable.
Has the site a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and analysis of fringe claims? If so then it is probably a reliable source regarding fringe claims. See also WP:PARITY. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect this should probably be moved to WP:RSN at some point.
Science cannot deal with supernatural claims in isolation, but it can test supernatural claims about the natural world. For example, if someone says carrying a gold medallion with a particular image on it, sticking needles in just the right spot, or drinking water that's had arsenic completely filtered out of it will all cure the common cold, that's perfectly testable. Whether there is a non-physical soul, if it survives after the body's death, and what ensures that this survival is a positive experience is not testable, but claims that the spirits of the deceased can regularly and meaningfully communicate with the living can be tested. Thus, skeptical sites can be completely appropriate for articles relating to the supernatural (for example, a while ago I listed a Skeptoid article at Dybbuk box).
Internet Infidels takes a noted atheist stance, and so may be as appropriate to include as a comparable religious site in terms of NPOV. I would not make a blanket ruling in either direction, just a recommendation to consider whether they are being listed for religiously-neutral skeptical purposes (almost always fine) or specifically atheist purposes (which can be fine for topics on atheism, but would be inappropriate for religious topics that do not make scientifically testable claims). Listing Internet Infidels would be inappropriate in Naraka as an Evangelical publication, in Trinity as a Muslim publication, and in Tawhid as a Neo-pagan publication.
Skeptic magazine appears to usually be more neutral, and is probably fine to include when it is specifically about that topic or not an opinion piece (so that one unusual issue that was pretty much an advertisement for Dawkin's God Delusion would be fine to link in our article on that book and its author, but probably not God). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Signature Code[edit]

My signature Silver Samurai is too small. Even I can't read it properly. Editors will have problem reading it. I want the design to remain same, only the size must be increased. I don't know how to do it. I tried but was unsuccessful. I saw an old user's signature and modified a little. Someone give me the code.Silver Samurai 03:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Silver Samurai. A small piece of advice. When you make your signature, try to use a more common font. The signature will only be displayed as you have intended it if the same font is installed on the computer that is used for viewing it. Otherwise it will just be displayed in a default font (as it is on my computer). If you want your signature to look the same for anyone on any computer, use a common font like Calibri, Arial, Times New Roman, etc. and make something nice from that instead, using bold or italic and so on. For fixing your signature, look at Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial. I also think you have to create your user page in order to make colors and things work. Right now it is just "newbie red". Best, w.carter-Talk 08:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
My font is AR DECODE. I didn't know this fact.--Silver Samurai 08:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Silver Samurai: Yes, I saw that. But in order to see your signature properly, I and a lot of others, would have to download that font. I doubt very many would do that just to see your signature the way you intended it. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I can read their username just fine and haven't downloaded anything. What does this mean? BluJay (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@BluJay: Anyone can read the signature, characters are always displayed, but they may not be in the kind of characters, the font, that the user intended for the signature. Or maybe your computer was delivered with the font AR DECODE installed. w.carter-Talk 12:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@W.carter: Would the fact that I am using a kindle instead of a computer have to do with anything? BluJay (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@BluJay: Could be, I'm no Kindle expert, but they may have more fonts installed than an ordinary computer, or maybe their software is configured to collect and display all kinds of fonts from a common repository. I have no clue how the signature looks in the AR DECODE font, on my computer it is shown in Times New Roman. But as long as I can read any letters, it's ok with me. w.carter-Talk 13:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@BluJay: I don't know font support on Kindles but see the "Details" tab at http://fontzone.net/font-details/ar-decode for how AR DECODE is supposed to look, or enter "Silver Samurai" in the "Preview" tab. I see more normal looking letters in the signature in my Firefox which doesn't support AR DECODE. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Prime Hunter: & W.carter I unfortunately cannot access that link (or any link for that matter) because I am using a kindle. The issue is not terribly important, therefore unless another text font issue arrives I will not pursue this further. Thank you for your help! BluJay (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundant navbox[edit]

Perhaps long time ago, {{Dosage forms}} and {{Routes of administration}} are two distinct but related navboxes, such that many medical articles have both of them. However the latter is now a redirect to the former one, which caused about 90 acticles contain a duplicate navbox. I can't manually remove the code by myself. Can anyone help?--Quest for Truth (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Quest for Truth, I'm pitching in. I've done about 20 and can do more. Thanks for finding this. A question - I'm new to the concept of categories, but I noticed that some (but not all) these articles are placed in both a "Dosage forms" and "Routes of Administration" category. Separate issue, right? Or is it an issue at all? Will it need to be addressed or can the categories be left as is? Thanks. Kekki1978 (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kekki1978 for helping. Categorization is another issue. Since I'm an outsider of the medical profession, I can't rule out the possibility of an article fitting the two categories. So it's better to handle the categories on a case-by-case basis. It might be better to ask more wikipedians to look at this issue. --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Quest for Truth. The {{Routes of administration}} template has been removed from the 90 or so articles that your query listed. A bit of history behind the two templates was discussed on the talk page of yet a third template ({{Routes of administration by organ system}}, which also now redirects to {{Dosage forms}}), so I'm making a note there about the the redirects, duplications, and removal of the duplicates. Thanks for finding these duplications. Kekki1978 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How long does it take for articles to get approved?[edit]

I've submitted a Wiki article on May 27th and am wondering if anyone can tell me how long it takes to get stuff approved. I'm a first time Wiki editor, and I've created a page for one of my hero's, Paul Stanford who's a political activist.

Here's the Wiki page I created that's waiting for approval;

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

Any information I can get would be helpful. I put alot of work into the article and hope that it gets approved.

Thanks,

Christopher Love Sacredcocreation (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. AfC draft reviews are hugely backlogged at the moment, but a month is definitely on the long end. I took a look at the draft, and you seem to have the sourcing and notability requirements covered. I will try to review it in the next 24 hours (unless someone beats me to it). Just for reference, it is a little bit under-linked and has too much bold text at the moment. This won't fail an article, but it does make more work for the reviewer to fix. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Happy Squirrel! When you say "under linked" are you referring to 'too few' links? Are those outbound links to sources, or something else? And the bold text I thought was good for whenever something is introduced for the first time in an article. I want to make this as easy for the editors as possible, so if there's anything I can do now to make this article better I'd appreciate some more clarification.

Thanks again! Sacredcocreation (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DESiegel appears to be on it right now. In general, bold is only for the subject, in the lead. The links I am referring to are links to other Wikipedia articles. This is actually what we do to help readers when a term is added for the first time. DES is adding some right now. I suggest you observe what links he includes as he is a very good editor. This will help you for future articles. On other things to change, I think the article may currently be a shade too positive. Writing neutrally is an acquired skill. Basically you want to not present your own opinion, but only what others have written about the subject, be it positive or negative. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm watching him work his magic! I'm now understanding what you meant about underlinked and the bold highlights and it makes total sense now. I appreciate you guys being on it and helping a newbie. It's very encouraging. I'll keep watching the page to see what changes are made and then will keep waiting for the article to get approved.

Thanks again for your quick response and helpful attitude!

Christopher Sacredcocreation (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sacredcocreation, Happysquirrel, Please look at Draft talk:Paul Stanford. There seem to be significant copyright issues with the curent draft, that must be corrected before it could possibly be approved. DES (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sacredcocreation. Following the above notes I investigated the page and deleted it as blatantly infringing on copyright from various places – from its first revision and persisting thereafter, with more added later. Sources are used to verify information written in one's own words. You cannot copy and paste copyrighted content in this way. To be clear, you can at times copy and paste short quotations of copyrighted content, clearly marked as such through quote marks or other methods, under fair use doctrine (we also require an inline citation accompany each quote). Representing the writing as your own by not marking quotations is also plagiarism. Many people do this without realizing they were doing anything incorrect but please be aware of these issues going forward. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Find A Grave website[edit]

Is Find A Grave considered a reliable source for articles on Wikipedia? I have not used it in writing articles, but I have seen it used frequently in articles that I have edited. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Eddie Blick: Find A Grave is not considered a reliable source, the main reason being it's user-submitted content, which generally isn't consider reliable. There's some other issues about it, which are mentioned here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, Find a Grave is not the best source, but I believe that is can be used sparingly within limits. It is insufficient for establishing notability, and I would disregard the accompanying text that describes a person's career and accomplishments. But a photo of a headstone which is indisputably the person in question is a legitimate primary source which can be used with care and caution. I used this site in one of my Good articles, as just one of many sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Your comments confirm what I had thought. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Cleanup[edit]

I have a lot of old comments/discussions on my talk page, and frankly, it's getting a little cluttered. I quickly found out that deleting the messages by holding down the backspace button was very tedious work. Is there some other way I can go about doing this? BluJay (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi BluJay! I do not know the exact answer to your question. However, most editors use an archiving bot to keep their talk pages clean and up to date. This way you get rid of old posts and still have easy access to them if there is something you need to go back to and check. This is the recommended way of keeping your talk page tidy. Read about archiving at Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 17:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BluJay. This isn't just a technique to use on Wikipedia, but if you want to delete the messages on your talk page quickly, pressing Ctrl+A will highlight the entire contents of the page, so you can delete the lot with one backspace. However, this is not necessarily advisable: while messages can still be retrieved via the talk page, it is recommended that conversations are archived rather than simply deleted. (Automated messages from bots are a possible exception.) Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating table[edit]

Hi all... There is a page about Nepali Comedy duos in Wikipedia and it is not improved well. So I want to add table there. What to write in place of xxx here {{infobox xxx ? It is the page of two Nepali comedian who work as a group... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxboy (talkcontribs) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Noxboy. I guess you are talking about MaHa. {{Infobox comedian}} would appear to be the right choice, but you'll need to include it twice, once for each of the duo. Follow that link to find out what the parameters are that you need. I must say, though, that making an article pretty with an infobox is far less important and urgent than making the article reliable by adding citations to independent reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)