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

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


WP teahouse logo.png

What links should I add in 'see also' section of a new article?[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam, How can I determine which links should I add in the 'see also' section, while I am creating a new article? P.Shiladitya (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, P.Shiladitya, and welcome to the Teahouse. A "See also" section is for links that might be useful to the reader, but that do NOT appear in the article. it is always optional. My advice would be to not worry about it until the article is in a fairly finished form. Alternately, you could add several links you expect to use in later article development, and remove each ad you use it.
I urge you to read Your First Article. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and can cause significant frustration. DES (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear @DESiegel: Sir, Thanks for your kind reply. --P.Shiladitya (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

edits for improval of an article with COI[edit]

Hi I have created the article Simon Cohen. I have a declared conflict of interest as I am currently working together with the subject of the page. With the help and advice that I have gotten from the Wikipedia community, it seems like the page could use some further improvement. I have suggested some of these improvements on the talk page but I'm unsure if I should move forward and edit the article on my own, given my COI. I'm grateful for any guidelines on this, as I hope to learn the best practices. Thank you MatildeZ (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi MatildeZ. If you have a specific improvement in mind, the best practice for COI editors is to request it on the talk page (in a "change X to Y because of reference Z" format), adding the "magic text" {{request edit}} at the beginning of your request. The "magic text" is called a template, and that template causes the request to appear in the list of requested edits that other editors patrol regularly. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tigraan and thanks for your reply! I'll definitely do that. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Need help copy editing so does not read like advertisement?[edit]

Hi! I could use any help copy editing so that does not read like an advertisement. So far I have removed any flowery language and just stated the facts of what has been reported about the corporation. (I have added lots of citations and recent published information about this company to meet notability) Thank you for any help! EricPfromTustin (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The question, EricPfromTustin, is, What have people who have no connection with Shot Tower published about it? Wikipedia has no interest at all in what Dunn and Law say about Shot Tower: none. But, leaving aside the one that is just a listing, the first three references are all clearly based on interviews or press releases from Shot Tower (their language is almost identical, for one thing). If you take out of the first few paragraphs everything that is not cited to reliable independent source, there's essentially nothing left. Furthermore, the third paragraph (starting "Shot Tower advised") is not supported by even the sources that are adduced: Billboard says that Dunn and Law have worked on those things, not that Shot Tower will (that may be the case, but the source does not say it).
I know that I haven't directly addressed your question about copy editing. But nearly always on Wikipedia, the way to avoid sounding like an advertisement is by sticking to summarising what independent sources say, and ignoring absolutely everything that anybody associated with the subject has said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Should uncredited roles be added to movie articles?[edit]

In the characters section, I mean. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. The answer it totally contextual. What the specific situation is; that the appearance can be reliably sourced; the depth of the role—exercise of encyclopedic judgment. In short, in my opinion this cannot be answered in the general.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How can I edit articles which wiki cannot allow or says prevent from vandalism[edit]

Hello sir This is very grateful for me to stand in a such a huge platform. Wiki didn't allow me To edit some pages which are protected so how and when can I edit all articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akram988 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Akram988, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can write an edit request on the article's talk page, describing what you wanted to change. If you keep editing on Wikipedia, you are also on your way to becoming an established Wikipedian who can edit even protected articles. For instance, the some protected pages can be edited by users who are autoconfirmed (that is to say, users whose accounts are more than 4 days old and who have made more than 10 edits on Wikipedia). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How do i undo an edit done by the bot at Rudra (band)[edit]

I recently added few images and made reference to articles and blog posts, one of the blog is not a reputable source but the bot did an undo on all the images i uploaded and other links as well, how can undo my edits and remove the non reputable links ? KannanNaidu (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Rudra (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) The simplest way would be to go to the article history, select the appropriate revision, open it and Edit. Once you correct the version and save it, you overwrite the current version, effectively undoing all intermediate changes.
But I can see you did it already: [1] [2] :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, KannanNaidu, and welcome to the Teahouse.I note you added a cite to which I am dubious about. I don't know this particular source, but anything at wordpress makes me nervous. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? Also, please read my note about cite formatting at Talk:Rudra (band). Full (or at least fuller) source metadata is needed. DES (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@KannanNaidu: I followed the DES's request above and expanded one ref for you as an example. Please see special:diff/781131183.
For more hints please visit Wikipedia:Citation templates. --CiaPan (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: ok, i have removed the ref to the wordpress site. Thank you for the cite formatting guide. KannanNaidu (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@CiaPan: Thank you for the cite edit ref example. Yes, i did select the appropiate revision and edit again. KannanNaidu (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@KannanNaidu: Good work! :) --CiaPan (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an additional review by wiki Physics?[edit]

Hi, I have just finished an article on a particular optical spectroscopy technique in my sandbox and submitted the article for a review. Several hours later I received a comment: "Please request a review at WP:WikiProject Physics or WP:WikiProject Engineering. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)". I am confused now. Haven't I submitted the article for a review already? What is WP:Wikiprojects and what is the purpose of submitting review there? And finally, how do I submit an article for a review there, I do not see any "submit for review" buttons? Thank you for any help Clearscience (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clearscience that is a rather confusing message. It is actually the AFC reviewer who would request assistance from a relevant WikiProject, not you, so you can ignore that message. I have just asked the subject specialists at WikiProject Physics to look it over. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Courtesy pinging @Robert McClenon:. Rojomoke (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you for the clarification!

Clearscience (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

i have created a page but when i search in wikipedia search button it is not shown there[edit]

Plz solve my problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassir khoja (talkcontribs) 08:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You created your user page (which is not an article at User:Yassir khoja. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Yassir khoja I have made a few neccessary corrections for you - removed a few templates that should only be used in mainspace and also corrected the type of infobox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Jan Tomasow, violinist[edit]

Hello! I've submitted an article (,_violinist). The submission was declined on 26 March 2017 by KGirlTrucker81 (talk). The reason why it was declined is the following:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

I made some editing to my original submission and resubmitted the new version sometime in April. The edited draft was supposed to emphasize the importance or notability of the musician I wrote about but, it seems not have had any effect as I have not got any kind of information about the status.

Also asked the original reviewer some questions about her comment as I could not understand the meaning of acronyms such as "GNG! or "BIO" in the context.

I have not got any answer to my query as of today. I only know that the resubmitted draft is currently awaiting re-review.

Would it be possible to be informed about what is going on about my draft at Wikipedia?

Thankfully, Ruben

Rtomasov (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG are the General Notability Guidelines, which all articles must follow, and WP:BIO are the additional rules for biographies of living people. Your article does not include any references to WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate notability. We need to be able to follow up on those "reliable sources that are independent of the subject".See also WP:Notability, WP:Your First Article and WP:Referencing for beginners. Rojomoke (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ruben, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you related to Jan Tomasov? If so, please be aware that Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest, and discourages you from creating or directly editing an article about him, because you may find it hard to write sufficiently neutrally. Please be aware that Wikipedia has no interest in what Jan Tomasov, or his friends, relatives, or associates, have said about him: it is only interest in what people who have no connection with him have published in reliable places (and if there is not at present enough such material available, then no article about him will be accepted at the moment). --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined all my edits[edit]

Hello I made some edits for the article Numbers gang why they all declined? thank you for your response B-Null (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, B-Null. Judging by the article's history, it seems to be because you adding copyrighted material. I can't actually see your edits because they have been supressed, as is policy for copyright infringements, so I can't comment much more than that, but please do take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Ive resubmitted my article after the edits. However, my sandbox still shows the unedited article and not the one thats been re-edited. I want to ensure that the article submitted is the edited one. RadhikaAnilkumar (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi RadhikaAnilkumar, welcome to the Teahouse. User:RadhikaAnilkumar/sandbox has not been submitted and will be ignored as long as you don't submit it. Draft:Tharavadu (Restaurant) has been submitted, declined, resubmitted, and is currently awaiting re-review. You are welcome to edit it further before the review. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It looks like you have two versions, one in your sandbox and one in draft space: Draft:Tharavadu (Restaurant). The draft version is the one that would be published. I would suggest you edit that one to your liking and delete (just edit out) the one in your sandbox so it is not as confusing. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How to title a biography of a living person with a commonly used name[edit]

Hello Community,

My name is Laura and I am a non-paid assistant to a musician. Due to an upcoming record release, the record company has requested that the musician create a Wikipedia page for himself "or they will do it". Since I am typing up and revising a first draft of the person's biography I feel I am the correct person to do this task. By the time of publication of the biography I expect to be an official 'co-author' or have the cover title read by Billy Davis 'with' (my name).

Billy Davis is a very common name and there are already many Billy Davis entries on Wikipedia. The Billy Davis I refer to was born with a common 'name' that are simply initials 'JC'. Billy didn't find out about his birth initials (name) until he went to school and his mother had to explain to his teacher that he would not answer to the official name on record. His driver license shows his name like this: J C DAVIS. Most people, even close to him, are not aware that of his birth name.

Billy is a musician, inducted into three Halls of Fame including The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His instrument is guitar (electric) and he is also a song-writer. He spent 25 years as one of The Midnighters, of Hank Ballard and The Midnighters (as opposed to being in the back-up band, which Hank also toured with). He is registered with BMI as JC Billy Davis.

He is from Detroit currently and his facebook page is: Billy Davis Detroit.

My first instinct was to create a page called JC Billy Davis.

On initial review of the how-to materials I now have doubt as to how to title Billy's biography of a living person. Billy is currently 79 years old and is a working musician. His genre is not fixed; he writes and performs music of all genres; in Detroit he is heavily associated with the Blues (genre) community. He himself is not comfortable putting just one category upon his work. Recently a term called Roots Music has come into general use and this term is the closest I have found to categorize Billy's musical genre.

Thanks for any advice you may give to help me title this biography. I plan on doing the draft in the Sandbox.

Legrimster (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A standard way to distinguish the article fform articles about other people known as Billy Davis would be to title it "Billy Davis (musician)". There's already an article on Bill Davis (musician), so it might be best to use what we call hatnotes, to distinguish the two musicians, Bill and Billy. But there's no need for you to be concerned about any of that. Just work on a draft article (concentrating on establishing that he's notable as Wikipedia defines that word). If it gets accepted by a reviewer, it'll be the reviewer's job to move it to main article space with a suitable title. Maproom (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Legrimster: Hi Legrimster, thanks for your question. Let's take your questions one at a time:
  • Titling the article: This is an interesting case, as there is also a Billy Davis (songwriter) who I assume refers to a different person than who you are writing about. We do have some guidelines around disambiguating topics with the same name. I agree with Maproom's suggestion above, and I wouldn't recommend using his birthname, simply because it is not well known or publicized-- article titles should reflect how the subject is generally referred to in published sources.
  • On the genre: Be careful about genre choices. Davis's genre may not be fixed, but what matters for article writing is what sources consider his genre(s) to be. If there are sources you can point to that associate his music with roots music, that's great, but otherwise it's not appropriate to add it. There are a lot of musical genres that spring up on Wikipedia articles that don't appear to have any substantive basis, so it's important that genres, especially newer ones, can be supported by an independent source.
  • On writing the article: It sounds like the subject is notable if they are in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, but just a word of caution to avoid promotional language when writing the article. If you'd like, I can look over the article when you're finished drafting it to suggest any changes.
Thanks for your questions! I JethroBT drop me a line 16:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I assume we're not talking about Billy Davis Jr.. Common name, I know, but that Billy Davis is also 79 (or will be next month). RivertorchFIREWATER 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Legrimster (Laura), and welcome to the Teahouse. There are several issues that must be addressed here.
  • The first issue is to determine whether this Billy Davis is what Wikipedia calls Notable. This is perhaps an unfortunate term for the concept. In Wikipedia terms a subject is notable if there are multiple, independent professionally published reliable sources that discuss the subject is some detail. Not a mere passing mention, not entries in directories, not announcements of his performances, not blogs or fan sites, and not press releases or stories based on PRs. Sources such as magazine or newspaper articles, or equivalent online sources.
  • Second is that you have a clear conflict of interest on this issue. You need to declare this, preferably on the talk page of such an article, if it is created, and you need to be very careful to write neutrally and include only content that is clearly supported by reliable sources, and to cite those sources.
  • Third, writing a new article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. It is best if a new editor works on other things for a while first. But if you want to go ahead with creating an article, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Ypur First Article, and referencing for Beginners. Then, I strongly urge you not to create a new article directly in mainspace, but to use the article wizard to create a Draft under the Articles for creation project. This will allow an experienced editor to review your work once you think it is ready, and that editor will move it to mainspace if it passes review. Otherwise the new article will be subject to all the Wikipedia rules. from the moment of its creation, and could easily be deleted within minutes or hours if it does not comply.
  • Fourth, you and Billy need to be aware that it will not be your article. Once you post something to Wikipedia, anyone may edit it in any way. Anyone may change it or add additional facts to the article, even unfavorable facts, provided that there are sources cited to support them. If there are matters on public record that you and he would not want widely published, don't create a Wikipedia article about him.
  • Finally, we get to the issue of the article title. It could be called "Billy Davis (roots musician)". See Billy Davis for a list of articles that we already have on people with some version of that name. The main rule is that the title should be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, followed by a qualifier in parenthesis if needed to make the name unique on Wikipedia. Profession is the most common qualifier for biography articles, followed by year of birth. See Wikipedia:Article titles for more detail on this.
I hope the above was helpful. Please feel free to ask any followup questions you wan t right in this thread (section). DES (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Legrimster. Regarding the issue of notability, I believe that there is a very strong presumption that a musician who is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is notable, although you need to prove that by providing references to significant coverage in reliable sources. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame web page for The Midnighters makes it clear that Billy Davis is considered a full fledged member of that group, so that claim to notability is entirely legitimate. You began by discussing a byline for a an article about Davis. We do not ever use bylines on Wikipedia since a well developed article may have dozens or hundreds of contributors. If you are the main contributor, the article history will make that clear. I am a Detroit native. If I can be of assistance, please let me know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting help with translation[edit]

Hi! I received a notification that I had a message on my Wikipedia Arabic talk page. I also noticed that someone posted a discussion on what I think is my Wikipedia Arabic talk page. Can someone help me find my actual talk page message and translate it for me, as I do not speak Arabic, and I cannot get Google Translate to do an adequate translation for me? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I used Google Chrome's translate feature and it looks like a standard welcome message. Here is a screenshot. Random character sequence (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just got a similar message myself on Arabic Wikipedia. Maybe they're doing a mass welcome today! Random character sequence (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation, Random character sequence! I wondered why I would have gotten that message, considering that, if I recall correctly, I have only ever been to the Arabic Wikipedia to read that message. Thanks again for the translation! Noah Kastin (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Noah Kastin: Your account is automatically created at a Wikimedia wiki if you visit any page at the wiki while logged in at another wiki. Special:CentralAuth/Noah Kastin shows where your account has been created. Some wikis have bots which automatically post a welcome message to new accounts. The logs indicate your account creation and the bot post was the same minute and in fact the same second 23:30:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC). That makes it very likely that the bot responded to you visiting the wiki and not the other way around, unless the bot is malfunctioning, and you viewed or refreshed a Wikimedia page at another wiki the same second as the bot post to see the notification, and then also managed to click the link to the Arabic Wikipedia that same second. Your browser may have a browser history which can show where you were at the time. The other edits by the bot at the time were also to accounts registered the same minute as the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, PrimeHunter! It does seem reasonable that the bot would respond to me visiting Arabic Wikipedia and not the other way around. I might have visited the Arabic Wikipedia without realizing it, due to the fact that SammyMajed, who I had recently encountered due to this discussion, has a link to the Arabic Wikipedia in his signature, which I might have accidentally clicked. At any rate, thanks for the information! It is definitely useful. Noah Kastin (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Noah Kastin: Yes, Noah, I can confirm that this message is actually a welcome message. I have welcome messages in WP Ukrainian, WP Lithuanian, and WP Malayalam. I do not know why though.  • Sammy Majed  • Talk  • Creations • Wikipedia Arabic  • 15:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@SammyMajed: Thanks for the update! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar etiquette[edit]

Hi! About a month and a half ago, I posted this discussion about barnstar etiquette at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. However, nobody seems to have responded to my questions yet. Can you help answer them? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you may put a Barnstar and other awards on your userpage. User page guildelines are at WP:UP. Yes, you may thank other users. It does not matter who gave you the Barnstar or why. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: Thanks for the answer! Noah Kastin (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Whole numbers[edit]

2=[{[{[2^2-2]^2-2}^2-2]^2-2}.....] We can express every whole numbers in this way... Just by replacing 2^2-2 by n^2-n(n-1) Udeepta Bora — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udeepta Bora (talkcontribs) 02:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for editing Wikipedia, Udeepta Bora! I am confused about what your request is. Can you please rephrase it? Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the above is a true statement of number theory, although its expression is not as clear to me as it might be. But I don't see what it has to do with editing Wikipedia. Did you want to add this fact to a Wikipedia article, Udeepta Bora? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talkcontribs) 03:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Udeepta Bora: I see at Special:Contributions/Udeepta Bora that you have been adding this to articles. It's a true statement since n^2-n(n-1) = n^2-n^2+n = n, but I don't see the relevance of expressing a number in a complicated way which involves the number itself. It's like saying "An elephant is an elephant where you put a haddock on top and then remove the haddock". True, but not very helpful if you don't already know what an elephant is. I agree with the removal by other editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Will my page survive and evolve or be deleted? (Poisons in Alternative medicines)[edit]

I am very dumb now cos I got lead and heavy metal poisoning due to ayurvedic medicine. I don't want this to happen to others. So, I'm creating a page called "Poisons in alternative medicine". I can't write or research well cos I'm very retarded. I will write as well as I can. Maybe I will also post it in Skeptic Wikis. Will someone on Wikipedia be able to help me. Will the page survive. Userbaba (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Userbaba! I'm happy to tell you that I think that what you want may already exist (and so you may not need to write a whole page for it)! If the draft you are referring to is Draft:Poisons in Alternative Medicine, the information you seem to be looking for (that Ayurvedic medicine can contain heavy metals and cause heavy metal poisioning) exists on the Ayurveda page, which you seem to have an interest in the information being on. Here is a quote from the Ayurveda article (lede, third paragraph, fourth sentence):

Close to 21% of Ayurveda U.S. and Indian-manufactured patent medicines sold through the Internet were found to contain toxic levels of heavy metals, specifically lead, mercury, and arsenic.[1]

As for the Bhasma article, which you also seem to have an interest in the information being on, I can't find solid evidence of Bhasmas sometimes containing heavy metal poisoning. However, there is a discussion on Bhasma's talk page regarding whether or not this information should be added to the article.
If you have any questions, please let me know, and I will try to help.
Noah Kastin (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Most bhasmas use mercury for purification. I will try to find sources. The bhasma page may contain sources on how Bhasmas are prepared. Userbaba (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion-related references

Where can I make my own Wikipedia page[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizneyfreak (talkcontribs) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Dizneyfreak! If you can explain what you mean by "your" Wikipedia page, I would appreciate that! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Dizneyfreak. If you mean "Where can I make a page about what I am interested in doing as a Wikipedia editor?", you are welcome to create your User page for that purpose. If you mean "Where can I create an article about me?" the answer is, Please don't. Autobiography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, and all articles should be based almost entirely on reliably published sources independent of the subject. Are there books or articles about you, written by people who have no connection with you? If there are, we say that you are notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word) and there may be an article about you - though you should not be the one to write it. If there are not, then no article about you will be accepted, however it is written; any more than an article about me would be accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting move back to draft[edit]

How do I initiate a request for moving an unfinished article back to draftspace from mainspace. Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner. was deleted as A7 before. The user went to AfC, where it was rejected again User:Priti Saini/Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner. She then bypassed AfC and had it created in Mainspace. I tried messaging her, and even removed much of the spammy content in the article to elicit a response, but to no avail. She remains incognito. I don't want to delete this again, and would like her to work on it in draftspace. How do I initiate a proposal for the move. Jupitus Smart 05:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Jupitus Smart! As the move seems likely to be controversial, I would suggest following the directions laid out at WP:RM#CM. Thanks again for asking! Noah Kastin (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that is how its usually done, @Noah Kastin:. Because I have done requested moves before, and I have never seen a case of a mainspace to draftspace move there. I checked again now, and there is not 1 instance of such a move even now. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily, I would just move the article to Draft:Shri Shantinath Temple and Seva Sansthan, Sangamner, Jupitus Smart, but in this case we would then have duplicate drafts, what with the version in userspace. Perhaps you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help what the best approach would be? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have acted upon your advice, @Cordless Larry:. Hopefully something will come of it now.Jupitus Smart 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jupitus Smart and Cordless Larry: Thanks for cleaning this up! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all. That has been taken care off. Jupitus Smart 16:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know how to modify the onluxy page i created, in order to pass the audit[edit]

I would like to know how to modify the onluxy page, in order to pass the audit (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhu2017 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Onluxy. There isn't really an "audit", but pages that are promotional or constitute advertising are generally quickly deleted. Pages that violate other policies are often deleted also. Text such as "A Millionaire Matchmaker Club that facilitates communication between interested singles who like all things Luxury." which was present in Onluxy before it was deleted, are very promotional.
Also, user names that are also the names of businesses, or that imply shared use, or are promotional, are not permitted. DES (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I see on looking further that your user name is not User:onluxy, but is actually User:Tomhu2017. Please do not imitate a standard signature with a user name other than your own. DES (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: If you look further, I think you'll find that the user's username was indeed User:onluxy at the time of the posting, so the signature was valid at that time, but the user was renamed subsequently after being warned that the original username was unacceptable. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, David Biddulph. I should have checked further. Of course a rename will have that effect. Tomhu2017, my apologies for this mistake. You did nothing incorrect in regards to your signature.DES (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Turnaround time/Submitting for review[edit]

I have saved the draft and saved changes.Where can i see the option to submit for review ? Can any one help me ? I know our dear editors are super busy with reviews but wanted to know an estimate of whats the turnaround time or a probability of article going live on wiki ?

IPSid (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi IPSid. Once you are done editing a draft, you can submit it for review by placing this code at the top and saving: {{subst:submit}}. There really is no way to guess how long it will take for a volunteer to come and perform a review—it makes take moments or weeks. However, in this case I have deleted the draft as a blatant copyright infringement of ideapokes' website and other sources, as well as its use of close paraphrasing.

If you own or have the authority to release that text for use here, you would have to formally release it into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license (to the world, irrevocably). However, the text was highly promotional (which is why I also deleted the draft as blatant advertising), so going through a process to verifiably release that text would not be useful here.

I'm not sure this company is notable (in which case no article is even possible) but if it is, an article would need to not be a commercial, and cannot violate copyright.

If you are intent on trying again, please comply with our mandatory disclosure requirements for editing by persons with a financial stake in a topic (as obviously applicable here). It's not very difficult. You can just add to your userpage a filled-out {{paid}} template, e.g., {{paid|user=IPSid|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Introduction to Myself[edit]

Hello, I am a new editor. I have been updating music related things for months now. I am looking to make pages for new singles from artists that are on the rise. Most of the time, I update the Hot Christian Songs article on the Billboard site. With this responsibility, I would like to be confirmed as a editor of Wikipedia. If I'm not accepted I will try my best to get a better application. Thank you for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BraedenAEW (talkcontribs)

Hi BraedenAEW. The moment you edited Wikipedia (I assume by an IP address, since you didn't make any of the edits you are speaking about above using your account) you became an editor. There is no confirmation process. You are an editor of Wikipedia. The only "acceptance" is as you gain experience and become better known using a single account you will probably start to feel more connected by that single identity.

While it's possible that these artists "on the rise" are notable, and their singles are as well, the fact you said that automatically makes me wonder whether they aren't. New artists that have become quite famous may be, but they will be the rarity. Understand that articles need to be about notable subjects, as we use that word here to mean having received significant and non-trivial coverage (not mere mentions) in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely unconnected with the topic of the article, from which a verifiable article can be written, without any original research involved. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is never the place to first write about any topic, but follows the world already taking note of topics by writing about them. The essay Wikipedia:Up and coming next big thing may be informative.

And even if an artist has become well known and written about out in the world, such that an article is warranted, often an article on his or her singles and albums belongs in a single article on the artist, and not as multiple, stand-alone entries. Please see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music).

By the way, on discussion pages like this one (but never in articles), you should announce yourself by signing your posts. Just place four tildes (~~~~) after a post like yours above, which will automatically format as your signature with a timestamp when you save. These can also be placed by clicking on the button in the interface you should see that looks like or . Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Jubayer. I am new to Wikipedia. And thanks so much for the invitation to this group. :D User_talk:Hossainjubayer

@BraedenAEW: If you are asking about WP:CONFIRM, your account will become autoconfirmed after it is at least four days old with at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits and Maintenance Templates[edit]

Hi -

I'm a new editor and recently made revisions to an article ( that had a maintenance template header. I believe I addressed several of the concerns addressed in the header, but not all. For example, I updated the article and added additional citations for the current material, but I didn't do anything about the original research issue.

So - what should I do about the template? Not sure how to delete it, or whether I can delete portions of it.

Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks! Timezero0093 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timezero0093. If you look at the template in the article which bundles these concerns, you'll see in its text a link in this form: "(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)". That is a page I wrote to address these issue. If you go to the Specific template guidance section near the bottom of the page and reveal the instructions for "{{Multiple issues}}", you will find further tailored material for the issue in your question. If after looking at that page you have any remaining questions, please do come back here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit. I deleted one tag, but left the other two as I still believe they're germane. I will work on addressing those in the future. I appreciate the assistance.Timezero0093 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

confirmed user[edit]

When do I get confirmed to Wikipedia?--Proposed deletion tagger (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:CONFIRM. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Asking for feedback: replacement for Teahouse Header page[edit]

This discussion has been moved to WT:Teahouse

Greetings, Recently I added a Header 2 page that may be an improvement of the current Teahouse header. If you have any comments or suggestions, please add them here. While everyone is welcome in this discussion, I would be especially interested in feedback from our current Teahouse hosts. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

JoeHebda, This kind of discussion about how to improve the Teahouse itself belongs on the teahouse talk page, where I saw you placed a version of this notice. It should not be on the main teahouse page, which is for questions about how to use Wikipedia. DES (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for posting here. I did strikeout above so there is no need to make any comments on this page. JoeHebda • (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please Help me.[edit]

Please how can I get a Wikipedia editor to write an article about me? Can you please get an editor to write an article about me because it is against the rules to write an article about me by myself which is why I need someone to do so for me. Thanks, I will be expecting a reply soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KING JOFRE (talkcontribs) 19:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi KING JOFRE and welcome to the teahouse. You need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service, but if you can show that you are WP:Notable in the Wikipedia sense that you have been written about extensively in independent WP:Reliable sources the you can request an article at WP:Requested articles. Google can find only a facebook profile, and that is neither independent nor reliable, and probably isn't you. Dbfirs 19:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What about if I provide you with links to my Tv show on youtube to see the celebrities who have been on my show so you can be assured that I am a known brand in my country / continent...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KING JOFRE (talkcontribs) 00:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia articles are based on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject but completely independent of the subject. Your TV show does not demonstrate that anyone who does not work for you cares. Being a known brand does not matter.
Also you should not write articles about yourself or your business ventures, especially those that promote or advertise your business. And if you are a "known brand," we need to block you because we do not allow user names to represent brands. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)



Can I translate ANY english wikipedia article into a different language or are there some articles that are relevant in some countries and not in others?

Pianoguysfantalktome 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good, and difficult, question.
I've seen an article translated from German Wikipedia rejected when created on English Wikipedia, because its subject was found to be not "notable" by en:WP's standards. It wasn't that the subject was of more interest to German speakers than to English speakers; but each Wikipedia has its own rules, and it seems the rules governing notability at English and German WPs are different.
And I imagine that if you took articles on Brazilian villages from en:WP, translated them into Mingrelian, and added them to Mingrelian Wikipedia, while it doesn't yet have article on some Brazilian cities, people there might wonder what you were up to.
I think the best place to get a good answer will be the Help Desk, or equivalent, of whichever Wikipedia you plan to contribute to. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


i wrote a short article about my friend website it was deleted do you mean i can not talk about a good website and advertise in your site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthjoy2016 (talkcontribs) 07:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we mean. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not allow articles on subjects until they have been written about elsewhere in independent WP:Reliable sources. Those are the rules of an encyclopaedia which is what Wikipedia aims to be. Dbfirs 09:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing an article to a redirect?[edit]

I've just edited Kingdom of EnenKio to get everything sourced to a RS. In the course of doing that, it's ended up as a stub, rather than the usual Lead/Body format. Normally, I'd leave it at that.

However, the article on Wake Island includes a section on the Territorial claim by the Marshall Islands. Although a separate issue (as the Marshall Islands are a real country, whereas the KoE is an internet fraud micronation), it includes a paragraph on the KoE. I've edited that as well to add refs, and now it's substantially the same as the KoE article. The only real difference is the quote in the KoE article, which isn't really necessary in an encyclopaedia.

So, is it alright to just blank the KoE page and redirect to the section on the Wake Island page? Or should I go through a deletion process? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bromley86 and Welcome to the Teahouse. Any editor may convert any article into a redirect at any time, if the editor honestly believes this will improve the project. Similarly, any editor may revert such a change, or may convert any redirect into an article, if that seems to be an improvement. No deletion process or other special process is needed in either case. The history is preserved, so no deletion has happened in the sense that Wikipedia uses that term. Go right ahead. Of course if you think there is likely to be controversy, a discussion on a article talk page might be a good idea, first, but there is no standard form or process for such a discussion (well there is the RFC process as there can be for any talk page discussion, but often that is overkill.) DES (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Cheers DES! Bromley86 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits not detailed enough[edit]

Just spotted a red link ("cembalon") on the page for "Those Were the Days (song)". From the context ("The hammered dulcimer, or cembalon") I realised that the correct word was "Cimbalom" which already has its own wiki entry - the article starts "The cimbalom is a concert hammered dulcimer". Is this enough to accept my edit? If not, what need I do to get the edit confirmed? Laury Burr (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laury Burr if you simply correct the spelling of "cembalon" to "cimbalom" the link will automatically be fixed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Laury Burr. Roger is correct. In general there is no need to have any edits "confirmed" -- they will be displayed as soon as you save them. (A few pages have "pending changes protection" where an experienced editor must confirm changes. Those Were the Days (song) is not one of those pages.) DES (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I rename the title?[edit]

Hello. I would like to rename the article title mini-bar to minibar, which is far more used. How do I do that?

I looked for this info and could not find it. After manoeuvring trough a jungle of information, I found that this is (for some reason) called Moving a page. However, that tutorial seems outdated, as in Step 2 it tells me to click on the "Move" link on the bottom of the page, which I could not locate (that link is probably removed from the template in an update).

Thank you, Amin (Talk) 13:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Amin, and welcome to the Teahouse. In step two of the directions on Help:How_to_move_a_page, you need to look for a move look near the top of the page to be moved. Then in step three there is a move button near the bottom of the pop-up form on which yu enter the move destination and reasons.
It is called "moving" since it has the effect of moving the article from one "place" to another, and also by analogy with the MS-DOS (and later Windows) "File Move" function, which also acts by renaming a file, but can "move" it from one folder to another. DES (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @DESiegel: for your help. I can't believe I misread the tutorial, you're right LOL. So I located the Move link and filled the page out.
However, the move could not be complete because of an error: "a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.". I think the problem is that Minibar already exists (it's a redirect to Mini-bar).
What is the logical next step for me? Is there a way I can delete the redirect, so I can then retry completing the move?
Thank you. Amin (Talk) 14:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Amin: The next logical step is to make a request over at WP:RM/TR so an admin or page mover (such as myself) can perform the move, if they feel it would be uncontroversial. Alternatively, you can ask one of us personally to perform the move for you. SkyWarrior 15:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done Hello again, Amin. I have done the move, while preserving the history of a different article hidden under the old redirect. Thanks for drawing attention to this. DES (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@DESiegel: @SkyWarrior:, Thank you. The next time I will know how to perform a Move, or if there's is a barrier, request help from a page-mover. Amin (Talk) 15:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


I JUST EDITING A PAGE BUT ITS NOT COMING UP , WHY Maduagwuifeanyi (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Maduagwuifeanyi, and welcome to the Teahouse. You created Importance of office equipment recently. New articles are not indexed by search engines such as Google until they are 30 days old, or until an experienced editor has "patrolled" them, whichever comes first. In this case, however, the new article was deleted as an effective duplicate of the existing article Office supplies, and more importantly, as a copyright infringement of <>. Please do not in future copy text from other websites into Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text except as a short quote, marked as such, attributed to the author, and cited to a source. The one exception is donated content. But that process licenses the text for anyone to reuse or modify in any way at any time, and must be done by the copyright holder of the original. It is usually not the way to go. Generally one should rewrite content in one's own words to place it in Wikipedia. DES (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I revive an archived discussion on a talk page?[edit]

Hello, I would like to add a comment to an old discussion on a talk page, it doesn't make sense to start a new topic. But the discussion is now in the archive. How do I revive it? Thank you Libby EMAcomm (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Libby EMAcomm, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the old discussion has been archived, start a new discussion section on the talk page, and include a link to the archived section, with a mention of the previous discussion. DES (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Analytics of external links[edit]

Hello, If I add an external link to a Wikipedia page, is there a way I tell if/how often it has been clicked? Thank you Libby EMAcomm (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Libby EMAcomm, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, it is not possible to check how many times an external link has been accessed through Wikipedia. We can't check it on Wikipedia, and because all links from Wikipedia automatically add the nofollow attribute, the host of the target website can't know which requests have come from Wikipedia either. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

ghost signature in question box[edit]

I have a question to ask here, but first: The question box has the following at the bottom in washed-out blue:

- Weird Al Legorhythm(Hello, World!)

apparently a ghost from the question at the top of the page. Refreshing the page doesn't change it. I'm pretty sure it should be fixed. --Thnidu (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're seeing that (I'm not), but this is related to Jpkent's post at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Teahouse is blocking me. Why?. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Table of contents?[edit]

I've noticed that some talk pages don't have tables of contents, why is this so and how do I resolve it? The Verified Cactus 100% 18:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus A table of contents is automagically generated when a page has four or more properly formatted section headings. The TOC can however be supressed by placing __NOTOC__ on the page. Conversely a TOC can be forced on a page with fewer than four sections with __FORCETOC__, however such exceptions need a good reason. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Saving New Articles[edit]

I'm midway through writing a new article and don't know how to save it. Seems simple and I'm sure there's an easy fix. Thanks for help BenjaminLemley (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BenjaminLemley. Below the editing window is a button labeled "Save changes". That should work to save changes either to an existing article or a new one you've just created. (I'm assuming you're not using visual editor or working on a mobile device. If you are, please indicate.) However, I highly recommend that the writing process itself take place off-wiki; otherwise, there's always a chance of losing the only copy of what you've written. You can use a basic app such as TextEdit (Mac) or Notepad (Windows) or a word-processing app (just make sure that curly quotes or smart quotes are disabled) and then paste your work onto a Wikipedia page. It looks as if you may already have had a page you created deleted. You can use your sandbox for early drafts and for practicing things like saving pages. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Piping Feature[edit]

What is a piping feature in Wiki editing and how it should be used? Is there an article or link for it? AtulR (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi AtulR. Here's a little trick. Almost anything you see in the interface and much lingo you hear bandied about here will have a page at whatever the word/phrase is, appended after "Wikipedia:" Note also that "WP:" works the same as "Wikipedia". Here, Wikipedia:Pipe (WP:pipe) as well as Wikipedia:piping (and all the other titles here) will land you at the page Wikipedia:Piped link, which should explain this issue. If after reading that page you have any remaining questions, please come back and ask. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Date preferences?[edit]

Hello again, Teahouse hosts,

I have a question about date formats. According to MOS:ENGVAR, The English Wikipedia prefers no major national varieties over the language of any other. These varieties differ in a number of ways, including…date formatting. However, MOS:DATEFORMAT includes a specific list of what formats are acceptible. Which should I refer to? Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alt3no. I believe the suggested formats in DATEFORMAT encompass the usual ways of expressing the dates in various parts of the English-speaking world. Have you noted a discrepancy or omission? RivertorchFIREWATER 04:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No. I've just noticed a generally casual nature in which dates are used in articles. While the manual of style outlines what formats should be used (i.e. 2 August 2001; August 2, 2001, among others), are there certain formats that should never be used (i.e. 02 Aug '01; that one seems rather obvious)? Should dates like that be reverted, even? Or should they be left alone, as it's possible that they may be included as per MOS:ENGVAR? If it becomes evident through a talk page discussuon that the editor who used this format comes from a country or region where use of the format is relatively common, should it be left alone? Or should it be converted to the common English format?
Sorry if I'm throwing out alot of text. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
MOS:BADDATE says "Do not abbreviate year". Any of the formats at MOS:BADDATE should be corrected. The formats should be consistent within the article, as stated at MOS:DATEUNIFY. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That pretty much covers my question. A comfortable forum, this Teahouse is. Best, Alt3no: Discuss — 14:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "unconstructive edits"[edit]

Lately, I have been editing pages to allow for easier navigation from one Wikipedia page to the next (i.e. linking pages through chronology). But fellow users have been reverting these edits and calling them "unconstructive" (which isn't a word) and "warning" me.

I am not using these page link additions as sources for the articles. I merely was adding them to allow other readers easier access to other related pages. Is this frowned upon by Wikipedia? And if so, why? Mariacricket (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mariacricket. I looked at the most recent warning on your talk page. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, which indicates that we do not include wikilinks in section titles, which is what you did in that case. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with all of our guidelines regarding use of wikilinks since you seem to be having problems in that area. By the way, "unconstructive" is a word. I think that you should have received a more detailed explanation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Oxford Dictionaries definition of "unconstructive". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Maria. Since you've never heard of unconstructive, but it's a really common English word (and based on your post above I am guessing you're a native speaker), I bet you will experience the Baader-Meinhof effect over the next two weeks and see it multiple times (outside of Wikipedia) now that you've focused upon it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That effect happens to me all the time. Incidentally, Mariacricket, you're in good company: my browser also doesn't know that "unconstructive" is a word, and redlines it whenever I type it in an edit window. This is unfortunate because I'm a horrible typist and might just have spelled it wrong. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find a good Mariners userbox?[edit]

I looked, and I only see 2 Mariners UBs. Where can I find more? GermanGamer77 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@GermanGamer77: I see you use User:UBX/MLB-Mariners and User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/Mariners. I don't think there are others. 1 or 2 is normal. You could make your own with {{Userbox}} but you don't say what you are unhappy about. If it's the lack of a logo then copyrighted logos are not allowed in userspace so none of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/US and Canadian have a logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Then how do I make a userbox? GermanyGermanGamer77 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)United Kingdom

There's at least one online userbox generator out there; try googling it. Also, I notice you're active at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Ideas. If you find another user on that talk page who has created userboxes you like, you might ask them for advice. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright. But UBX doesn't exist! And it makes the ones I like. Template:Frown GermanyGermanGamer77 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)United Kingdom

@GermanGamer77: I said "You could make your own with {{Userbox}}". The blue text is a link. Click it for instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know code or whatever that gibberish on the page is. Like bracket this, id = foo logo that, no sense. And I can't find a Mariners symbol on Wikimedia Commons! Face-sad.svg GermanGamer77 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@GermanGamer77: I don't know which Mariners symbol you are looking for but it's probably copyrighted by the team. That means it is not allowed in Commons and not allowed in userboxes. You cannot get a userbox with the Mariners logo. It is against Commons policies, against Wikipedia policies, and probably against American law. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Face-sad.svg GermanGamer77 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Confused about section headings in "Appendices" (notes, references)[edit]

Hi, so this is the version I originally had written: [3], and after discussion in IRC with a more experienced editor this is what the article currently looks like [4] (Specifically see §§ 6-8).

I'm still confused about why what I had was unclear before and was hoping someone could explain the WP:MOS to me because I thought I understood it. Based on WP:CITESHORT, which was linked in WP:FNNR, it's okay to have a section called "References" where you have the full citation information for any references which you referred to with shortened footnotes. Specifically I was basing my formatting off Help:Shortened footnotes § Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes. It's unclear to me the benefit of changing the citation footnotes to read "References" and the references to read "Further Reading."

I think perhaps I also had complicated things in this article because I separated out important articles which I referred to often (in shortened footnotes) and which I wanted to group together for the readers' convenience from other references which I cited maybe once or twice. So first I want to clarify that having a section like this is okay. It's not a prototypical "Further Reading" section because I do refer to these sources with in-line citations, but I didn't want to drown out the most useful references with the full bibliographic information for everything I cited which would have happened if I used only shortened footnotes and then had all the references' bibliographic information in a single section.

I realize I might not be super clear at the moment with what I'm asking; I'm just very confused as to the "right" way to name these sections. Thanks for any advice,

Umimmak (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: Wow that is an article and a half, congratulations. I'm not sure why the section headings were changed like they are either. I'd go with WP:FNNR as the guideline and have:
footnotes as you already have using {{notelist}}
references using {{reflist}}
The sources used in References if you have used shortened footnotes. I would:
  • a) bullet the list rather than indent, and
  • b) put all the sources in here. At the moment some of your shortened footnotes link to Armstrong's works that you have in the "Selected works" section so clicking on the link is a bit of a lottery as to where you end up in the article. If this means some appear in both sections I don't think this is a problem.
Further reading
Links to books you think add further information but you haven't used in the references or footnotes.
Nthep (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Nthep:. All of the works I have in the "Selected works" section are also referred to in shortened footnotes, so if I had them both under References and Selected Works it would be completely redundant (except for the link to Lilias Armstrong bibliography. I know that WP:FNNR suggests the Works section should go above the "See also" and the "Notes and references", but could I maybe have two subsections of References: "Selected works by Armstrong" and "Other references"?
Something like:
Selected works
* explanatory footnotes
* citation foofnotes
Works by Armstrong
Other references
Also to clarify the explanatory footnotes (what I had previously had in a section called "Remarks on transcription" should be in a subsection under References? The {{efn}}s aren't really references, per se.
(P.S. Thanks! This is my first article, so I'm glad it seems to look mostly decent on your end) Umimmak (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't separate the sources into two parts, Armstrong and non-Armstrong. If her own works have to be cited then their place is among the sources, the alphabetical listing of the sources will almost separate them anyway. If those are the only contents of the "Selected works" section then that section is superfluous and can be replaced by a section simply called "Works" with the link to the bibliography article. "Works/Selected works" sections are meant to be part of the text i.e. the subjects most notable works and discussion about them, not part of the references.
You can put the Footnotes at level 2 before the References, as discussed, if you wish or put both at level 3 under an overall level 2 heading "Notes and References", there isn't a preferred style so it's really down to what you prefer.
One other comment, about bundling references and citation overkill. This is very much personal preference as I'm not a fan of bundling references so, for example, in my opinion her appointment to Reader isn't a major enough point to require four references even if there is a fifth with a different date. For major, possibly controversial points, then more than one citation is needed/desired but not for small stuff. Nthep (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Enquiring about source of information[edit]

I would like to write articles on local festivals, towns and chiefs in Ghana that has ancient origin. When reference are not already in the internet. Can I refer to some other sources like text books? Not be known — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz Baako (talkcontribs) 08:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Aziz Baako. Of course you can. You might want to read our article WP:VER, esp. section WP:SOURCES. I hope they will answer your question. If not, please ask again. --CiaPan (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about Obama article -- education summary -- meaning of heading.[edit]


It's a query about an "education summary" table in the article "Early Life and career of Barack Obama", which includes columns with the heading "type", listing below: "public" or "private". It isn't clear to me what this heading means. When I tried to compare it to details of the education of other US presidents, the articles (I saw) didn't use a similar table to provide the information.

To put this into context: I'm British and I went to the entry as a user to check a claim I'd heard that Obama's education was somehow undisclosed, and this had been compared to the manner in which Trump's tax returns are not made public. I wanted to see what was known and verified about his education.

So the meaning of this heading in the table was relevant but ambiguous because "type" can mean different things. Does it mean that the establishment was a private or public school or a privately funded degree/course as opposed to something else? Or does it mean that details about the entry are not made public? If the former, it seems open to misinterpretation by those who are searching for evidence of a lack of disclosure. If the latter, it seems to give insufficient detail for a judgement to be made about the relevance or type of lack of disclosure, especially since there's no opportunity for direct comparison with other presidents.

Which leads me to other thoughts: why is the information presented in this way for this particular article? Is it an effort to create a compromise where there has been a lot of discussion over wording?

It's a huge subject, I'm sure, and I'm sure this chart will have been discussed at length somewhere, but I don't know where to find that discussion -- my wiki-editing career has never really got off the ground, so please forgive me for not knowing how to look into the history of this myself. I did give it a go, but it's so vast.

My query can be boiled down to a simple question: What exactly does that heading mean?

And a secondary question: Can the meaning be clarified in the table or article? (Not by me.)

Please forgive me for any failings of procedure.

Gateteller (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The main article (Barack Obama) gives a summary in running text, but the article Early life and career of Barack Obama has the information in a table. In America, a "public school" is state-funded. Perhaps you are confused because the term is used differently in the UK. A private school requires payment by some individual or organisation for someone to attend. There is no secrecy about the information. How could this be made clearer? Possibly by linking public and private? Dbfirs 09:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The difference in meaning in the UK wasn't the problem. It's the lack of clarity in the heading itself. Whether it relates to the funding of the education or some kind of lack of disclosure. Funding was my first guess, but I could see that there was an ambiguity that could lead people to believe it was telling them something else entirely, especially if they were actively looking for that kind of thing.

Could "Type" have an asterisk which leads to a footnote directly under the table saying "educational funding" or just "funding"?

Maybe "Funding" could be added to the column heading. Gateteller (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate place for such discussions and suggestions is on the talk page of the article, so in this case Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry about this -- and sorry for forgetting to thank the earlier respondent. I just don't have time at the moment to go back and learn how to get into the talk pages and relearn the way to use the code etc to do that (I did all the tutorials but I've forgotten) and it's a such a huge article and very daunting. I only have time for this type of comment right now, so if someone else isn't able to take it up and clarify that heading, we'll just have to leave it for the moment.

Thanks anyway. Gateteller (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familiar with the America school system would be confused, and only someone looking for conspiracy would see those words as having another meaning, but I've found an appropriate link for each. Are there any other articles that use a similar table? Dbfirs 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: I think this is a classic example of terminology inexactitude on Wikipedia. In the UK, a public school is in fact private and fee-paying. What Americans would call a public school is in the UK a state school. It's a trap we all fall foul off when editing by forgetting, or being ignorant of, possibly different meanings outside our own environments and why we should link when confusion is discovered. Nthep (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. That's what I pointed out above. I've now linked to clarify for those of us on this side of the pond. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who first used the term "terminological inexactitude"? Dbfirs 16:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

can you help me to create page[edit]

thank you for invitation,
can you help me to create page for one great painter. I would send you information Daemon Datim (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ddatim6, have you seen Wikipedia:Your first article...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As of 'a great' painter, please see some of most important Wikipedia policies at WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO, also Wikipedia:Autobiography. --CiaPan (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on drafts[edit]

Where, if any, is the correct place to request feedback on a draft I am currently creating? Sarina Kakusareta ("Sam") (Talk | Contribs) 11:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sarina Kakusareta, welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to User:Sarina Kakusareta/Drafts/soundodger+, simply press the Submit your draft for review! button, and the article will be reviewed by one of the reviewers at Articles for Creation. This may take 2–3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is highly backlogged. Please be patient. There more than a thousand submissions waiting for review. Mduvekot (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can anybody help me with notability assessment?[edit]

I'm having this issue with the page here: and I'm not sure if I should remove the notability template or not. It looks fine to me, but I would appreciate a second opinion. Cborodescu (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The article cites 17 sources, but most of them are not independent, and so do nothing to help establish the subject's notability. Those currently numbered 5,7,8,9 may be considered enough to establish notability, I'll leave it to others to judge. Maproom (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May I know why are everyone deleting my articles.[edit]

If am I doing anything wrong, please let me know. I want to write many articles but they got deleted after some hours like Origin of the Moon, Why Mars is red, Why do tornadoes produce hail etc, except Quake (natural phenomenon) K. Badri Vishal (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey K. Badri Vishal. It looks like your article was deleted under criteria WP:A1 and WP:G7, because if was not sufficiently intelligible, and/or lacked sufficient context to be able to identify the subject of the article. TimothyJosephWood 15:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@K. Badri Vishal: Abellaite is the only article deleted. The first time was because it only consisted of "H2O" and the second was because you blanked the page yourself; this is normally an indication that the creator of the page wants the page deleting. I'd caution you against creating articles like Why Mars is red etc because topics like this have probably already been covered. The colour of Mars is discussed and explained at Mars surface color. You must also make sure that any additions you make are supported by sources, your edits to other articles have been undine because you have failed to quote the sources that support what you wrote. The use of verifiable and reliable sources are key Wikipedia policies that must be adhered to. Nthep (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I wanna translate articles from English to other languages and vice-versa.[edit]

Hi! I wanna translate articles from English to other languages and vice-versa, but unfortunately I cannot because of the error. There is written that (Left upper side) the tool is restricted and something like that. The whole message is described below: Translate page - Note: This utility is currently restricted to extended confirmed editors on the English Wikipedia, see WP:CXT for more information. Please, help me. Vatanifardin (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vatanifardin: That tool is restricted for good reason. We had a lot of problems with people mass posting unedited machine translations to the English Wikipedia. Machine translation loses crucial context and often makes substantial errors. An unedited machine translated article is generally worse than having no article at all. We also had issues with editors translating articles that do not meet the English Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion, such as availability of proper reference material. Each project sets its own inclusion criteria, so the fact that an article exists on another language Wikipedia does not indicate that it's acceptable here. If you are fluent in both English and another language, you will need to do your translations by hand, ensuring to maintain context and retain the information the article in the other language is trying to present, and you will also need to go to the effort of making sure the resulting article in the other Wikipedia is acceptable by English Wikipedia standards. The same is true of translating an English article to other language projects. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC).
I will add to Seraphimblade's reply that since you have been here for three months, Vatanifardin, you will get Extended Confirmed status once you have made 500 edits in English Wikipedia. The point of that is that you might be expected to have a better understanding of English Wikipedia's policies when you have made 500 edits (at present you have made six). --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the above, you also need to make sure that you credit the source article when translating it, as outlined at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation.

Vatanifardin (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ohhh. Forgot to mention. It is about templates in infobox Vatanifardin (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I wanna translate a passage, but I have a problem with infobox.[edit]

I started to translate the biography of a scientist, but has experienced problem with infobox.

There is a huge message that appears:

{{Infobox person|name=Elmar Gasimov Eldar|image=Elmar Gasimov.jpg|image_size=350px|alt="Tərəqqi" medalı|native_name=Elmar Eldar oğlu Qasımov|birth_name=Template:Doğum tarixi və yaşı|birth_date=September 8, 1973Kateqoriya:1973-cü ildə doğulanlar Kateqoriya:Əlifba sırasına görə şəxslər|birth_place= Kateqoriya:1973-cü ildə doğulanlar Kateqoriya:Əlifba sırasına görə şəxslər Kateqoriya:8 sentyabrda doğulanlar|other_names=Bakı Ali Neft Məktəbinin rektoru|occupation=Bakı Ali Neft Məktəbinin rektoru|awards=[[//|honours=[[//|image_upright=Elmar Gasimov.jpg}}

Please, help me. Vatanifardin (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Where did you see that, Vatanifardin? Because although we have a new article on Elmar Eldar oglu Gasimov (well, actually we had two, there was another at Эльмар Гасымов), I don't see any problem with the infobox there that would give the sort of "huge message" you saw, and I don't see that you have made any edit to it. I see plenty of other problems with that article, though, and will probably move it to draft space – I think it is likely to be deleted fairly quickly otherwise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Now at Draft:Elmar Eldar oglu Gasimov. Just in case there's any confusion, we also have Elmar Gasimov. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, one of them is dedicated to the sportsman, while the other one is dedicated to the principal of university. It seems that these two passages have confused you. I have a problem in sandbox. I wanted to create a similar infobox (and created), but after a few moments all the text created by me turned into a bunch of numbers and letters. Could I paraphrase and explain the issue?
Vatanifardin (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, please delete the word draft. It seems someone forgot to delete the word draft from the heading. Vatanifardin (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Ohhh. Forgot to mention. It is about templates in infobox Vatanifardin (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Ohhh. Forgot to mention. It is about templates in infoboxVatanifardin (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I looked at your sandbox before anything else, Vatanifardin. It's about someone called Fardin Vatani, and it doesn't have an infobox. What I was asking is where you saw the messed-up mixed-language infobox about Elmar Gasimov Eldar that you have quoted above – it doesn't appear ever to have been in Draft:Elmar Eldar oglu Gasimov, which when I posted earlier you had never edited. And no, I'm not at all confused by the different people called Elmar Qasımov, they are clearly distinct. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection[edit]

Hello. There are two connected pages about Baku Higher Oil School. A month ago one of them was edited. The editor was kidding. How to prevent such actions and how to protect these pages from vandalism? I browsed Internet, and found a passage about page protection. However, I cannot see the word protect on the web page. Please, help me. Vatanifardin (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vatanifardin: You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. However, there must be an ongoing problem with a page for it to gain protection. A single instance of vandalism a month ago won't result in page protection. RudolfRed (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank youVatanifardin (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Do make sure that the vandalism has been reverted though, Vatanifardin, which can usually be done using the "undo" link next to the offending edit in the article history. Out of interest, you state that there are two pages about the school. One is at Baku Higher Oil School. What's the name of the other one? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Photo[edit]

How to upload a photo when an admin has deleted a photo already? (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

If an admin has deleted a photo, it's probably because it was uploaded in violation of the copyright owner's rights. So instead, you can upload a different photo which is not restricted by copyright, perhaps because you took it yourself and are willing to release it. Maproom (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Please tell us what photo. Almost every question that does not tell us what the post is actually about makes it impossible to provide a tailored answer. It may be that it was a photo intended to be used under fair use but did not have a proper rationale. It may be that it was an image from the Commons but needed to be uploaded here instead. Maybe it lacked licensing but was actually in the public domain. The possibilities are numerous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of article[edit]

I have attempted several times to edit an article and am instantly reverted by entrenched editors. There is a fairly obvious political slant to the article as it stands. For example, last year, someone attempted to add information to the article, and the information was rejected with the reason "needs better sourcing". 6 months later, I found several reliable sources for the information in question, attempted to re-add it, and was then told it is "not relevant". Goalposts continually change in order to keep the article as biased as possible. Also, this is not a typical "wikipedia is biased" complaint. This is a blatant situation. There are 4-6 long term editors who (if you look at the talk page) have been doing this for years now. You can check the talk page archives (20+) and immeidately see what is going on. Why does no one stop this?
I understand wikipedia has become a political battleground, but is there anything I can do? I am a novice user so I am ensure if I should have an RFC, or if there is some better way to at least bring this stuff to light. I am afraid to list the entry here because I will then be known as a troublemaker and will have even worse problems. 2602:301:772D:62D0:5094:A630:D021:1D2D (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you possibly point us at the article in question so that it's easier for those coming along to quickly glance at it? Thanks in advance. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to email someone if that's ok. Otherwise it's going to get back that I am the one who sent people to take a look at the aritlce. 2602:301:772D:62D0:5094:A630:D021:1D2D (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You could register an account, and use that account to tell us what article you're complaining about. IP addresses can be traced (sometimes), but registered accounts can't be, unless they choose to reveal their identity. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sunlight is what we're about. If you were to email it, it would still need to be aired openly, so it's no use. Without knowing what this is about, it's impossible to tell if you might have a valid concern or not. I see valid concerns. I also see lots of editors who have drunk the Kool-Aid of "alternative facts", ignore the actual meaning of neutral point of view and WP:WEIGHT (which does not say present both sides of any issue, but says that significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, are included "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"), and want Wikipedia to promote fringe politics, theories and conspiracies. My experience is that about 90% of the time when someone says six editors have ganged up on them citing policy to keep out material, it turns out it's the latter scenario. But Again, I have no idea what this is about, and I can't see any solution that does not involved taking this out of the hypothetical with specifics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

YoLandi Visser article[edit]

I give up, is there anyone that can help me step by step set the article up right. I know there are guidelines on wiki, but they read like spaceraft instructions. I mean it shouldnt be that hard to change something on a article, should it? Everything I attempt to post is reverted, even when I have posted valid links to information. I mean it took me almost two years just ot get the birth day correct, not mentioning that I can seem to get the birth year. But there has been picture issues. I have tried to change the picture, with a picture I took myself, so there could be no possibility of copyright bs, but yet it was reverted.

I just dont get it people, how can this site be the "go to" place when almost every bit of information I see on wiki is incorrect because mods wont help out, just punish... Sad IMO. Gene Zef2 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Gene ZEF


Why does it seem difficult to post an article titled Quantum Existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyhall321 (talkcontribs) 00:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and I must say it is not a user friendly experience. I don't even know how to write on someone's Talk page. I keep getting notices that my article on Makari de Suisse doesn't adhere to the guidelines but I followed all of the guidelines when writing it. It's not advertising or promotion. Can I get assistance on where I can make improvements? Also, I've tried to add photos several time and the page doesn't accept them.

Thank you!

Maya Mhbrown102 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry you haven't had a good experience. You can write on a user's talk page just as you wrote on this page; if you look at the article edit history, there is a link to the user talk pages of anyone who edited it. Regarding the article, it appears to be a basic company listing; it will need independent reliable sources indicating how the company is notable. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You appear to have a conflict of interest with respect to this company.[5] That's another not-particularly user-friendly WP policy to wade through (along with WP:RS etc.), but the specific paragraph that you need to read is here. Bromley86 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)