From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Most recent archives
827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846

When to mention race?[edit]


I'm wondering if there is a policy or general understanding about went to state the race of a person on Wikipedia? I noticed that Frances Harper is defined as an African American suffragette, however Susan B. Anthony's race is not mentioned. I'm inclined to edit Susan B. Anthony's to state her race, white, as well.

Thanks for your thoughts on this,

Laila Ibrahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laila Ibrahim (talkcontribs) 01:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Laila Ibrahim, and welcome. Generally speaking, when it comes to what to put in articles, we follow the lead of the reliable sources that have written about the subject. If the sources generally tend to state a specific individual's race, especially also if they explain why it's significant, we should include that in the article. If that's not generally done, we'll likely follow their lead and not make a bigger deal of it than they do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Laila Ibrahim please see the WP:EGRS page that has fairly detailed guidance on such "identity" issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It strikes me that if a suffragette of African descent is described as African-American, a suffragette of European descent such as Susan B. Anthony may be fairly described as European-American. Baba Blacq Sheep (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Baa Blacq Sheep: you are a new account and perhaps aren't quite clear that this is an encyclopedia. The reasons why race is mentioned sometimes but not other times are explained above. In this case, the vast majority of suffragettes were white, so that wasn't unusual and rarely if ever mentioned in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with user:doug weller and that you shouldn't look at it that wikipedia is pointing out when someone is non-white, what wikipedia does is note the things that stand-out about a person, what makes them notable. It seems that in this day and age, we take steps to point out when a non-white person is doing something notable, to say, "look, everyone is capable of great things." Perhaps in its own way that is racist, too, I don't know. Maybe sometime in the future people will think, "why did they care what color a person's skin was?" (and I hope we get to that day sooner than later). So yes, if sources think it is notable that a person was non-white, then we reflect that here as editors. StarHOG (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add photographs of physical newspaper articles to references?[edit]

Tea is like TeaHouse. Lnaceri000 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there

How do I add citations which are photographs of newspaper & magazine articles (as they do not exist online)? I have read a number of help articles but cannot find anything on this topic. Thank you. (Tommyvanj (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyvanj (talkcontribs) 20:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is that you don’t. You can cite the paper by giving the appropriate information, per WP:CITE, you can use the {{Cite news}} template and just fill in the fields. Uploading such photographs is probably not acceptable fair use. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What about adding it into a different section like footnotes, or uploading the photograph to a server online and linking to the URL in the citation?Tommyvanj (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tommyvanj: Sorry, that sounds tempting, but it's still not OK in most circumstances. Unless the image - or the newspaper itself - is out of copyright, and thus freely available, it's not an acceptable work-around to link to third party websites in the way you suggest. Your uploading of that image of a newspaper would, itself, be a breach of copyright, and so links to copyright material (text or image) would likely be removed from Wikipedia, or flagged up with a {{copyvioel}} template to draw editors' attention to possible infringement by linking. See WP:COPYLINKS for guidance on this, plus Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard where discussion on copyright violations in External Links are discussed. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Bear in mind, Tommyvanj, that there is no requirement that sources be available online. Obviously it's convenient if they are, but they don't have to be. What's important is that they have been (reliably) published, so that they are in principle obtainable, eg through a major library; and that enough bibliographic information is given to locate them. If they're already online, fine (as long as they are not breaching copyright) but it's not usually appropriate to put them on the internet somewhere just so that they can be linked from a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys! - Tommyvanj (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone deleted my content. What should i do now?[edit]

Hello, I added content to a page on a living person, someone deleted it saying it was "garbage" and there was a "BLP violation". It sounded like someone defending a page, (maybe the owner's company? who knows?) There was no violation, I checked all the rules to make sure. What is the proper procedure to stop someone from removing content I published if they simply don't like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdawgrealty (talkcontribs) 08:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jdawgrealty. It would have been easier if you had told us which page you were talking about. יניב הורון did not say your edit to Tovia Singer was garbage, but that it was supported by a "garbage source" - a tendentious way of describing it, to be sure, but as a matter of policy, blogs are almost never regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles; and the criteria for material in biographies of living persons are more stringent than elsewhere.
In any case, according to WP:BOLD, it is normal for people to revert edits that they think are unconstructive, and your next step is to open a discussion with them on the article's talk page. If you can't reach consensus, then dispute resolution tells you what to do after that. --ColinFine (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jdawgrealty: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Though I might have put it differently, the users who have reverted your edit are correct. The source you offered seems to be a blog; blogs are not usually considered reliable sources as they lack editorial control or other fact checking. In addition, since it deals with a very serious allegation against a person, the sources must be as good as possible, and if there is any question about it, the information cannot be posted. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living(or recently deceased) people are written about, please review this policy at WP:BLP.
If you wish to present your case defending your edits, you should use the article talk page(the best place), or contact the users who reverted you directly on their user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdawgrealty (talkcontribs) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What is an appropriate number of authors to list before using "et al"?[edit]

I have edited many articles, lately to address CS1 maintenance issues. I have noticed that the use of "et al" is very inconsistent, even within the same article. I assume all the authors should be included for COINs entries but some editors display all the authors, others only one. Four is the number for the templates used with short footnotes. Any suggestions for the number of authors to list? Should the number be consistent within an article? -- User-duck (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I do not know if there is an MOS entry or other policy. In my unrequested opinion, you should put as many details as possible unless the references links to a robust online database containing the full bibliographic details. I would accept inconsistency between refs with a link to full bibliographic info and refs without that, but only for that reason (i.e. give at most X authors for the former, and as many as you can for the latter, with X consistent within an article).
According to et al styles seem to differ. Weirdly enough, my subfield of physics seems to follow the MLA convention (at most three authors, i.e., "A" for 1, "A and B" for 2, "A, B and C" for 3, and "A et. al." for 4 or more). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
But your opinion was "requested." I edit a lot of scientific articles. The DOI links usually have a complete list of authors. I assume DOI is a "robust online database" and the A, B, C behavior is displayed by the short footnote templates. I just realized that the "A et. al." display would lead to confusing references if the same author was first for multiple journal cites in the same year, and I have seen this case. (Personally, I do not like the 2018A convention.) -- User-duck (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@User-duck: Yeah, DOI counts as "contains full bibliographic information" by me.
The "unrequested" tidbit was here to make clear that it is just my thoughts and not something I read in the MOS or observed multiple editors to follow, since the latter is what I expected you to be after by asking here. From the lack of other replies, either there is no real guideline or it is really well hidden. If you want opinions to create one or just to test the waters, I would suggest asking at a more relevant place than the general Teahouse; I would say the most promising venue is Wikipedia talk:Citing sources though you could leave a note at Template talk:Citation as well. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Link in my signature[edit]

Hey when I am signing comments with four tildes it gives no link.It was all ok yesterday.How can I have link in my signature?Md.Ali25 17:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Md.Ali25 In Special:Preferences, there are two fields that affect how the signature is shown. The other one is a checkbox you can check if you use wikicode in the signature. If you aren't using that, leave that box unchecked. Since your signature text is just your username, uncheck it, and it should link automatically. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the typos. I've fixed the link so it should work now. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Still link is not coming in my signature,I don't know what to do so please help?Md.Ali25 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md.Ali25 (talkcontribs)

@Md.Ali25: Click Special:Preferences. Remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup". Click "Save" at the bottom. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter now link is coming.Md.Ali25 (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing drafts for creation[edit]

Hello. I've been around a few months and am trying to get familiar with Wikipedia by editing articles for creation. I understand this is an OK thing to do. I am currently work on the draft for Damian Gorman. It was basically a pasted CV when I found it. I've been editing it for flow, spacing, and content to see if there is a decent article in there. Lots of the information is trivial, not directly relevant, repetitive, or unsourced. Is it typical to reject drafts of this quality? Should I give up or keep at it? How much editing should I do for articles for creation? Please let me know if I shouldn't spend more time with it or if its the job of the person who created the article to do such massive overhaul. Thanks!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The creator abandoned it in July, and may have lost interest in submitting it to AfC. David notMD (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi DiamondRemley39 It sounds as if you're asking whether it's OK to edit something in the draft namespace. If that's the case, then the answer is technically yes since basically any Wikipedia page can be edited at any time by any editor (except if it's been protected for some reason). Whether you should edit the draft is a trickier question to answer and can depend upon a number of things. The goal of anything added to the draft namespace is (or at least should be) for it to someday be accepted as an article. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project after all and most articles are improved over time by people working together, and this same way of thinking should also extend to drafts. People, however, can be very protective of their drafts and they might not respond favorably to others editing "their work", even if the edits actually are improvements. Of course, they don't WP:OWN the draft any more than they would own the article that it someday hopes to become, but they might have a certain vision for the draft and how it should be developed. So, instead of just jumping right in (unless it's to fix a serious policy or guideline violation, or an obvious formatting error) and taking over the draft, it might be a good idea to first offer to help on the user talk page of the creator. If they unequivically say "No thanks", then it's probably best to leave the draft be since any edits you make might be reverted and other problems between you and the other editor might develop. On the other hand, if they say "Sure", then at least you can discuss how the draft should be developed so as to not step all over each other by undoing each others work all the time. Now, if you come across a draft that hasn't been edited in awhile and the creator also hasn't edited in awhile, then post a message anyway as a courtesy. If you don't get a response, then it's probably OK to go ahead and just start editing. Drafts which go unedited for six months are subject to speedy deletion per WP:G13; so, maybe looking for something close to being deleted and seemingly abandoned is a better idea than on something just created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello David notMD. Could you explain to me what exactly an abandoned draft is? And thank you to Marchjuly for explaining all that.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Officially, is a draft has not been edited (by the creator or other editors) for six months, it can be deleted. In this instance, not only did the creator stop editing this draft in July, but also made no other edits on any article since then. So, you were a wee bit jumping in, but the originator is no longer around. Once an article is an article, it's there for everyone to edit. With drafts, even though they can be seen, the thinking is to let the originator continue to build it before submitting to Articles for Creation (AfC) or just posting it into main space. i.e., as an article. Which is what MarchJuly wrote. David notMD (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My Wikipedia is not showing[edit]

My Wikipedia does not appear whenever I search my Wikipedia from another phone. My own name comes from different Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakti93 (talkcontribs) 02:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. Are you saying that when you access Wikipedia on another phone it isn't logged in to your account. If so, I believe that this won't be a Wikipedia problem but a function of whether the browser on your phone is storing cookies to remember that you are logged in. When you logged in, did you check the box that says "Keep me logged in (for up to 365 days)"? --David Biddulph (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Shakti93 - you are very welcome here. Like David Biddulph, I was also a little confused by your question. Having seen this early edit of yours to the disambiguation page on Shakti Singh, I worry that you might be expecting to use Wikipedia to tell people about yourself. If that is the case, please don't try. We advise very strongly against people writing articles about themselves, and they must declare any Conflict of Interest they might have in that respect, so if you follow that hyperlink, you'll be able to read what exactly that means). The content you have added to your own userpage at User:Shakti93 is just about acceptable, but please don't try and to expand it to promote yourself. Its purpose is solely to tell people a little about yourself in the context of your editing interests here on Wikipedia. It is not permitted to become like a main encyclopaedia article, and for that reason userpages that do look promotional are very likely to be deleted. I should also expand on the purpose of disambiguatoiun pages like the one you edited at Shakti Singh. These are used to separate similarly sounding page titles already on Notable topics so that users can find the right one quickly. We don't expect to see any entries where there isn't already an article here, though occasionally one does see a red-link where an editor feels a page has a legitimate need to be created because it is likely to meet our general notability critieria - which is how we decide whether articles merit a place here. I hope this assists you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)    

Global Infrastructure hub[edit]

Many time rejected now. Im hoping that someone here can have a look at Draft:Global_Infrastructure_Hub and tell me if this submission has a chance. I think all the issues mentioned on thepage have been addressed. Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcodounis (talkcontribs) 05:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, now longer, but not better at establishing notability then when it was last rejected in August. Weakness is still dearth of independent references about GIH versus announcements. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I am not going to exactly answer your question. You have had feedback from the reviewers last time around, said feedback amounting essentially to "show us notability-proving references". So your submission has a chance if and only if such refs are here.
If you are confident that what you added since the last review is enough, you can resubmit. If you are not sure you understand what "notability" means in the Wikipedia context, ask us that question. If you want our opinion about whether (a) particular source(s) help(s) the case for notability or not, point us to that source(s). If you want us to search for better sources, well, maybe someone will be charitable and do it, but that I would not hold my breath. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Listing Funders, Supporters and Board members adds nothing to notability. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Marcodounis: You appear to be an undisclosed paid editor, so I have left the standard advisory message on your talk page. Please do not make any more edits until you have read, understood and complied with that message. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Question - Publication (article)[edit]


I created an article that has been declined ː

How can I fix this please ?

Many thanks,

Sincerely yours, Badr — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadrBoussabat (talkcontribs) 07:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BadrBoussabat. You've appear to have created Draft:Bruno Colmant by translating from this French wiki article]. Can you spot the difference? Your draft is more likely to be accepted if you clean it up and structure it properly. You should use a proper infobox into which you can place a photo. (I've no idea where you got the wikimarkup that you've used, but there are many neater ways to lay out content. You should credit the French page from which you translated it, so please see this short instruction for how to do that. You should go through, line by line, adding wikilinks to other notable topics, removing redundant bracketed numbers left over from translation, and you should remove a lot of trivial content, and any sentences in French, except book titles and other proper nouns. The bibliography section is far too long - so why not retitle it 'Selected bibliography' and just include a handful of main works? I note that both the French and the reviewer here on English wikipedia both commented on a lack of reliable sources. This should be your focus for both articles. Does this help? Please remember that we need every editor to sign every talk page post, using four simple keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) so that we know who said what, and when. Bon chance, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@BadrBoussabat:Mostly I agree with Nick Moyes but the bibliography should remain as full as possible. The Manual of Style says that "complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged." --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't deny that it does indeed say that, but I'm not sure all editors would agree with that approach for an otherwise short article. As always, it's about finding the right balance, and not dredging up every little thing anyone has ever published. Sometimes less is more. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Submission declined[edit]

I have been trying to develop a wikipedia page for a United Nations agency, One of the editors declined the submission because it failed the notability criteria. I don't quite understand this: (1) it is a UN agency; (2) the references are based on references from the Parent Agency; (3) the Notability page clearly acknowledges that initial pages are works in progress (Wikipedia pages are never final); (4) the page is modelled on the style and approach of of other Child agencies of the Parent, and the Parent agency's page itself. If this p[age fails, it seems that the Parent agency page, and some of the Child agency pages must fail too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreidpath~commonswiki (talkcontribs) 09:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Being a UN agency, or a subagency of a notable entity, does not guarantee notability. References from the parent agency are useless in establishing notability, because they are not independent (i.e. they have a vested interest in covering the subject), see WP:42.
Finally, if some other pages fail to show the notability of their subject, please point them to us so that we can delete them (rather than expecting this would give a pass to a new non-notable subject). TigraanClick here to contact me 11:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page for the Parent UN organization (the United Nations University) relies almost entirely on references derived from United Nations organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreidpath~commonswiki (talkcontribs) 15:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. That is a problem. I did not find much sources, so I am going to ask at the UNU talk page if someone else can find better; failing that, I will nominate the article for deletion. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk page Archiving[edit]

How to archive a talk page every month so that at the end of the year I can have twelve archive links on my talk page. Please input the code to my talk page. Spurb (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, Spurb. Welcome back to the Teahouse. Why would you want to do that when your talk page history shows many months go by when no-one leaves any messages for you? You would end up with inumerable archives with virtually nothing in them, which doesn't seem to me to be the best way to approach archiving (not that I'm much good at it, mind you!) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nick Moyes, If there is no need for such technique, am okay with it. However, I can't second guess the reasons for such occurance. It is unusual. to be named,blamed and ashamed so that others with similar need can know that process and make good use of these features . Spurb (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Spurb - erm, there's no 'naming and shaming' intended whatsoever. I'm unsure how you could conclude that. I was simply pointing out that you probably don't need to do archiving that way, right now. That said, I'd be interested to see those settings. I think I tried it once for another user and got in a right mess. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Spurb: If you're still interested, I invite you to look at the archiving template on my talk page, which is set up for monthly archives. One drawback this scheme has over the more common sequentially numbered archive scheme is that, once per year, in the first couple of months of the new year, you need to update for a new year (well, I suppose you could put up blanks for several years in advance, but that sounds like a recipe for forgetting to update when needed). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

English-based question[edit]

I see a proliferation of words formed by adding "-based" to the end of a more usual word. E.g. a Germany-based football club, a water-based sport, a land-based mammal are seen where a German football club, a water sport and a land mammal are neater, more logical and sound less clunky. It would be very sad (sadness-based emotion) if a phenomenon as potent and benign as Wikipedia strives to be should be distracted by temporarily fashionable modes of speech. I have always believed a great strength of an encyclopedia is the use of language which is plain to the point of austerity so that nothing superfluous, subjective or trendy merits inclusion. Am I behind the times? Is almond-based cake better than almond cake? Guidance could be given to contributors just as it is better to spray your roses than let the greenfly flourish unchecked. Best wishes, avid reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Hello, IP reader. I think you are correct; though I cannot point out the exact page right now, I am fairly sure it says somewhere in our in-house "manual of style" that simple sentences are usually better than complex ones.
The great thing about Wikipedia though is that you can help us. If you see any stylistic mishaps of that (or another) kind, you can edit the page yourself to correct them. You do not need previous approval to do so. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by many people for whom English is not a mothertongue or who do not have the ability to write brilliant prose, so ugly turns or even outright mistakes in English are to be expected if none else corrects them. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How can I change the name of my Wikipedia page?[edit]

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and noticed that the information on Wikipedia regarding the hotel Amman Rotana is incorrect. As the e-Commerce executive at the hotel it is my job to make sure everything online is on point. I've had no issues updating the information on the page but I'm not able to change the name of the page which is Rotana Amman (incorrect) to Amman Rotana (correct). Can someone please explain to me how can I do this, taking into consideration that I have zero experience with editing on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammanrotana (talkcontribs) 13:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

First, please read WP:COI. Once you have done that, you can post a request to the article's talk page. Note that you will need to provide reliable sources supporting your proposed change, and should not implement the change yourself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ammanrotana. I've added some information about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and username guidelines to your user talk page for your reference. Please familiarize yourself with these because knowing what you can and cannot do when it comes to Wikipedia may help you avoid problems. You should pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you follow the instruction given on that page. You also might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content since none of the content in the article about your employer is owned by your employer; basically, neither you nor the hotel have any final editorial control over the article and any edits made to it will need to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the name of the hotel is incorrect, then you can follow the guidance given in Wikipedia:Edit requests and propose that the article's name be changed accordingly; you will, however, as pointed out above by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants need to provide links to reliable sources in support for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, your User name should not be that of the hotel (User names are individuals, not businesses or groups of people). Someone here can guide you on how to make that change. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure: Wikipedia:Changing username. The recommended (by me) method in this case is to just create a new account with a better name. Something like "Alex at Amman Rotana" or "the e-Commerce executive at Amman Rotana" is acceptable to WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That's fine as long as the old name is no longer used. Keeping two active accounts - especially if using both to edit the same articles - is a big no-no. David notMD (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes-yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Help please post this article on Wikipedia (Draft:Dmitry Green). Thank you very much.Namerst (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Namerst: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was declined. If you want to see it posted, you need to address the concerns of the reviewer, and resubmit it for another review. Please do not resubmit it until you have addressed the concerns. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait for a new article?[edit]

I create an article a month ago (Draft : Gwangju Castle). But I received no answer so far. When I had created an article before(January, 2018), I got a reply in less than a week. I want to know Why this situation occured. Please tell me about the way article is checked. I know that you try to check a lot of oppinions from many people. But I want to know this big gap in time. I hope you resolve these problems.

Articles are checked whenever someone gets to them. There's no set time that you have to wait. Also, your articles don't need to get checked if you're auto-verified. REDsEngineer (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hansung023: Also, the reason no-one has got to it yet is that you haven't submitted it yet :) I regret to say, though, that in its current condition, interesting subject though it is, it will not be accepted: it is almost completely unsourced with no inline citations. Also, the prose needs work to put it into an encyclopaedic's very "chatty", perhaps. Also, if you could please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after each talk page post. ——SerialNumber54129 14:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@SerialNumber 54129: Oh.. very appreciate your help. I was confused between draft and submission. I think I have to receive answer to regiser my article. Now I know that Previous article is just deleted. Ha! I hope everything that you do will come out all right.--Hansung023 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hansung023: I might be able to give you a hand with it, but only if you can find some relisble sources, which is its main problem at the moment (the tone can easily be changed). Since it's a Korean castle, may I suggest you put it into google books in Korean and see what comes up? Being a Korean castle, I'd expect most of the sources to probably be in the language. I see a few in English—but plenty that are not! ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Why were my questions removed?[edit]

Seriously, why? REDsEngineer (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sup, REDsEngineer; what questions you mean? ——SerialNumber54129 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, REDsEngineer. Which questions were those? I'm being serious too. I can't see anywhere in your recent contribution history that you've posted any questions here - and if they were somewhere else, you'd better tell us where to look. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@REDsEngineer: Looks like the most recent question you posted was on Oct 12, which has been moved to the archives. RudolfRed (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
True dat; and IIRC the bot archives every 3 days after the last answer? ——SerialNumber54129 16:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
As indeed happened. I'm afraid ya don't get long in here ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Well that's annoying. REDsEngineer (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing the name of heading.[edit]

In the last two weeks I have made some major contributions to the “Butterfield Overland Mail” site based on primary source references. As a newbie to Wikipedia I inadvertently started out on the wrong foot by changing the heading to what was actually a more complete name based on the official name of the mail contract and was warned not to do so. I apologized and now understand the proper sequence for my entries. I have written two books on the subject and have also written many articles for the Oregon-California Trails Association publications The Overland Journal and Desert Tracks, the Carriage Journal, the California Parks Association, as well as many others. I have also been a consultant to Kirby Sanders, who had the Congressional authority to compile the history for Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company to support the bill in Congress to designate the Butterfield Trail as a National Historic Trail. I have also had a great deal of contact with National Park Historian Frank Norris concerning this subject and to help to correct the misinformation concerning the Overland Mail Company. I am about to start compiling additional information for the Wikipedia site concerning the Overland Mail Company president John Butterfield. Unfortunately, the site on Wikipedia is titled “John Warren Butterfield.” He was only “John Butterfield.” Nowhere in the many primary source references is it seen that his name included “Warren.” Of course, the subject of his name will be well documented from primary source references. Information given for the name of “John Butterfield” will be from numerous newspaper articles, including his obituary, the name on his tombstone and death records, his signature on the Overland Mail Company contract, his signature on his “Special Instructions” to his employees, as well as many others. The similar name, but with the middle name of “Warren” may have come from a graduation article in 1851 from a college near Boston, Massachusetts. John Butterfield’s entire life was associated with Upstate New York with many newspaper articles showing that he was engaged in business near his home in Utica, New York, at that time. John Butterfield was forty years old in 1851.

Here is the question: When I post this information, along with much more based on primary source references, will I be able to change the heading name from “John Warren Butterfield” to “John Butterfield?” Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

The only place I saw "Warren" was in the photo caption. As to the rest of your major additions to the article, I leave that to other editors. David notMD (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Gerald T. Ahnert. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to share your knowledge and expertise on Wikipedia. The quick, simple answer is, yes, you can rename the article to whatever is most appropriate. You do this as a 'page move' by following the tab marked 'Page' close to the top of the screen in desktop view, then 'Move page'. (You'll find more information via this shortcut to one of our help pages: WP:MOVE).
The longer answer involves whether it is appropriate to do so. In this instance, I think it really is. For example, I looked at this very first edit which created the page on John Warren Butterfield back in 2008. There's no mention of a middle name, nor any mention in the one cited source. So I think you are on pretty solid ground. However, might I suggest the better way forward is to first post your concerns on the article's Talk Page and explain your proposal. Wait for, say, a week to see if other editors have strong feelings one way or another (I doubt there will be any). (You could even contactthe page creator, who I see is still active a little here some ten years later) Then you can make the move. Of course, you could 'be bold' and do it straight away, but I'd suggest a pre-discussion ruffles fewer feathers, plus it leaves a permanent discussion of your rationale associated with the page. Should some documentation ever come to light to highlight a middle name, editors can check back and see what happened, when and why. The other justification for a name change is that Wikipedia prefers to title articles based upon how a subject is normally referred to by third party sources, not by how they prefer to call themselves. The policy (which you can find at this shortcut: WP:COMMONNAME) actually supports and gives justification to your your approach to renaming the article. Does this all make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, @Gerald T. Ahnert:. In the article, I see no citations to any source supporting John Butterfield's having the middle name "Warren", but this information has been on and in the article, uncontested I think, since its initial creation by @Halned: on 20 January 2008, and I notice it's also mentioned in the article about his son Daniel Butterfield (said there to be named in full Daniel Adams Butterfield), and is used in the data for the photo of John Butterfield, held on Wikimedia to which it was added by @G. Thomas:, that appears in this Wikipedia article. All of this suggests that it's widely – even if wrongly – thought that it was his middle name (and your suggestion as to its origin may be correct), so before removing that information it might be wise to seek concensus by opening a new section on the article's talk page to discuss it, and perhaps by reaching out to some of the article's other active contributors listed in the article's 'View history' tab.
I'd also observe that the article overall has very few citations to Reliable sources, and would benefit from more.
As to changing the article's heading/title if and when you feel it appropriate to do so, this is done not by literally editing the words as with all of the other text, etc., but rather by Moving the whole page to a new title: this process automatically leaves a redirect at the old title for the benefit of people who might search for it, and ensures that the page history is preserved. Since it's evident that "John Butterfield" is the name by which the man is most commonly known, this ideally should be the article's title, so the move would seem to satisfy all requirements even if it were to turn out that he really did have a (little used) middle name of Warren. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft rejection & general Wikipedia communications guidelines[edit]

Hello, I am in the process of editing a draft page titled Ilan Rubin (photographer), and it has been rejected twice for the reason that it reads like an advertisement. I would like to correct this, and am wondering what other information to include or take out in order to ensure that it is up to the standards of the Wikipedia community. Additionally, if someone wouldn't mind looking at my Talk page, I am really new at wiki formatting for communicating back and forth with other users, and I would really love if someone could let me know if I am communicating in the right places/formats? Thanks so much.Danica Newell (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Danica Newell. I took a quick look at your draft and see a lot of problems. First of all, consider this sentence: "Ilan’s photography has gained attention for its uses of abstraction, his inventive lighting solutions, and a unique color palette." This is overtly promotional language that does not belong in this encyclopedia. Read and study the neutral point of view, which is a mandatory policy. Who did he "gain attention" from? All published photographers "gain attention". Who described his lighting as "innovative"? Objectively, there is no such thing as a "unique color palette" since all people with normal vision can see the exact same spectrum of colors. Eliminate all such promotional language from your draft. Your references have a lot of problems. A link to the appearance of a photographer's work in a publication is worthless for establishing notabilty. All professional photographers get published. Eliminate all such references. Eliminate the references that consist only of passing mentions. We need genuine significant coverage. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guideline for creative professionals. Focus on summarizing references that demonstrate convincingly to reviewers that he meets that notability guideline. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

When to archive?[edit]

Hi Teahouse,

I've come across this article that I believe is pretty poorly organized:
I've starred it so that I might be able to edit it later, but in the meantime I checked the talk page to see what's happening with it. There's only two comments and a bunch of archives that aren't very long (<75KB Help:Archiving_a_talk_page ). I'm wondering if these archives are the appropriate procedure or if I can undo these archives so that the discussion appears in the main talk page as more visible evidence of the page's status.

Thank you! Everydaycurious (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse mascot[edit]

Why does the teahouse mascot look like a moon and a tree? Skijoy222 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a picture of a cherry tree by some rocks rendered in a Japanese style, presumably meant to evoke a Japanese garden and teahouse, and perhaps to subliminally suggest calmness. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It is File:WP teahouse logo.png, based on File:Oxherding pictures, No. 9.jpg which is displayed at Ten Bulls#Kuòān Shīyuǎn's Ten Bulls. It is called "Returning to the Source" or "Reaching the Source". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did my edit get reverted?[edit]

Hi, I made an edit to a suggestion page asking for a page to be written, but it got reverted. Here's a link:,_bands_and_songwriters&oldid=864254945 I got a message on my talk page from the person saying that I need to cite my sources for the edit, but I'm a bit confused as to why, it's only a recommendation for a page to be made. Can you help me figure out how to make my edit be allowed or what I did wrong? If I'm saying any of this wrong let me know, I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin04atschool (talkcontribs) 20:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Merlin04atschool and welcome to the Teahouse.
Even what seems like a simple request for an article to be written has to follow the rules. If you observe, at the top of the requested articles pages, there are instructions that include something like Sources must be provided at the end of the article request, and the article itself must be linked. Any request that does not follow these guidelines will be removed. You must provide at least one starter reference for the volunteer who eventually chooses to undertake creating the article. The starter references should be good enough to establish that the requested subject is notable. We realize that this is a big ask to require a suitable reference from the requester – but the alternative would be to have an exponentially larger list of requests that would be much more difficult to fulfill. As it is, the rate of conversion from request to article is fairly disappointing.
So don't let this set you back. Find a suitable reference for your subject and submit them again. There's no prejudice attached to removing a request without a source. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Search History of an article for first instance of a word's inclusion?[edit]

Hi all, Another curiosity query. I shall start with the background in order to avoid an XY problem.

Helping wp:Typo_Team/moss with their c/e'ing, I came across the potential error inAssassin's Creed: Brotherhood - wikt:skilas. Thinking it would be an easy correction to 'skills' I hopped over, Ctrl+F'd my way to the word in question and read the sentence for context:

Advanced Wanted mode is a variant of Wanted mode, with differences between malakas and skilas includes an increased amount of NPCs on the map to make it difficult to pick out targets and a less accurate compass.

..and then I scratched my head.

So, in an attempt to find out if the paragraph had been vandalized at some point prior I attempted to look through the history of the article for it, but it's a large article, and has many many edits. So I thought I would come here for a two-fold reason:

1. Any way to search an article's history for a word?

2. Suggested improvements to the sentence in question, retaining the use of, but identifying 'malakas' and 'skilas' if they are in fact, real words?

--Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elfabet. If you have the default language "en - English" at Special:Preferences then the top of a page history has a link "Find addition/removal". I used it to find [1] which looks like vandalism or nonsense. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Link to the Wikiblame doc (which is what the "find addition/removal" does). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Primehunter, Thanks very much. Wonderful. Elfabet (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse mascot explanation[edit]

Thanks guys for the response above. Can we have an explanation below the mascot so that everyone knows? Skijoy222 (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There's more information about the original image that the teahouse logo was derived from at Ten_Bulls. Vexations (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

New and looking for articles to work on[edit]

Hi everyone, I’m Aida and I registered an an account about a month ago after reading some news articles about increasing the visibility of women - particularly women scientists - on Wikipedia to help close the gender gap. I’m a scientist myself so I saw it as an inspiration, something to do when I’m not busy with other stuff. Unfortunately life got in the way for a little while but I’m glad to say I’m back and ready to contribute! The only question is where to start? I can’t seem to find any of the projects the news articles mentioned. If someone could point me in the right direction, I’d really appreciate it! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidaakron (talkcontribs) 00:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome Aidaakron! You seem to be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I'd also recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Vexations (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Aidaakron. I also suggest that you read Your first article and associated links. Also read the notability guideline for academics which applies to most scientists. Writing an acceptable article for the first time can be challenging, so please feel free to ask follow-up questions here at the Teahouse at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Aidaakron. I have left a "Women In Red" welcome message on your talk page, containing a few helpful links to get you started. That project really is worth checking out, especially the lists of missing (red-linked) women which serves as a really great prompt. I suspect you would find these two particularly helpful:
If you were to sign up (i.e. add your username via the big blue 'Join WikiProject' button) to the Project, you can receive notification of monthly themed events that editors might like to contribute to. We need more articles about women in order to redress the gender imbalance on this encyclopaedia, and we definitely need more female editors creating content, too. So, welcome and do come back if you need assistance with anything. You might like to try out The Wikipedia Adventure which gives you an interactive tour of the basics of editing this encyclopaedia. And if you decide to stick around, you might like to consider seeking 'adoption' from an experienced editor willing to support and guide your contributions. But I'd suggest you simply get stuck in first, and see how you get on. Best wishes from a fellow biologist, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your missing the biggest Country that is getting blocked[edit]

Regarding this page below:

Seems me as a John Doe Average Citizens by You-tube has been completely shut down. I cannot even see a cartoon - nothing. Why is United States not listed in this pages description of countries that are being suppressed. I certainly am no Alex Jones nor do I even presnet videors. I am signed up to do so but have not done anything further. I am only viewing. Can you please look into updating the Wikipedia page for this ( and other applicable pages ). You hear all kinds of Americans are being surpress - but a average joe "Viewer" ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes it is down. But the Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia only. You may go to the Reference Desk for more info. Thanks. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pragyesh Singh[edit]

Dear All Respected members in the community, Can anyone please help me to remove unreliable sources from Draft:Pragyesh Singh as i am not very familiar with Wikipedia to understand reliable and unreliable resources. RonsI (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, RonsI and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unusual for questioners to have to wait 24 hours for a reply, so our apologies. Unfortunately your question relates to references that aren't in English, so I suspect that was the cause of the delay. It can be difficult sometimes to distinguish between the quality of sources. Basically, any source that is closely related to the subject, or which can be edited by anyone (like this encyclopaedia!) should be regarded as unreliable. Interviews with the subject, personal websites or content based on press releases are also not seen as reliable, as they are likely to be biased towards promoting the subject. Even some news media are regarded as unreliable when it comes to major topics, including the Uk's national newspaper Daily Mail which is known to fabricate all sorts of stories to suit its readership and to sell its product. Sites like IMdB can be edited by anybody, so can't be relied upon as there's no editorial oversight. Might I invite you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If in doubt about reliability, my advice would be to remove any content in your draft that is based upon it, leaving only the really good and independent sources in. Other sources worth removing are those which just make the briefest of mentions of a subject - these aren't in enough depth, and merely serve to pad out the reference list. Sometimes less is more. I'm sorry I can't give more detailed advice here. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Page blanking[edit]

What happens if I blank someones user talk pages? - (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't unless there's a very good policy- or guideline-based reason for doing so as explained in Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. You may remove posts you've made as long as noboby has responded to them as explained in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments, but anything else you should leave as is. Now, you can blank your own user talk page if you want, except for type of posts specifically mentioned in Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. As to what would happen if you do blank another editor's user talk page, you'll probably be warned and the content will be restored; if you continue to do such things despite being warned, the content will still be restored and ultimately an adminstrator will likely block your account to prevent any further disruption on your part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

But now, it may trigger the edit filter and disallow the edit. - (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring & Vandalism difference[edit]

How can i tell if there's an occurring recent edits that may be a Edit war or Vandalism? Like some editors are reverting the shortened article to a more detailed one, & an article with minor vandalism that is being undoed over and over. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01) 08:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Vandalism is made of actions that deliberately break Wikipedia: for instance, blanking pages, putting "that person is shit" in biographical articles, etc. Edit warring is when there is disagreement between editors about the best way to write a page, and one or multiple editors repeatedly revert to their favorite version without having obtained consensus to go with it. Those are thus usually different - vandals get blocked fast enough that they do not really have time to edit war, and most edit warriors are convinced that their version is the best for Wikipedia. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the information, I'll be checking any articles i watched if they're under incident of Vandalism or Edit Warring. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01) 13:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


I am writing a wiki page about a living person's biography. can someone take me through the process of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayin-london (talkcontribs) 08:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ayin-london. Writing a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months working on improving existing articles before they try it. Writing a biography of a living person is not intrinsically harder, but the requirements on verifiability and reliable sources are applied more stringently. In any case, I suggest you start by reading your first article, and come back here if you have specific questions. --ColinFine (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I create an article that only can be sourced in non-English sources[edit]

I have got plans to create some articles that only can be sourced with Arabic references. I don't know if that's ok or not. Can anyone help me? Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharabSalam (talkcontribs) 09:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they are independent and reliable. If an English source is available, it is preferred, but if one is not available, then a non-English source is fine. You may read about policy in this area at this link. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


hi i have question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash Abdolmohmmadian (talkcontribs) 09:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arash Abdolmohmmadian and welcome to the Teahouse. You are in the right place. Please ask your question. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

how I can make page in this Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash Abdolmohmmadian (talkcontribs) 10:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arash Abdolmohmmadian and welcome to the Teahouse. I moved your follow-up question to the same section as your original question.
Writing a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend some weeks or months working on improving existing articles before they try it. But you can find information about writing a new article at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Would a page on "Get Laid Beds" the British company be approved?[edit]

A company that's been around since 2012 with a wide UK brand recognition. is a noteworthy comparison which has a detailed wiki entry on their business, which started a couple years before in 2010.

Seems appropriate, but wanted to check as a newbie! Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophat london (talkcontribs)

@Tophat london: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This company would need to have significant coverage(not just brief mentions or press announcements) in independent reliable sources that indicate it meets the notability guidelines for companies. Its own website or any primary source cannot be used to establish notability. Not every company merits an article here, even within a field. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add my Chinese translation of Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) to the original page[edit]

To whom may concern, Hello, this is James LI. I am interested in the entry of Australian Defense Force Academy (ADFA)( And I have translated the original one into Chinese already. The following links is my uploaded Chinese translation in sandbox ( am just wondering is there any chance that my translation can be attached to the original page as a Chinese version? Like other languages as Japanese or Deutsch attached in the left bottom corner in the original page. And what should I do to make it happen if it is ok. Thank you so much for your time. Regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameswenlongli (talkcontribs) 10:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jameswenlongli you need to copy the Chinese article to the Chinese Wikipedia at澳大利亚国防学院 (assuming that the Chinese text I found at the top of the article is the correct title). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You also need to make sure that you attribute it, as derived from the English article, to comply with the terms under which material in Wikipedia is licensed, Jameswenlongli. See WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jameswenlongli and ColinFine! I have just sought for ADFA at zh-wiki: zh:Special:Search/ADFA, and it looks like the correct name may be 澳洲國防學院, used in the zh article about The University of New South Wales zh:新南威尔士大学. --CiaPan (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Hallo liebe Wikipedianer. Ich bin noch neu hier und möchte meinen ersten Beitrag fertigstellen. Kann evtl bitte jemand mal drüberschauen ob man es so lassen kann für Wikipedia. Danke--TES-Techno (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Gruss Thorsten--TES-Techno (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(via Google Translate) Hallo TES-Techno. Dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Sie sollten stattdessen Hilfe bei der deutschen Wikipedia anfordern, indem Sie diesem Link folgen: de:Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia. GMGtalk 12:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK quick question[edit]

It has been a couple of years since I did a DYK. In the meantime I have forgotten half of the process, and the other half seems to have changed - so I hope somebody can help me. I raised the nomination here. At the time I had not done my QPQ review, so I left a comment saying I would provide that information. I have done the review now, but for the life of me I can't find where the QPQ information should go... --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gronk Oz. You should add a link to the DYK template where it says :* Reviewed:. GMGtalk 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Found it! Smile.gif Sorry for bothering you, @GreenMeansGo: I was expecting to see it at the top, but it's at the bottom so I didn't notice it. Thanks for not calling me an idiot.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey no worries. I only do DYK once in a blue moon, so I get turned around myself sometimes. GMGtalk 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Difference of opinion[edit]

I've been having a nice dialogue with another editor about a difference of opinion. It isn't a dispute, or an edit war, but I don't want it to become one. The page is somewhat active and I've been hoping that another editor would way in on our talk section, talk:St Donat's Castle#Citizen Kane's Doamin, but so far none have. How do I attract or ask other editors to take friendly looks at disagreements without escalation? StarHOG (Talk) 13:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey StarHOG. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which has a number of options available. You may want to consider starting with Wikipedia:Third opinion, or seek input from a related WikiProject, which can be found via the banners on the article's talk page. GMGtalk 14:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't waqnt to jump to dispute resolution, and yes, I've posted to projects before when situations like this have arisen, but this article doesn't seem to have a project page associated with it, so I was kind of up in the air. The Third Opinion was a great resource tip, thanks! StarHOG (Talk) 14:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey StarHOG. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is probably the most active WikiProject of them all. So that might be a good place to start. GMGtalk 14:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Filter log[edit]

How can I view the filter log through mobile? - (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

DAB denied[edit]

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

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

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

help meh plz[edit]

hey um i would like to know what i could make a page about can somone help meh? Pearl playa (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Pearl playa! You could see if there's any topic mentioned in Wikipedia:Requested articles that you could write about. But it might be easier to start by editing existing articles before trying to write articles from scratch. You could try and look at a random article and see if there's something there you could improve. There's also maintenance categories which contain articles known to have specific problems. Categories like Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2000. Another place to look for stuff to do is in WikiProjects. There's also the TeaHouse suggestions.
Whether you want to write articles from scratch or you're looking for stuff to fix in existing articles (or do both!), you might want to take a look at the manual of style. Best wishes. – Pretended leer {talk} 19:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

hey thanks for the help i appreciate it!-Pearl playa (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Help Moving my Article Forward[edit]

I have had three editors look at my article and two have concluded that there is already an article on World Wood can see the comments on my draft. I am at a lost of what to do next. I feel the article they reference is different from my proposed article. Can someone help me? Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve at IWCS (talkcontribs) 16:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Steve at IWCS. My apologies for the long delay in getting a reply to you. Easier-to-answer questions tend to get a much quicker turnaround here than this one which required a somewhat deeper assessment of the topics.
Now, I don't actually agree with Miniapolis and Legacypac that an identical article already exists at International Day of Forests. Whilst WWD and IDF do seem relatively closely allied in their purpose, they appear to me to be completely different in their origins and activities, albeit staged on the same day, as so often happens with environmental campaigns which try to garner greater public engagement by ensuring major events on a common ecological theme coincide. That said, is World Wood Day -like so many other 'world days of x' actually notable in its own right? Well, that's a little less certain, based on sources, despite non-western news media like this covering it, and the World Wood Day Fund supporting worldwide activities like this project in Scotland. Personally, I think it is just about notable (see what Wikipedia means by this at WP:EVENTCRITERIA), but two very experienced editors at articles for creation have advised you just to add a 'Related events' section in the International Day of Forests. Now, unless they change their minds on this, and notwithstanding that these two topics are indeed separate one, I think this could actually be quite good advice, at least to start with. I would move and save the content I'd written back into my sandbox to keep it all for later use without risk of deletion, and then add a summary of World Wood Day in the IWF page. I'd then create a WP:REDIRECT from World Wood Day to take users to the IDoF page. Having done that, and seen responses from any other editors to this content change, and assessed any increase in page views I'd then consider (after quite some time of bedding in) whether to seek consensus on that talk page as to whether these are, indeed, two separate notable events and whether to split it off into a separate article at some later date. The advantage of having both events all on one page - even if not associated with one another - is that two separate topics benefit from the interest users show in the one or the other. It also stops a potentially marginally notable World Day article being put up for a deletion discussion, and I'm guessing you wouldn't want that. Does that help in any way at all? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello Teahouse Thank you for offering to help me. I am trying to post a section about The Hunger Games and it will not let me post it. Now I do not want to have to read so many articles about why I can't and what I have to do to post it. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Unrelated (talkcontribs) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Unrelated: First, please sign all discussion comments with four tildes (~~~~), so we know who did it. Here, the bot signed it for you, but that's just good to keep in mind. As for your article, the issue appears to be that your subject already existed in Wikipedia. It's usually best to keep things confined to one article, which is why your submission was declined; after all, it would be a bit confusing if we had fifty different articles about Michael Jackson. (There are exceptions to this, but that is typically when the article is very long and could load very slowly on older technology; imagine trying to load the article Barack Obama on a dial-up connection!) If you would like to contribute to the coverage of the Hunger Games, we have plenty of existing articles you can feel free to improve!
As per your comment at the talk page for the Host Lounge, I do have to give you credit for having a better formed request that 95% of anything else on that talk page! However, that doesn't mean you posted it in the right place, sadly; that question would probably have better been placed here, the Teahouse. You will be able to create articles when you are autoconfirmed, which means that your account is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Key point: There is an existing article about the film series The Hunger Games (film series). If you believe you can add content - with references - that is the place. What you wrote in your Sandbox is about comments by the actors, but without references. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How to transfer data from sandboxes and where exactly id the Title Name placed in the Sandbox area?[edit]

I have to correct two dilemmas I understand I have but am not clear on the procedure. 1. I am apparently in the wrong sandbox which makes no sense since everything I do works well in producing a page. I have no idea how I got there or how to transfer it if necessary. 2. How do I designate the TITLE NAME to the site page using the sandbox? I have no indication on how that is accomplished. There are so many technical guides and rules I become baffled a bit. I have considered experimented with two different Title Names that are similar in purpose but one may lend itself better to Wikipedia than the other. There is too much data to have to add (edit) the pre-existing page on the subject because it nullifies most the information found on the page. This information will change the art world in a major way. I have done my homework. Saint Matthew and the Angel Redux --- or --- Resurrection of Saint Matthew and the Angel are two titles considered. Both have the same intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BARRY BARON (talkcontribs) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barry and welcome! Both problems are handled using the "move" function. See Help:How to move a page. That will both move the page to the "article space" AND rename it to the proper title. If you still have questions, please feel free to ask. --Jayron32 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You've been at Teahouse on this topic for a while. I foresee two problems: 1) Your draft, as written, has huge sections of text without references. You have incorporated three references, and then added a list of references not tied back to the text. 2) There is an existing article about the painting Saint Matthew and the Angel. Your content disagrees with content on that page, but this does not mean you get your own article. A better way to approach this is change content in the existing article or start a section in the article's Talk, laying out your position - either way, with references. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@BARRY BARON: May I also add to what David notMD has said, please? I fear you are completely wasting your time trying to publish the results of your researches on Wikipedia by working on Draft:Saint Matthew and the Angel Redux. This is not - and I must repeat this, NOT - the place for any original research, as exciting as it might be, nor indeed how momentous that discovery might be to the art world. I need you to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which distils, aggregates and reflects what has already been written by other reliable sources. We aren't the place to do that publishing de novo. In fact we have a policy on it, so please re-read  Wikipedia:No original research which begins with the statement, in bold: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Neither should that 'original research' be added into the existing article until such time as it has been published by reputable sources and/or covered in the mainstream media. Perhaps I can tell you a true story? Twenty years ago I discovered something in 'The Orrery' by Joseph Wright of Derby that none of the experts had ever noticed or commented on before. My museum's Director was one of the world's leading specialists on him, and was astonished when I commented on what, to me, was blindingly obvious - that every person in that painting (who were all seated or standing around a central light source representing the sun in the centre of that mechanical orrery) had each of their their faces representing one of the main phases of the moon. Now, had Wikipedia actually existed back then, I probably would not have been permitted to add that simple observation to the painting's article because it was original research (albeit, you can actually see this fact when you look at the painting, unlike in your research!). But luckily our museum subsequently published a leaflet on orreries, in which we reported this new - and to us, exciting - observation. So now, the leaflet that I wrote back then can be used today as a reliable citation to support that statement. Similarly, until such time as you get your work and discoveries taken seriously by a museum, a publisher or a news outlet, I see absolutely no future in you trying to report it here. There are far better ways to get attention to new research, and I urge you to focus here on other areas of art currently under-represented on Wikipedia. I do hope this helps you understand any future difficulties that you are bound to encounter if you ignore this advice and try to persist. I might also suggest you make a copy of what you have drafted here and store it off-wiki to help you prepare a publication in other media. This advice really is well-meant. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: I should also add that for some reason that I can't quite fathom yet, the content of your sandbox was moved by another editor into what we call 'draftspace', hence your apparent confusion over your being in the wrong sandbox. (Having now enquired, it turns out that the move was made in good faith, but in error.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Review[edit]


I am expanding from AV patrol, and I want input on my article and answers to a question. I can only find one source for the history section, which is [2]. Can I legitimately only use that source for the section and get it moved into mainspace?

Thanks, Plaba123 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a source for foundation date: [[3]]. There's some history here [[4]], although it's quoted from their own site. You could also use Charity Navigator [[5]] - it's a little better than their own site. I'd like to point out that your draft ignores the most notable thing about the group - that it's getting the most coverage for how it discriminates against non-Christians. That will be added by someone if your article is submitted. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: Thanks for your help!


File:People's_Republic_of_China_(orthographic_projection).svg ON THIS PROJECTION , THE BOUNDRIES OF INDIAN STATE , J&K ARE NOT RIGHT.. HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THIS . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to discuss on the discussion page for the image: [[6]]. Your note is unclear what's wrong. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Your IP address is in India so I guess you are complaining that territory claimed by India but controlled by Pakistan or China is not depicted as part of India. See Line of Control and Q6 at Talk:India/FAQ. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Change Username Displayed[edit]

Can I change my username or do I have to create a new account? Stanulisd (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

For information on altering your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding artwork[edit]

I would like to add artwork to a site that I have been contributing to. To get started, so that I can get familiar with the process, I would like to add two newspaper ads. One is from 1858 and the other from 1859. How do I get started? Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Gerald T. Ahnert. It sounds like your ads will be well out of copyright, so you might like to familiarise yourself by reading the guidelines on how to upload them, which you can find at: Wikipedia:Uploading images. I think most people upload directly to Wikimedia Commons, which is much stricter in ensuring compliance than is English Wikipedia. (there's an 'Upload file' link in the 'Tools' section on the far left side of every Wikipedia page should you only want to upload here.) The advantage of uploading to Commons is that others can use those images in any of the non-English versions of our encyclopaedia. Once you have uploaded to Commons, look for the little 'W' icon just above the image, labelled 'Use this file'. Click that and you can copy the text to insert a thumbnail image directly into your article. Let us know if you encounter any difficulties, and well try and help you out further. It would then help to include links to the relevant article or images so that Teahouse hosts can better see what you're trying to do. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting disambiguation right.[edit]

Anyone know how I can add Kate Fox (writer) to a disambiguation page for Kate Fox, so as not to be confused with the anthropologist Kate Fox? And how I can make sure that Kate Fox (writer) comes up in Wiki search results? This is the first time I've made an article for someone who shares the same name with an existing person of note, so I'm not sure - other than distinguishing this Kate Fox as a writer - how to ensure that when a search for Kate Fox is done, the writer comes up in search results alongside the anthropologist. --Daibh (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Daibh welcome to the Teahouse. When you only need to distinguish between two similarly-named articles, a disambiguation page is not necessary. Instead, both articles should have what we call a 'hatnote' added to the top of their pages, so that readers who realise this isn't actually the article for them, but can see the alternative. You can read how to set these up by visiting Wikipedia:Hatnote. If you get stuck, just come and let us know, and someone will help you out. Before you do that, I do think you could really do with finding some unconnected sources that talk about her in some depth in order to avoid having her notability called into question. At the moment, it's looking a bit thin, I'm afraid, and with no independent sources. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Daibh, I'm going to have to agree with Nick Moyes. There doesn't seem to be much demonstrating the notability of the Kate Fox standup comedian, poet and writer. A quick google search uncovers almost nothing. To add to the confusion, the anthropologist Kate Fox is also a writer, so this article title doesn't help with the disambiguation. I added a disambiguation hatnote to your article, so you can see how it looks, but I doubt it will survive a deletion review in its present state. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes and timtempleton, thanks for the sage advice. Appreciate it. I have fleshed out the references and detail now. Kate Fox is actually quite prolific as a northern English poet. I had always intended to add more to the page, but it's just about getting the time to do that and to source the appropriate references. I have more to add, but hopefully these latest additions will keep the wolf from the door until I find time to get a bit more added. Daibh (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Can't find minor edit button[edit]

I can't find the minor edit button. (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings User and welcome to the Teahouse. The minor edit checkbox is on line below "Edit summary" line. It is only visible while editing. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi User, according to Help:Minor_edit, "Users who are not logged in to Wikipedia are not permitted to mark changes as minor because of the potential for vandalism. The ability to mark changes as minor is one of many reasons to register." rchard2scout (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Is there a policy about copying sections from one Wikipedia article to another? If so, where can I find it? What should one do if material is copied across articles? (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
The policy is at WP:COPYWITHIN.
When I find such things, I do two things. One is to make an edit to the destination page with an edit summary that says something like copied from page XXXX (unknown rev) without attribution - this edit summary is intended to remedy that omission. The edit can be a dummy edit such as adding a space in a harmless place. The second thing is warn the editor who failed to make the attribution using {{uw-copying}} – it wants to be substituted, so {{subst:Uw-copying|Article copied from}} with the source article given as the parameter, without brackets. You place this on the editor's talk page.
In principle, this policy should apply whenever something is copied from one page to another, but I've found that the community does not think it is needed when, say, copying from your user talk page to your user page or from any talk page to a noticeboard.
There are more elaborate templates available to make the attribution when the copying is more extensive, or for special cases like {{discussion moved to}}, but the edit summary method is what seems to be most often used and is deemed sufficient.
The most common case for lack of attribution I find is when someone copies a page to their sandbox to do some work on it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello,anonymous, and welcome to the Teahouse. Heck, jmcgnh has just said it all extremely well, but here's my similar answer: Yes, there certainly is. We do have a clear guideline on how to give attribution to content moved from one article to another, or from one article into,say, your personal sandbox so that you can work on it there. All the guidance you need can be found at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, or by using this shortcut: WP:COPYWITHIN. Should you have copied content, but forgotten to attribute it, you can correct the mistake by making a 'dummy edit' which subsequently clarifies the source.
Of course, you should never copy large amounts of one article and use it all in another article in such as way that we end up with two very similar pages which then get edited differently. If you're thinking of copying a massive table of data (e.g. a running tally of members of one country's government over many years), you might wish to consider creating one table as a template, and then transcluding it into both articles. Thus the data only ever needs to be updated in one place, whilst its content will appear in both articles in identical form. Helpful Hint: To find any of our policies, guidelines and essays, just go to the Search box at the top of the page and type WP: followed by a likely keyword, such as "copying", and you'll see a drop-down list of matches to that word, including any page shortcuts. This can be a very useful way of looking for help amongst the myriad of guidance pages we have. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jmcgnh: In principle, this policy should apply whenever something is copied from one page to another, but I've found that the community does not think it is needed when, say, copying from your user talk page to your user page or from any talk page to a noticeboard. That policy is actually licensing requirements (to comply with CC-BY-SA). Stuff that you wrote yourself alone (or with no significant outside corrections) is exempt from that (because you are the copyright holder and can unilaterally relicense it somewhere else); so, for instance, you can copy paragraphs you made from scratch across articles without needing to put in the edit summary. Copying other people's TP posts is also fine if done right (i.e. with a mention of who said it) because it falls under the right to quote. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello there, can any willing rollbacker help undo the edits on October (soundtrack) to the last version by me because all of edits made on 7 October 2018 are unconstructive and wrong. Ask if you need reasons. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Harshrathod50. Welcome. What are the reasons, please? I'm OK to rollback for you, if you'd prefer not to revert each edit in turn, or to do so manually. But knowing little about music, I don't want to act unfairly if I can't make that assessment of 'unconstructive' myself, and I'm afraid I can't. To my eye these series of small edits appear to have been made in good faith. Whether they're wrong, I can't really tell. I would really prefer you to edit the article and correct any errors yourself (but always leave an edit summary to explain why you're changing something back, please). Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Here are my reasons:

1. This edit is unconstructive because he did nothing but push the names with wikilinks ahead to the name which don't. I previously put the names in the order as they appear in the tracklisting.
2. What was this for? I can bet the album was never released physically. This is vandalism.
3. Here he vandalised the actual listed name of the track as seen on digital albums.
4. (a) This wasn't necessary at all. No need to cite in the infobox if there is no edit war or controversy over the fact. Moreover, there are sufficient cited sources in the article which give the release date info. This is what I call implicit promotion of a website on Wikipedia.
(b) The term soundtrack implies that it is music from a film. Be it featured or whatever. It is the type of an album just like other types. For instance, a studio album. How the heck can it be a genre. This is so wrong to assign the term soundtrack to the genre parameter. Filmi is a true genre. Therefore, this is vandalism.

I hope I was able to explain you. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to memy contributions) 12:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
OK - thank you to both editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, sir and Mr. Moyes, but please undo this because when I visit the website on mobile web, it doesn't even show the full release date (just the year) which is the only purpose this link is used for. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done again. Apparently I didn't click into that source. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to memy contributions) 12:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now everything was solved without creating a mess in the history of that article. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about paraphrasing from copy-righted material[edit]

Hi everyone,

I recently received a warning about adding copyrighted to a Wiki article, and I wanted to double check here to make sure this time my paraphrasing/sourcing are correct:

In January 1983, then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement." This peace initiative became the NCRI´s first dimplomatic act as a "true government in exile".[1][2] During the meeting, Rajavi claimed that the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been "the only person calling for the continuation of the [Iran-Iraq] war."[3]

Thanks for the feedback :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 16. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
  2. ^ Varasteh, Manshour. Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine.
  3. ^
Hello, Stefka Bulgaria. Welcome to the Teahouse, and our apologies for the long wait you've had for an answer. (Some questions are harder to answer than others, and this is only a hasty reply, I'm afraid.) Whilst one of your references looks to be behind a paywall, I think your text sounds like a reasonable rewording of events. (Note the typo in dimplomatic!) We have a useful tool which helps users check for copyright violations in published articles, and here are the results for People's Mujahedin of Iran that you're referring to. The pink text shows words or phrases used in Wikipedia and in another online source. In this case the high likelihood of copyright infringement is probably because the article contains nearly 400 mini-quotations, which does seem extraordinary, though the majority look well cited. You might like to use this tool to test this and other articles for copyright issues. Check each pink entry for signs of words not being part of a name, organisation or a quotation. I think the other links and advice about paraphrasing and copyright left on your talkpage probably steer you better than I can right now. Goodnight, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Very helpful feedback! thank you! :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How do you change the main photo of a page?[edit]

I recently saw a erroneous photo on a page which I would like to change, but when I press on it in view editing it clicks that whole box in the beginning. As you can tell, I’m not experienced at editing Wikipedia... Any help would be appreciated, Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhodamanHD (talkcontribs) 12:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello WhodamanHD and welcome to the Teahouse. Which page are you referring to? I may help you to change it. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to memy contributions) 12:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The Geisonoceras page has a picture of a Goniatite. I found a picture of Geisonoceras on Wikipedia but I’m not sure how to take one out and put the other in. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhodamanHD (talkcontribs) 02:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How do I edit my signature?[edit]

I figured out how to get to where I can edit my signature but I want it to automatically link my sandbox because I'm working on something there and I want it to be easy for others who need to to access it. Vexthesmol (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Vexthesmol. If you change your signature settings under preferences to this: [[User:Vexthesmol|Vexthesmol]] ([[User talk:Vexthesmol|talk]]) ([[User:Vexthesmol/sandbox|sandbox]]), then your signature will display like this: Vexthesmol (talk) (sandbox), and include a link to your sandbox along with your talk page. GMGtalk 14:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed User, However Unable to Move Pages.[edit]

Hi! my user was recently auto confirmed! I am excited about this however I am trying to move a page I made in a draft and am having difficulty doing so. Not sure if this is because I am unaware of how to move the page or if there is an issue with my user. If someone can guide me through this, that would be fantastic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylebhiro (talkcontribs) 14:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kylebhiro. I'm not seeing anything that should prevent the move. Having said that, it doesn't appear ready for publishing anyway, as it is currently unambiguously promotional in tone, and is likely to be deleted if published. You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article for tips on how to improve the draft. GMGtalk 14:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Confused by user posting to my talk page[edit]

Greetings, At User talk:JoeHebda#Ajay Bijli user User:Plotterof left a message that I do not understand. Since it's short, I'm re-posting here. Wondering if this is a COI situation? I have not had any prior contact with user Plotterof so I don't know any reason for message to be on my talk page. JoeHebda (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC) ---
Ajay Bijli

I have make some change on the said article to fulfill the cleanup process of Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if require any changes. Note i am individual and new in Wikipedia struggling to understand the wiki policies. Regards --Plotterof (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JoeHebda. I can see why you might be confused. If you look at Plotterof's user contributions, you can see that they made some edits to the article Ajay Bijli just before posting on your User Talk page - they mentioned that article in the header to the comment. If you look at the history of that article, you can see that the previous two edits to it before Plotterof's edits were by you. It looks as if PlotterOf thought it would be a good idea to notify "the author of" that article, and didn't notice that your edits were superficial.
PlotterOf: I appreciate your trying to notify somebody of the change; but if you look at the history, you can see that JoeHebda's edits were not substantial (one was copy-editing, and one was adding authority control and category sorting) so there is no reason to suppose that JoeHebda has any particular interest in that article. If you look further back through the history, you can see that it was Domdeparis who added the maintenance tags in August, and they are a more useful editor to notify. (Since I have pinged them here, they should see this discussion anyway, so there's no need for you to do anything else). --ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I got the ping to Plotterof wrong, so I'm adding it in a separate comment. --ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. The article was created by a user that has been blocked as a spamming account and has had their appeal to be unblocked refused and the subject is probably not notable hence my tag when reviewing the page as a new page in August. The new editor's account was created to edit this article and associated pages and is most probably a WP:COI account. I shall be putting some info on their talk page and check out their edits closely. Thanks for the heads up. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Right to use artwork.[edit]

As a newbie to the Wikipedia site, I want to be cautious at first until I understand the proper conduct. For additions of artwork to “Butterfield Overland Mail” entry in Wikipedia, I want to make sure that the information for a copy of the original Butterfield Overland Mail Company 1858-time schedule is acceptable for me to add to the site. The image to be used was scanned from the frontispiece published in “The Butterfield Overland Mail by Waterman L. Ormsby,” The Huntington Library, San Marino, California, 1991. According to a footnote in the book, the schedule was copied from “The Frances Lieber papers were purchased in 1927. A survey, by C. R. Robson, of the collection, other than the miscellaneous material, is available in “The Huntington Library Bulletin, No. 3 (Feb., 1933), pp. 135-155.” This information, if acceptable, for the use of the schedule will be included in its entirety. Thank you. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gerald T. Ahnert. Copyright is a very complex subject but some aspects are simple. Here is what the U.S. Copyright Office says: ". . . all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain." So, you can use that 1858 schedule as you see fit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

How to create a wikipedia[edit]

How to create a wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthfiabd (talkcontribs) 17:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Luthfiabd: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. Creating an article from scratch is not an easy task so if you are new it is usually better to start by working to improve existing articles. If you want to create a new article, follow the guidance at WP:YFA and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft and submit for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving media within an article for clarity[edit]

I have just added my first media "Butterfield's Schedule" to the site "Butterfield Overland Mail." At the top of the site, on the right is a poster for a line that is not for Butterfield's Overland Mail Company. The description at the bottom of the poster is "Advertising poster for a similar but later service between California and Oregon." This is the first media on the site that most see and I have seen it copied and used incorrectly as a reference for Butterfield's Overland Mail Company. Apparently some assume it is for Butterfield without reading the caption. I am apprehensive for moving or removing someone else's contribution to the site, especially since it is properly captioned. In the interest of clarity, I would like to move it to the bottom or remove it all together. Also, it would make room to move the Butterfield Schedule directly under the relevant paragraph that mentions the scheduling. If you allow me to move it to the bottom, instead of removing it, can I just copy the command at the top for the poster and paste it somewhere near the end of the article? Also, I see that in the commands for placing media in an article that it can be either "right" or "left." Can I type in "center" to have it placed in the center? Thank you. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Hello again, Gerald T. Ahnert. I am in favor of removing that poster from Butterfield Overland Mail since it is for a different company. Don't be apprehensive. Just do it. Nobody needs to "allow" you to do whatever you want to improve that article. You know more about the topic than any of us, so go ahead and make it better, following policies and guidelines. Please do not try to place an image in the center of a column. It would look terrible on many devices, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Eyes[edit]

I'm just going to ask here because I can't seem to remember all the acronyms and the site mapping is a *little* convoluted.

Is there a board or list to request other editors take a look at a discussion or article or something going on to gather a better sample of consensus and drum more opinions?

In question today is this discussion on a page I nominated for deletion after finding non-NPOV statements and advertising. The editing IP responded to my templates on their talk page, added citations, improved those when pointed out the first ones wouldn't be accepted, and is wishing to contest the PROD in a communal fashion. (They appear aware they can remove themselves but don't feel comfortable doing so).

I'm still not comfortable removing the template by myself (as I don't feel the notability of an autodealership is easy to obtain), but in assuming good faith, I've made my recomendations as they've asked and am looking to increase discussion pool.

Thanks for your input, Elfabet (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elfabet. The Proposed deletion process (often called PROD for short), is for uncontroversial deletions. This conversation shows that the deletion is controversial. Instead, I recommend that you use Articles for Deletion which pulls other editors into the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen328. I've put up the corporation notability tag after reviewing the AFD page and someone else has removed the PROD as the article now has a non-singular source. Wiki improved. Elfabet (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem entering my drawing[edit]

I have drawn a Butterfield Stage Wagon and would like to add it to the "Butterfield Overland Mail" site, but the Commons site states I need to properly fill in the copyright section. I tick on the circle for "This is my own work" and then type my name "Gerald T. Ahnert" in the section "I, __________, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the following license: The top license choice is already chosen and at the bottom it states "Use the site's recommended license." When I pick "Next" and then "Download" it tells me it failed. What am I doing wrong? Thank you. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert

Hello again, Gerald T. Ahnert. I'm just doing a test upload of a file to wikimedia Commons for you. I've repeated what you describe up to the point at which you've entered a licence type and clicked 'Next'. You should then have seen a page where you name the image, add a description, date created and a category or two to place the image in. On that page there's a big blue button labelled 'Publish'. Did you see and click that? I can't imagine where on earth you saw a 'download' link if you didn't click 'publish' as, you're right, you didn't successfully upload it. Here is the list of all (i.e. one) uploaded contribution to Wikimedia Commons. A download or 'use this file' link is normally only available once your image has been uploaded successfully to Commons. Could you try it again and make a note and tell us what steps you followed once you arrived at the page where you enter all the titles and descriptive information, please? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How to disable welcome bot[edit]

I visited a couple of Burmese articles out of curiously (to see what the language looks like), I did not make any edits, and suddenly I received an email and something on my page from a welcome bot that writes in Burmese. Since I do not know the language, I have no idea what's going on. I think it could become annoying if I receive a welcome bot message every time I look at articles in another language. I hope this is not the wrong place to ask this question but I have no idea where to get help using Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waagr (talkcontribs) 21:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s a pretty standard feature of every language’s Wikipedia pages. There are fewer people like yourself who are concerned about it than those editors who benefit from the greeting, so it doesn’t make sense to change anything. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not possible to disable it but I actually think automatic welcome messages should be banned if the account has no edits and was not originally created at that wiki. Many users complain about notifications and emails in languages they don't know. If your account was created because the wiki imported the page history of a page you edited at another wiki then you can even get welcomes for wikis you have never visited. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I once visited this page and now I keep getting phone calls about it! LOL Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

watchlist for more than 1 language?[edit]

I (occasionally) edit on different language wiki's. For me it would be very useful to see on 1 page if there's something I "need to watch" instead of going to those wiki's individually and clicking the watchlist buttons there. Is there something I can do? Dutchy45 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dutchy45. This is not possible. See Wikipedia:Global, cross-wiki, integrated watchlists. You could enable "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" at Special:Preferences for selected wikis. You can also enable it for all wikis at Special:GlobalPreferences. It's possible to override the global setting it at individual wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks PrimeHunter, I'll check it out. Dutchy45 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Questionable item on talk page[edit]

Talk:Haila Stoddard#Jack Kirkland produced so many ugly children seems in bad taste and contributes nothing to discussion of the article. Should it be removed? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we generalize that question? Vandalism to articles elicits responses. What is the practice for vandalism in the Talk section of articles? In the article proper, Stoddard and Kirkland had two children, but there is no mention of the children being ugly. David notMD (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
There was no question there, there was no suggestion for an edit, only a comment that defamed women in general. I removed it and gave the IP an only warning for defamation. Can't really cite a policy for my removal, except maybe you shouldn't ought to say things like that. John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, John from Idegon.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If it's possible to remove my account in Wikipedia[edit]

Is it possible to remove my account in Wikipedia? And would that delete the articles or edits I have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharabSalam (talkcontribs) 01:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello SharabSalam and welcome to the Teahouse.
No, your account cannot be removed. You can stop using it. Under certain circumstances, you can ask that it DISAPPEAR, which is a mostly a matter of changing to an obscure username. All of your edits will remain in the history of the articles you edited. When you made your edits, you irrevocably licensed them to Wikipedia. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 02:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem uploading newly created drawing file[edit]

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

I need help with uploading photos.[edit]

I am currently trying to add an image logo that I got from a friend, but when uploading it says, "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." Does anybody know how to resolve this issue?Dave Yonn (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dave Yonn. Perhaps you'll find the information in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 846#Can't upload a photo? helpful. Basically, the part about needing the permission of the original copyright holder applies to all files uploaded to Commons. You should also try looking at the image at the top of c:Commons:Licensing since it pretty much explains what kind of files Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How to Avoid Being Abused on Wikipedia?[edit]

James Arboghast told me to fuck off Unpleased by my edit Mr. James crudely noted his reason for reverting. He included a personal slur against me; misspelling and incivility. He said, "because it makes no sense to you Kmccook indicartes your lack of perceptiveness and intelligence. Kindly cease vandalising this thing and fuck off." I found this action very unhelpful. Kmccook (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kmccook and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you made a good faith edit (see diff) with an explanatory edit summary to History of Western typography. You then received a peremptory revert and abusive edit summary in return (diff). You rightly left a note (diff) on their userpage. The user in question has edited since, but has not responded to you yet, so I will add a caution notice, as I don't think this is acceptable behaviour. Continually abusive editors do end up being warned and eventually blocked at WP:ANI if their behaviour doesn't change.
BTW: Please note that you are required to set your own signature so that it includes a hyperlink to your own page. Thislink is not working, and I suspect you've set this incorrectly at Special:Preferences. In the appearance tab there, please uncheck the tick box labelled "Treat the above as wiki markup" That should do it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)  

O, thank you for the advice. I changed the special preference. I appreciate your clarifying that abuse is not acceptable. I am surprised that a generally civil platform gets a few people so outraged at the collective editing process. BTW I did not change his revert, it was just style. His response was so draconian I felt the need to ask for input. This kind of a post is discouraging and I am glad it is not deemed normal.Kmccook (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

can you write about the subrow diet[edit]

I don't want to pay 17.00 for the book and I can't find a how-to do it online anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgroshardt (talkcontribs) 03:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jgroshardt. The Teahouse is generally a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, not for finding out how to do things unrelated to Wikipedia. Moreover, if an article were to be written about this particular diet (assuming that it is something considered to be sufficiently Wikipedia notable for such an article to be written), it would only really an article which reflected the coverage the diet has received in reliable sources such as magazines, newspapers, books, medical journals, etc.; it would not be a guidebook on how to follow the diet. So, if that's what you're looking for then you're probably going to either have to buy the book, or borrow it book from someone or somewhere. Now, you can try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk to see if anyone there is familiar with the diet, or at least knows where you can find out more information about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
This one? [7]. It's not getting a lot of hits on google news at the moment, but if that changes, someone may write one. We have several articles on fad diets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding to a list of notable people in the city of Altadena California[edit]

I would like to add Elizabeth Williams; aka Betty Williams, aka Elizabeth Zorthian. She was the first wife of Jirayr Zorthian who is in the list. She was a shaving cream heiress from Louisiana. Ownedd property in Altadena and donated to the YMCA for the neighborhood children. She later opened a Winery in Solvange called Buttonwood which her children, also also talented. educated people manage and run. Elizabeth valued open space and agriculture within the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C850:3300:F4D8:A8F4:653E:2A26 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Please take a look at the list of notable people in the article Altadena, California. You will notice that all of those people have blue links to biographical articles about them. This standard is typical in articles about cities and universities. So, the first step is to write an encyclopedia article about this woman, if she is notable. Then, she can be added to the Altadena article. Please read Your first article Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Abanindra Maitra[edit]

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

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

<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Birth of a New (Dot) US Frontier|author=|date=|website=Computer Business Review|accessdate=19 October 2018}}</ref>

was blocked. (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP This sounds like this is something you might want to ask about at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how to communicate with someone via a talk page.[edit]

I have been trying to update a page - old information completely wrong and misleading - and my update has been reversed or truncated twice. I have now received a message from one of the people who made the changes, saying I can contact them via their talk page to proofread a draft, but I do not see how to do this. The information on how to use talk pages is very difficult to follow. Please help. Thank you. Emmeliss (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Update - I think I have found how to do this. Thank you anyway.Emmeliss (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Emmeliss. If you're still stuck, then try taking a look at H:TALK for some general information on how to use a talk page. Generally, the best place to discuss changes to an article is on the article's talk page because it makes it easier for others who might be interested in the subject and who might be watching to article to see that a new discussion about it has been started. You can then post something on the other editor's user talk page just to let them know you've opened a discussion. You can find another editor's user talk page by either clicking on "(talk)" next to their username in their signature, or by clicking on their username and then clicking on the "Talk" tab. Once you've found their user talk page, just click on the "New section" tab and an editing window should open. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding a new word not in a dictionary[edit]


I have been in the aviation industry for 40 odd years, and from my early days in tech training with the RAF, we were taught that the shiny bits on hydraulic actuators are called "fescalised portions".

It related to hard chrome coatings that are ground to a smooth finish. It's also used in a lot of other engineering disciplines, including car and motorbike maintenance. Strangely enough, even though everyone I speak to in the trade knows what the word fescalised means, it doesn't appear in dictionaries or Wikipedia. Google-fu leads to a load of blogs with people talking about it, but no hard facts. The nearest I've come to finding it mentioned in reliable documentation is in and obscure EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) document. There is also an oft-quoted bit of rubbish about meaning "without cheese" that seems to be repeated in a lot of places, but appears to be totally made up. So getting to my question. Given that this is a word in very common usage in engineering, but with no actual etymological backup, should/could it be added to Wikipedia, and if so, how? Cloogymax (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cloogymax: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not really a dictionary that merely catalogs the definition of words or terms. There is a project for that, Wikitonary. To have an article here, you would need to have independent reliable sources that describe the use of this term in depth. Blogs probably would not be acceptable unless they have some degree of editorial control or review. A government agency document might work, but more than one would be better. Sources don't need to be available online, either. If you found print-only sources that use this term, like a trade magazine not available online, that would work. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing a page and adding a photo[edit]


I volunteered to create the web page of Professor Peter Klinken, the Chief Scientist of Western Australia. I have learned over time how to use the Wikipedia tools however I have encountered a couple of issues. The first one was related to the photo of Prof Klinken. The first time I added a photo it was removed by one of the editors because of copyright issues. I recently received a new photo by a person who agreed for the photo to be used on Prof Klinken's page. She completed the permission email to upload on Wikipedia but we are both confused on who can upload the photo and where to upload the permission email. The second issue is with regard to adding an honorifi title, 'CitWA' or recipient of The Western Australian of the Year Award ( I have added the title in the Editor but the change doesn't show on the updated page.

Many thanks in advance for your help, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Osseiran (talkcontribs) 08:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adam Osseiran. Just a couple of general comments, before answering your question.
  1. Please don't post your personal contact info at the Teahouse. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers and for the sake of transparency all Wikipedia related matters (except personal matters) is generally best conducted on Wikipedia itself; in other words, it's unlikely that a Teahouse host will email you or snail mail you to discuss your question. Moreover, as explained in WP:BLPPRIVACY, Wikipedia pages are pretty much visible to anyone who wants to see them, so there's no guarantee that the information you posted will be taken and used in an inappropriate manner.
  2. You can use your real name for your username if you want, and many editors do. Just be aware of the things discussed at WP:REALNAME. In some cases, you may be asked to verify your identity in order to make sure you are who you're claiming to be.
  3. Subjects of Wikipedia articles are people or things deemed to be Wikipedia:Notable for an article to be written about them. In the case of academics, the relevant notability guidelines are WP:BIO and WP:PROF; so, you will need to establish that Klinken satisfies these notability guidelines for an article to be written about him. Wikipedia has millions of articles with more and more being added each and every day. At the same time, articles are constantly being deleted for one reason or another, but much of the time this is because the subject is not considered sufficiently Wikipedia notable to support an article.
  4. When say you volunteered to create a web page for Klinken, there are two red flags raised at least in my opinion. The first one is that a Wikipedia article is not a webpage for the subject it is written about and neither Klinken as the subject nor you as the creator will have any final editorial control over the article content. A Wikipedia article can basically be edited by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime and their edits will not be automatically reverted or undone as long as they comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. When disagreements over article content arise, it's typically the version which best complies with these policies and guidelines as determined by consensus which is the one chosen, and not the version preferred by the subject or the article's creator. So, you might want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing just for reference because it discusses some of downsides of a Wikipedia article. The next red flag is that you say that you're volunteering to write the article. As I posted above, all editors are volunteers, but your post makes it seem that you might have a conflict of interest when it comes to Klinken and anything written about him on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict of interest editing, but it does highly discourage it. Please refer to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for more information on this.
Now regarding the photo you want to upload, as long as you are the copyright holder of the photo (the photographer who takes a photo is generally considered to own the copyright on it), then you can upload the file to Wikimedia Commons under a free license accepted by Commons. You can find out more about that in c:Commons:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, then just upload the photo with the original EXIF data to aid in the verification of copyright ownership. If you're not the original copyright holder, then that person can upload the file to Commons instead. Please note that neither Commons nor Wikipedia will accept a "for Wikipedia use only" type of free license. The copyright holder has to basically agree to let anyone anywhere in the world download the file at any time and use for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative use. The copyright holder is not transferring their copyright to either Commons or Wikipedia, but is rather making a version of the photo available for others to freely use. Moreover, the free licenses accepted by Commons and Wikipedia are not revocable. As for a permission email, it's only real needed when the file has been previously published somewhere before being upload to Commons or Wikipedia under a license neither will except, or some of the other examples given in c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. If a permissions email is necessary, follow the format given in WP:CONSENT and send it to Wikimedia OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

COI Full disclosure[edit]

Hello, please could someone clarify when "full disclosure" should be given, or point me in the direction of the relevant information? I am not a paid editor. Thanks *ptrs4all* (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@*ptrs4all*: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have made such declarations on your user page; that is usually sufficient, but it is also a good idea to mention it if you are requesting an edit to an article in the area of your COI. If you actually edit an article in the area of your COI(which you should avoid doing so directly if possible, but it could happen), it's also a good idea to mention it in the edit summary of your edit. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

.@*331dot*: Thank you. I have put a 'requested edit' on the The Reluctant Tommy article and have contributed to the discussion on its talk page without giving 'full disclosure'. At what point might it be necessary? (I don't want to contravene any policies). *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I would do so with my initial contribution to a relevant talk page.(in the case you speak of, if you go back and do it now, that's fine too.) Users might see your user page, but it's a good idea to point your COI out immediately; the more open you are about it, the better your suggestions will be received. As WP:COI states, "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content." 331dot (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
*331dot* OK, so I should make a full disclosure (saying who I am & my connection with the article/edit) at the point where I made the original 'requested edit' on the article's TP? Sorry to appear dim . It's difficult to get one's head around all this as a newbie.*ptrs4all* (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
No problem, that's why this page is here, to ask questions. Yes, that is what you should do. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
*331dot* Many thanks for your help *ptrs4all* (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi there,

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

The page in question is this one:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Note, the article is Pod Point Ltd., with redirections from Pod Point and POD Point. --CiaPan (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lightningten, welcome to the Teahouse. An administrator is usually required to move over an existing redirect. I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Lightningten, case change renames are allowed; the issue here is that there was already a page at that title; for those issues one can request the move be done at WP:RMTR Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

reliable sources to ios app[edit]

hi, i am frustrated like every new user here who still getting Rejected page, this is my second attempt to create wiki page after +-four years, feelings are coming back... what kind of information you need to verify, i still getting same and similar reason for reject but it is not clear to me. which information and what is reliable source to Most sources what i have seen in accepted ios games are mostly paid reviews. I assume you know that in today's world you can buy anything... from reviews to ratings and user feedbacks, so it is very unclear what 'reliable' really is, please specify in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talkcontribs) 10:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mouseforcats: thanks for your question. Before getting to that topic, I can't help noticing that your username is the same as the game you are writing about ... do you have some connection with the game? If so, you have a Conflict of Interest and you are probably not the right person to write about that subject - if you do then you must follow the directions at WP:COI. As for reliable sources, you need to follow the links that were left by the various reviewers, most especially Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you cannot find in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources that that is probably a sign that it is too soon to write about that game. If it becomes notable and attracts sufficient coverage then it will be a better time to write about it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
omg it is "10th" question here about username and draft name in past few hours instead of getting some information about reliable sense of meaning the word reliable, yes i made the game, i created account and i created draft. so i am pretty sure that i can do anything what i want to do with my app name.
how reliable is reviewer what writing reviews for money????? what kind of world you want ?? all fake just because of marketing? i have success app even without nonsense fb, tw,in,xy,xzy.... without fake reviews, without fake ratings and so now you pushing me to do it like others. no way !
so if i will pay for review like today practice is and you forcing me to do that, who will decide if review is reliable or not, based on what???
and yes much ios games what i can find on wiky has just paid reviews for marketing purposes, it is not reliable source to me. reliable sources are maybe only reviews at official appstore pages. hawg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talkcontribs) 17:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
to COI it has no sense, every app what is listed is listed by creators or publishers or marketing team, they just dont say who they are. so there is no point in name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talkcontribs) 17:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
and to " If you cannot find in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources that that is probably a sign that it is too soon to write about that game. " no it is not too soon, my players are unable to write reviews, have you ever seen cat writing review?? but would be good to have wiki pages. as google prefer games with wiki !!! so thats how we are 'forced' to have wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouseforcats (talkcontribs) 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You have just helped define "Screed." And, it appears, have withdrawn the submission of your draft. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a viable reason to register[edit]

I have coined a term that describes something that does not have a name, namely the bit between Christmas and New Year. I have been using it in the work place since 2014 and it is now being quoted back to me. I would like to register it as word. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaxxi (talkcontribs) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we can only repeat things which have been published elsewhere in reliable sources. Your best bet if you want to introduce a neologism is Urban Dictionary. Incidentally, the period after Christmas Day already has a name. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Past/present tense?[edit]

Hello again! I am currently stuck on how and when to use past or present tense in a sentence.
The sentence in question is here:

In 2003, as a part of a strategy change, Hachette decided to sell magazine companies, regional dailies, and printing companies. Many of the video game magazine-related companies, including Joystick, are sold to the English group Future Plc.

Should I be using "are sold" or "were sold"? This is one of the only sentences in present tense. Most of the other sentences before and after it are in past tense. I just want to know if this is correct or not.

If more context is needed, you can check here. Thank you. StaringAtTheStars (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There must be a link somewhere... Ah yes: MOS:TENSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, it was hidden in MOS. Thank you! StaringAtTheStars (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploading photo[edit]

How can I upload my photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mir Md Ibrahim (talkcontribs) 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Legitimacy of article[edit]

I would like to contribute a short article on ZzTeX, which is a TeX macro package (like LaTeX, AMSTeX, etc.) I am the developer of ZzTeX and it is used by my company to produce technical books for various publishers. It has been in use for about 28 years. It is also used by authors in preparing future editions of their books. It is not a commercial product; I give it to anyone who asks for it.

I would like a short article because people often try to find information about it and end up contacting me. It seems like an article would help those looking for information.

Is this a legitimate Wikipedia article?

~~ Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talkcontribs) 17:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos. Thank you for admitting who you are and what you hope to accomplish. I have no opinion about whether or not Wikipedia should have an article about your software. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (software) to learn more about that issue. The one thing that is clear to me is that you have a conflict of interest and must comply with the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Please read those links very carefully and conduct yourself accordingly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled 1[edit]


Shia karadsheh page :

was deleted because of my writing , i guess i made it in a advertising way, would you help me how to make it more as info, should i just put the links or add the facts of appearances? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissaarab (talkcontribs) 17:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Melissaarab, welcome to the Teahouse. I do appreciate how frustrating it must be to have any page deleted. Only administrators can see deleted content (and I'm not one), so it's hard to know what you wrote about. Searching on that name, I can find nothing on Google to assist me, so I don't even know if its a 'thing' or a person. (I did find this], though, so I'm guessing they're a dancer? The basic criteria for accepting an article here can be found by following these two links: Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). I'm afraid the lack of anything online does suggest this person (if that's what this was about) is highly unlikely to meet these criteria, so you probably won't be able to create the article again until such time as they receive attention in reliable sources such as the mainstream media. I know this must be frustrating, but I fear there's little more that can be done. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Untitled 2[edit]

How to published my Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisha Nasir (talkcontribs) 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nisha Nasir welcome to the Teahouse. What is it that you actually want to publish, please? Promoting ourselves on our userpages is not permitted, and that's the the only thing I can see that you've tried to publish so far. You are permitted to recreate that page, but only if it's to say a few words about yourself that are relevant to any interest you might have in contributing to the work of editing. See Wikipedia:How to use your user space if you want to learn more.
But, if you want to write about a new topic that you believe ought to go into this great encyclopaedia, may I suggest you read a very helpful guide page called Wikipedia:Your first article? This will explain the best way to create a draft article, have it reviewed, and to receive feedback if anything is wrong with it. I hope this answers your question. Please remember to sign the end of your posts with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Wizard[edit]

What is the purpose of the Article Wizard? I have a draft article currently awaiting a review. Why can't I just make that article? Is there a policy that all articles should be processed through the Article Wizard, or is it just a suggestion? Alternate Side Parking (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed it. It is in the pedia now. AfC is only required for non auto confirmed registered users and IP users. It's still a good idea for a newer user, but no, it isn't required. Thanks for a good submission, Alternate Side Parking! John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How do i help out the project[edit]

any ideas what i can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumyes (talkcontribs) 20:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dumyes. Welcome to the Teahouse. Here are a few ideas to get you started:
  • Add a few lines on your userpage about yourself and your interests. You've absolutely no obligation to say anything about your gender, age or where you live, but never reveal any personal details there that you might later regret releasing.
  • Having told us of your main interests, go and browse through some topics relating to those interests. You might spot spelling errors, gaps where you can add a reference to support some statement or other, or perhaps just a better way of wording things. (But please avoid adding factual statements that you believe to be true without supporting them with a citation - those types of edits are liable to be swiftly reverted).
  • Spend some time learning how we roll here. So try out The Wikipedia Adventure where you can collect 15 badges on your userpage as you learn about aspects of editing and creating pages.
  • If you really want idea of things to do, we have around 5 million articles that could do with a bit of tender, loving care. But where to start? I'm going to give you just two links to some pages you might find stimulating for ideas. These are a) Wikipedia:Things to do and b) Wikipedia:Task Center.
  • I'd advise against rushing in immediately to create a new page on some favourite subject. Making a new article from is genuinely the hardest thing to do here, and we lose so many new editors who get demoralised when they encounter the various requirements of 'notability' and 'verifiability' and other fancy words like that which form the backbone of all content here.
  • If you are itching to create a new article, do please read this first: Wikipedia:Your first article. You can take your time to draft up an article and then when you're ready you can submit it for review. Often, first attemopts get turned down, but you'll receive useful pointers as to what's wrong with it and how you should fix it
I'm pinging (i.e. alerting) another user (Denkiden) who I think is at almost the same stage as you and who might find my reply of interest, too. Please let me know if this is helpful, or if you'd like any more specific help. I can promise you that, should the Wikipedia bug bite you, you'll never be stuck for ideas of things to do. All the best for your own personal Wikipedia journey. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone Help[edit]

can someone help add info to the Kavik river camp article. Northatlantic320 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Northatlantic320: I see you've just been blocked indefinitely for being sock puppet. But Kavik was created before that block, and as a place it has potential (per WP:NPLACE). I'll see what I can do. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
oops, too late. It was just deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Further update: Kavik River page now created. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and blogs[edit]

Can i make a blog in wikipedia? And can people see the pages i made in my profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkiden (talkcontribs) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Denkiden: No, you may not make a blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOT. Any pages you create will be visable to everyone. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Denkiden: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a project to write and maintain an encyclopedia, and is not a place to write a blog. All contributions here should be somehow related to building this project. There are numerous sites that do offer a place to write a blog, some of which you might find at this link, but this isn't one of them. Regarding your other question, your edit history and user page are both visible to everyone. Your user page should mostly contain content related to your Wikipedia use or editing, guidelines for user pages can be found at this link. If you have other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


Can i have ideas on how to make a page on denkiden(me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denkiden (talkcontribs) 21:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you so famous that other people have published articles about you? If not, not. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Denkiden, I'm not sure if you were actually asking about userpages (which you might have been calling a 'profile'). Of course, as answered by David notMD and also in the question from you above, unless you have had a number of major newspapers, books or media outlets writing about you in great detail, you stand no chance of having a proper page (i.e. article) about you on Wikipedia. Every person with an article about them is judged against a thing we call our 'Notability' criteria. (If you wish, you can learn more about that at this link: WP:Notability). But if by 'profile' you do mean ideas to put in your own Userpage, then, yes, for sure you may write a little bit about yourself there (avoiding making it promotional, or giving out personal information you'll later regret releasing). You can use it to explain what your interests are and how they relate to your hopes or aspirations for editing this encyclopaedia. Because that's what we're all about here, not making pages about ourselves. (See this link for information on userpages). If you visit this link: Wikipedia:How to use your user space you'll find a simple explanation of how they're used. Once you start editing and decide you like helping out, you might later on want to 'prettify' your userspace. Many editors put things called 'userboxes' on the own pages which announces a little bit about themselves in a graphical way. You can get more ideas at our User Page Design Centre. But remember that we expect editors to be editing and working on the encyclopaedia, not messing around creating fancy userpages all the time. These sorts of things ought really to come later, once you decide to stay and help out.
Why not click on a few of the hyperlinked signatures at the ends of every message here at the Teahouse? That'll take you to the userpages of many different editors, and you can see what they have written in theirs. But for anything else you want to do to write about yourself, you'd have to go somewhere else for that - like Facebook or Wordpress, or pay for your own domain name and build a website. Does that make sense? To take an interactive tour and to learn how Wikipedia works, try The Wikipedia Adventure. There are 15 badges to be gained along the way as you learn how to contribute to building this encyclopaedia. Oh, and if you do post here again, can I ask you to remember to sign your name at the end of every message, please? To do that we have an automated process. It might sound weird, but simply type four keyboard 'tilde' characters (like this: ~~~~) right at the end, and your username and a timestamp will be automatically inserted. Magic stuff. That way we know who said what, and when. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Page blanking[edit]

If I try to blank someone’s talk page, will it trigger the edit filter? (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)