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

Stanley Leopold Fowler butchered article[edit]

I just need to add that the article I wrote was utterly butchered by someone with no reason, explanation or rhyme as to why. Is this wiki standard practice? How disturbing, inconsiderate and heart wrenching! Don't know where to retrieve the information from?! Thewayweis (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • If you look in the article history tab (the tab that says "View History") while looking at the article in question, people may have left summaries of the edits they made. If these summaries do not adequately explain why they made the changes they did, you can ask them on their User Talk page to elaborate, and maybe they can help you to understand why they made the changes they did. --Jayron32 14:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

deleted sections of article Stanley Leopold Fowler[edit]

Hello I have done my best to upgrade the article Stanley Leopold Fowler, according to all the suggestions, an article that was initially proposed for deletion and after going back and forth giving the reasons why the online sourcing is difficult (happened in 1977-long before the internet) the deletion was removed. Sadly, it is up again for discussion and most of the improvements and additions have been removed, I presume may be wrongly, by TheRoadislong, who queried Leo Fowler's notability. The article was written supported by a lot of facts but suddenly, to someone it seemed biased... I am at a loss and truly feel discouraged as someone new to wiki and trying really hard to understand. It was stated the article was up for discussion today yet a lot has been removed today, without giving clear reasons as to why or giving helpful suggestions as to what to do. I am truly stumped that the same article can be proposed for deletion then taken off from deletion after discussion, then amended according to suggestions, then proposed for deletion again!!! What on earth is going on? How many times can the same article be up for deletion? Very distressing and although 'not personal' when done in such a away with no communication or constructive suggestion it feels like it!!! Thewayweis (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons?[edit]

Hello all, why are some images hosted on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? For example: and

thank you !Eartha78 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eartha78. File:Magna-carta-embroidery-top-left.jpg is not hosted at Wikipedia but all images hosted at Commons can be viewed at a corresponding Wikipedia url unless another image with the same name is hosted at Wikipedia. The box below the image in says: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." A few images are actually hosted at both Wikipedia and Commons but this is usually temporary until one of the versions is deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary Artists - Links to gallery websites[edit]

billinghurst asked me to take a discussion to the Teahouse. Maybe you guys here can help! According to Wikipedia:External links external links should just go to official websites. In case of contemporary artists - who very often don't have a website - it's mostly the galleries representing the artist that provide information on the person, the CV and the works online.

So, it's a general discussion: Does linking to the websites of the galleries add additional value? Should all directions to galleries be taken off Wikipedia? Or should just some be named an - in case yes - what would be the criteria?

In my opinion, adding the links does add value. Due to copyright reason, images of artworks from contemporary artists can't be found on wikipedia, but on the galleries' websites. Also, if you want to get a more profound overview of the exhibition history of an artist, you would go to the gallery website - where you would also find installation views and info on exhibitions that took place... and so on.

What do you think?

Thanks and all my best, NanoHeemskerck (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Template help[edit]

I created a new template here Template:Board of Admiralty after using a template I had in draft Template:Departments of the United Kingdom Government, the new template created but when you click view or edit this template it takes to Template:Departments of the United Kingdom Government have I been naughty and cut corners? I would appreciate very much if I can have help resolving the problem many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Navops47. The name parameter must be the template name to make the right links. Fixed in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for rectifying my eye sight despite wearing glasses is getting worse :).--Navops47 (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

page protection[edit]

How to make an wiki page protected or semi protected? thanksArpon chakma (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Arpon chakma, welcome to the Teahouse. Pages can only be protected by administrators. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for when it's done and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for how to request it. If you say which page you want protected and why then we can give more specific advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Making a Family name page[edit]

How do I make a family name page that automatically lists individuals of that family name alongside places named after them? I discovered that the two pages I created, Balkrishna "Raosaheb" Gogte and Raghunath "Bhausaheb" Chitale are both members of prominent Gogte/Gogate and Chitale families respectively, that have several notable members and places named after them which have articles here on Wikipedia. How do I go about this? Thanks for the help Baldclock (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How to use objective language[edit]

Any suggestions on how to write my article using more 'encyclopedia' type language. It constantly gets rejected. The article is on Peter Mylonas ... HoundDog17 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, HoundDog17, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Don't call him a "leading karate expert" when no one else calls him that (not even his website, which you use as the source, even though you shouldn't). Neither did he play a "prominent" role in anything or was "avid" at that, unless you can cite such evaluations to reliable third party sources. The same goes for the "significant promise" that he purportedly showed. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
There is an even bigger problem than language though. You need to base your article on information found in reliable published sources that are independent of this person. His own website is not. If he isn't covered at depth in such sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on this person. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, HoundDog17. Here is another example: Your draft claims that his father played "a prominent role model in his son's life and an avid supporter of his life-long karate journey", but who says that praise is true? There is no reference for that evaluative language. That is not the neutral language of an encyclopedia article summarizing what independent sources say about the topic. That is hagiography which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

About Deletion[edit]

Sir, I created an article about my company, about its founder, history, etc. How is that promotional? If that is so, why are pages of Reliance Industries and other companies still on Wikipedia? Its not fair, as in not letting me publish my article about the company same as that of other companies.

Vivtyg25 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vivtyg25, and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "my company" you mean you are personally affiliated with the company, you shouldn't write about it in the first place.
As for quality of articles, if you find other articles that meet the deletion criteria, please nominate them for deletion rather than use them as vehicle for creating even more substandard articles. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Vivtyg25. Let me be frank with you. We have an article about Reliance Industries because it is a multi-billion dollar powerhouse of the Indian economy which has been in business over a half century. On the other hand, you were trying to write an article about an online legal services startup which raised a paltry one million dollars in financing last year. Please do not try to compare a lion to a mouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Help to write edit with implied citation[edit]

New to editing Wikipedia articles and not sure how to make an edit based on implied information from citations as against a clear citation. Would like advice on how to word what I wish to say in an edit to Granite Mountain, Arizona. - Ernest Bywater (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ernest Bywater, and welcome to the Teahouse. It all depends on what do you mean by "implied" information versus a "clear" citation. There are some things you cannot do with sources, please see Wikipedia:No original research. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've posted this information twice, but it doesn't show up - I'll try again without the link. - -

Hello Finnusertop, to me a clear citation is one with backing that clearly states something. In the Granite Mountain article they say the mountain was first named in after the first governor appointed to the Arizona Territory when it was created in March 1862 and he died in March 1863. However, I researched the area for a story, and found several maps from the 1850s and 1860s and found a place called Black Mountain that's shown at the same spot just north of Prescott, the best map is the 'Map of the Military Department of New Mexico' dated 1864 (from the David Rumsey map collection at www davidrumsey com )which shows Black Mountain at what looks to be the same co-ordinates as Granite Mountain and between Prescott and the Williamson Valley. To me, this implies or infers the two mountains are the same, but I've no clear reference saying the name was changed, and thus uncertain how to show the information on the page. I hope this helps you to understand what my concern is. Ernest Bywater (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be original research, which we don't use (even when based on primary sources). All we do is summarize professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Ian, if that's the case, I gather you don't accept anything about independent authors or their works, or the research and materials they state in their works. I just find it odd I can show the reliable sources primary sources, but can't include it in the information on the page. Ernest Bywater (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ernest Bywater. Sorry, but that is not what Ian.thomson was trying to say. You can cite what independent authors say, as long as their work is published by outlets with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I hope that you are not using "independent" as a synonym for "lacking professional editorial control" because that definition does not fly here on Wikipedia. If someone's research indicates that a certain mountain once had a different name, then they should publish that research in a journal of geographic place names, or a similar reliable source. After publication. it can be mentioned here on Wikipedia. But not before. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've come across such issues before. Is the map in question, Map of the Military Department of New Mexico, a "reliable published source"? How about maps published by the Ordnance Survey? Maps in an atlas published by a respectable publisher, such as Andrees Allgemeiner Handatlas? Maproom (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The map in question is an appendix in the hard cover book 'Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies 1861 - 1865' and the map's title is 'Map of the Military Department of New Mexico' listed as 'Plate XCVIII' with the following information printed on it 'Drawn under the direction of Brig. Gen. James H.Carleton by Capt. Allen Anderson 5th U.S.Infantry, Acting Engineering Officer, 1864' - the image I have is from the David Rumsey collection and its URL (minus the dots in the web page to deactivate the link) is - www davidrumsey com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~26927~1100226:Mil--Dept--New-Mexico-

Is that a good enough source or not - it's obviously from a formal published work of military origin. The map has the longitude and latitude marked on it, and at the same place as the co-ordinates for Granite Mountain is a double peak mountain named Black Mountain the same distance from Fort Whipple as Granite Mountain is today. There are also a couple of older maps I've seen with Black Mountain on it in that same area, but they aren't as accurate or as clear. Ernest Bywater (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ernest Bywater, in my view, it is acceptable for an article to say "this source A says X but this other source B says Y". What an article must not do is to draw any conclusion from the above statements. So, if I understand your point above, it would be acceptable to say that the (cited) map shows a mountain called Black Mountain at that location, but should not attempt to resolve the question. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How to italic?[edit]

I tap the italic button but it does not italicize? Bruce Metzger (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. @Bruce Metzger: if you add two apostrophes between the text (e.g. ''Text''), then it will italicize the text (e.g. Text). —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Why have such a convoluted method to use italics? I'm afraid to the answer. Bruce Metzger (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Usually, clicking the italic button produces Italic text, with "Italic text" highlighted so you can adjust what you want to have in italics. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bruce Metzger. Wikipedia operates on MediaWiki software, which many people consider quaint and antiquated. On the other hand, it successfully powers this, the #6 website in the world, and countless other wikis as well. It has its idiosyncracies but tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors use it every day without a lot of trouble. The Visual Editor is a WYSWYG overlay, but personally, I prefer to work in wikicode, which I found easy to learn even though I am not a professional programmer. You may find the Cheatsheet helpful to assist in learning wikicode. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bruce Metzger: The apostrophes must end up in the saved source page but they can be added with a click. I dont know what you tried but if you want to italicize existing text then mark the text before clicking the italic button. Some text is produced by templates and then the details may depend on the used template. Which text on which page do you want to italicize? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you insert picture box[edit]

How do you insert picture box with links Pghindie (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pghindie: You can find detailed instructions on this page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Pghindie. Please see Help:Infobox and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes – which is what I think you might be referring to by "picture box with links" – and if not, Nihonjoe's link should cover what else you might have meant. Please note that if this is about Ronald Quigley, a living person, we can only use a public domain image or one affirmatively granted a suitably-free copyright license, and it is unlikely any image of him would qualify for fair use under our strict criteria. If you still have questions about the infoboxes after seeing those pages, please do follow-up here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


WHY, JUST WHY. I made a page for the character Dr. Gordon from Saw, minutets later it was deleted. I used sources from Wikipedia. explain please, I have had to redo my article twice now, still deleted within minuets.The1Fr33m4n (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@The1Fr33m4n: It appears there is not enough third-party coverage to establish notability to create a separate article on this fictional character. You can see the current information at List of Saw characters#Lawrence Gordon. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have requested that the article be undeleted and transferred to your userpage or a draft. Hopefully an admin will do that for you. You may work on it there and maybe submit it to WP:AFC when you think it is ready. Please don't be discouraged. Nothing is really deleted on Wikipedia unless it is a gross violation of policy.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
But, The1Fr33m4n, please read WP:Your first article, to discover what a difficult task it is to write a new article in Wikipedia, and how to go about doing so in a way that works. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Arts Reviews[edit]

I am writing an article about an artist. He has numerous NY Times reviews.. but only one article of significance that specifically highlights this individual... Do these count as cites? (Dchaissejohnsier (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dchaissejohnsier: The article with significant coverage can be used to help establish notability. The others can be used in the article as needed once notability has been established. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dchaissejohnsier. According to our notability guideline for artists, serious critical attention such as reviews are among the factors that make an artist notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Strange things in android version??[edit]

I was looking at Passive-aggressive behavior and in the normal (browswer) version it looks okay , but in the wikipedia android app there is a (almost) rude starting line and i don't know how to remove it.

Please can somebody remove this (almost) rudeness and how can I do that next time myself? WillemienH (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@WillemienH: Please be more specific regarding the "(almost) rude starting line". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. It looks like someone vandalized the Wikidata entry. That has since been corrected. Try refreshing and see if it's still there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It has allready been changed, thanks -- but how can I next time change it myself? or is this kind of vandalism to rare to learn to repair WillemienH (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@WillemienH: On each article page, there is a list of links to the same topic in other languages. At the bottom of the list is a link titled "Edit links" (this may not appear in the mobile version of the page). Click on that link to go to Wikidata and review the content there. Keep in mind that editing on Wikidata is a lot more technical than editing here, so be cautious before changing anything. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I just fixed it on Wikidata. I don't know how you would get to it on the Android app, but in a browser you go to the Wikipedia page and pick "Wikidata item" in the side-bar. Then you can find the relevant bit of the Wikidata page and edit it. (You can also look at the page history to see who did it, and warn them on their talk page, though there don't seem to be any templates to do this in Wikidata. This is the first time I have seen vandalism in Wikidata, but I haven't been there much recently, so I don't know how common it it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@ColinFine: Yeah, vandalism is less common on Wikidata because it requires more technical know-how to do things there. Thankfully. Face-smile.svg ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Soliciting for Peer-review of Abebe Bikila[edit]

Could I solicit you to do a thorough c/e or maybe even a peer-review of this article. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: I recommend asking over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (on their requests page, specifically). That's what they do. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do that.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to write...[edit]

This may seem like an absurd thing to say but I feel as if everything I know about is quite extensively covered and well referenced in wikipedia. I was wondering what do experienced Wikipedia writers do about this? Do they go about learning a totally new topic that they then write about or adding little bits of information here and there? Just curious that's all as I am struggling to find much to write now and was wondering if anyone was also in a similar situation as well. EvilxFish (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I usually click the random article link and see what happens.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! I've sometimes felt the same way; I've been actively editing for a year but never created an article from scratch. I tend to do "gnomish" work, improving existing articles (which often does involve learning a totally new topic). Wikipedia:Community portal is a central index of the many ways editors can help, including "missing articles" that need to be written. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement is good if you like to collaborate. I suspect most experienced editors become involved with the many Wikipedia:WikiProjects which focus on a subject matter or policy. Sometimes I'll hunt for typos which can be a good indicator for neglected articles that need cleanup and updating. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@EvilxFish: You're welcome to work on anything on this list. There are literally tens of thousands of articles in all different interest areas that have been requested at one point or another. You can also check out mylist, if you want a smaller list of work needing done. Face-smile.svg ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@EvilxFish: There's also User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

i would like to use the work aversion page for my website , how do i get permission for this ?[edit]

i am in a fellowship called work anoxerics and underachievers anonymous and i identify with what has been written on the wikipedia work aversion page . i would like to use some of what has been written on the work aversion page on the work anoxerics and underachievers anonymous website . how do i gain permission to do this ? Movement 4 freedom (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Movement 4 freedom - You can't get permission, because you do not need it. The explanation is at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content - you need to attribute our content, and re-issue it under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license (CC-BY-SA). Sample wording for the licensing, and a fuller explanation, are on that help page. - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?[edit]

I made an edit to the page Lightsaber. It was valid and correct information, but shortly after it was removed for unknown reasons.Masonr318 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Masonr318 - Ask the reverting editor, and discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey Masonr318. It looks like your edit was likely reverted because it did not include reliable sources to back up the information and where it came from. For an overview how to include sources see Help:Referencing for beginners. For our policy on how to judge whether sources are reliable, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

My page Draft:Gaur_gopal_das was refused. Help me improve it.[edit]

Hello. My page Draft:Gaur_gopal_das was refused for using peacock terms. Since then, I have made some small edits. I have only a little experience making new pages. Please let me know what changes can be made to improve this one further. Thank you :) Nishant Sah (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NishantsahSeveral things are still of concern. Examples:
  • Radhanath Swami should not be referred to as His Holiness. Even the article on Swami does not do that.
  • A quotes sections is unnecessary. That belongs on [Wikiquote project]. Perhaps copy it there or to your sandbox for now.
  • TEDx should be mentioned in the first paragraph as that is essential the bases for possible notability.
I am going to help you by converting the references to the proper format. But please do not get discouraged. If you need more help ask the wonderful people at WP:AFCHELP or just ask again here.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Having trouble publishing a page. Draft:Party of Communists USA[edit]

Hi all,

I am having trouble publishing a page. I have edited out any references to the organization itself.

What remain are 6 external, independent, verifiable references.

Draft:Party of Communists USA

Please help me publish this page. There is no other such page on Wikipedia, and it is high time this article is on Wikipedia, as the organization is relevant to current events today.

So far I have followed every step there is. I have noticed that the PCM - Communist Party of Mexico (2011) page only has ONE external reference, yet we have 6. Why was the PCM page approved, but our page denied? All other links have been removed on the PCUSA wiki.

Please help.

Thank you.

Dragunsky1922Dragunsky1922 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dragunsky1922. Let's begin with Communist Party of Mexico (2011). That article was started in 2007 when the group had a different name and Wikipedia had lower standards. The Articles for Creation process did not exist at that time, so it appears that no one approved the article. It was added without review. It is a poorly referenced article although the party may well be notable. We do not accept mediocre articles in 2017 just because someone wrote a mediocre article ten years ago. Instead, that article should be cleaned up. We have well over five million articles and many of them have shortcomings.
As for your draft, none of your sources appear to be truly independent and reliable. We are looking for coverage in sources with professional editorial control and no connection to the group in question. Blogs are not acceptable. An academic book about the history of Marxist-Leninist organizations in the U. S. would be a good source. But this group was only founded a couple of years ago and had its founding conference ten months ago. Accordingly, it may be too soon for a Wikipedia article about this group, unless you can provide much better references.
We have an experienced editor called Carrite with a lot of experience working on articles about left wing political parties. Maybe he has something to add. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually Soman might be the best person to comment here. There very clearly needs to be more time and sourcing before an article on this organization will pass muster in the event of a notability challenge. A good rule of thumb is that there needs to be three substantial sources about the subject of an article, of presumed reliability and published by external entities. If the mainstream press starts writing the group up, notability will be passed. Even though I personally would like to see articles about every single extant political party in history, consensus at Articles for Deletion is to the contrary and there is no way that a free-standing piece on this organization would survive at this time. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Carrite: If they can't be written up individually, you could always create a list (or more than one list) of all of them. Have a summary for each entry, and link to the main article for each if the article exists. That way, information is available still. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to be adding a much longer list of references later today. Now the article will have impeccable references.

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The page has been updated with thirteen sources, all of which are separate from the article's subject. Some of the news sources openly attack the article's subject.

I think the claim "The Party of Communists USA is too new to be on Wikipedia" is baseless, as the article's subject dates back to 1919, although the article's subject was officially created in 2014.

I am glad that you brought in some Wikipedia users that have experience working on Left-Wing articles. They will understand the next thing I am going to say, regarding relevance:

The article "Party of Communists USA" is relevant on Wikipedia because the Party of Communists USA is the only Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the United States.

There is no other such formation on the left in existence in our country.

My submission is not the first nor the last time the Party of Communists USA will appear on Wikipedia.

So is there a minimum of 25 or 50 references required to publish a Wikipedia article? The "Time Factor" is a totally baseless claim; why then was the Women's March Wikipedia article already published, if that article's subject occurred only a month ago?

Please give me tips on improving the approval status on this article; I am not interested in "Time Factors" rather suggestions to get this article approved and uploaded to Wikipedia.

Many users will not understand what I mean by the "sole Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the United States," but those users who work on Left-Wing Wikipedia articles will understand the importance and relevance of the article.

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Publishing scholarly papers[edit]

Hello All, One of the scholars from Georgetown University is writing scholarly papers on "Slavery" specially in relation to Islam and ISIS. I took his paper and created an article here then submitted it for review/approval. This submission was rejected stating this article reads like personal opinion and not Encyclopedic article.

I dont want to change his article, as it is a scholarly article, but then how do i publish it here as an encyclopedic article? Thanks for your help in advance!!!Larkin.Bryze (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Larkin.Bryze and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles should be based on a range of reliable sources, not on a single author's unreviewed and unpublished papers. It should summarize all the major views on the topic from reliable, independent sources - not summarize just one person's views. --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, if you have created the article by copying and pasting text wholesale from the source, then this is a copyright violation, Larkin.Bryze. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Larkin.Bryze. If you take a look at the disambiguation page Islam and slavery, you will see that we already have several articles covering this broad topic area. We do not accept duplicative articles. I suggest that you read Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It might be possible to expand some of these articles using the paper as a source, Larkin.Bryze. That's how we use sources on Wikipedia, rather than copying and pasting them into their own articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the page for the Linux Link Tech Show. How can I remove the Notability maintenance template?[edit]

I believe that I have helped to resolve this pages notability requirements. Is it just as simple as deleting the template? Could someone please share any help. Thank you kindly. Huminahhuminah (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but chatlogs for the very first episode do not really establish notability. You need professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not affiliated with the subject but still specifically about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so just to make sure I fully understand this. Will a reference to the show/podcast from a magazine that lists this as a reputable Linux podcast suffice?

Thank you for your time. Huminahhuminah (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably. See the general notability guidelines for more info. The magazine should be a professional mainstream source and it should provide in-depth coverage. An article about the podcast would work, though a single brief mention in a list might not. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Huminahhuminah. Directory type listings do not establish notability, and neither do passing mentions. Instead, we need references to significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. Experienced editors take these standards very seriously. The coverage must be significant and the sources must be completely independent. If such sources are not provided, then this article may well be deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

using census records as reference in a biography[edit]

I am working on a biography of Myrtle Broome. I have a reference that lists her birth year and city, father's name, but not mother's name. I could look up UK census information to determine her birthdate and mother's name.

Are census records ok to use in a biography? If so, do you have an example of how I would list that information in the reference area?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MauraWen. Census records are a primary source, and so they may be used as references, but only in limited ways. For uncontroversial factual data such as you mention, it is almost certainly all right. For US Census records, you can use the template {{cite census}}. I'm not sure what's the best thing to do if it is somewhere else. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
MauraWen I agree with the above. You can use {{citation}} specifically like this: "Myrtle Florence Broome", United Kingdom Census 1901,, retrieved 23 February 2017 
I looked and could not find any census info on her. I found these though which should be helpful:
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology should contain her obituary. If you have access to a library find these books:

is this really unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company ???[edit]

is this really unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company ???

"A tag has been placed on Prophecysound Systems, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... It contains only factual information and quotes of interest to researchers of the company, its history and products

Luminous Industries Australia (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Luminous Industries Australia: Most likely yes, since both the page has been deleted as such twice (as well as being unambiguous copyright infringement) and you have yourself been blocked for violating our username policy. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Having just looked at the deleted page, this was not a close call. This was very, very blatant advertising.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol move vote.svg Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Is translating a Wikipedia article actually paid?[edit]

While I was translating a Japanese language article ja:かみさまみならい ヒミツのここたま into German using Special:ContentTranslation, I saw the text that shows 1$ on Japanese Wikipedia. Is it paid?WDCDECDCDC (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi WDCDECDCDC. The dollar symbol is used in variety of coding languages. I am guessing you saw some raw code. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@WDCDECDCDC: I suspect you actually saw $1. It's used as a parameter name in system messages. See for example [2]. It's supposed to be replaced by some text in the call of a system message but this occasionally fails. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And to answer your question directly, WDCDECDCDC, apart from a few employees of the Wikimedia Foundation who keep the servers going and look after the foundation's operation and fundraising, nobody is ever paid by the Foundation for work on Wikipedia or any of its sister projects. Sometimes people or companies employ people to work on articles: many editors disapprove of this process, and anybody who is being paid to edit is required to declare the fact according to WP:PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
There are occasional prizes (such as the WikiCup) and grants (for research projects, events, etc). But nobody's getting rich off of these. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Accessible Citations (Experiment)[edit]

The Goal:

Find the easiest/quickest route to follow a reference back to the original paragraph/sentence in which the writer/editor was reading.


This is how it looks in WikiCode:

{{efn|[ ''Letter from Rome'', page 56.]}}

Another Sentence.
{{efn|[ ''Letter from Rome'', page 71.]}}

== Accessible Citations ==

* {{Open Access}} [ Letter from Rome (PDF)]. Rome, Italy. 1871. 


This is how they look in the article:

Sentence.[a] Another Sentence [b]

Accessible Citations

open access publication – free to read Letter from Rome (PDF). Rome, Italy. 1871.

  1. ^ Letter from Rome, page 56.
  2. ^ Letter from Rome, page 71.
  • Higher Accessibility by having "Citations" separate from "References". This makes it more clear which article is accessible, and which one you are being linked to. Also, less clutter for the actual references section.
  • Something that I see for improvement would be a clever way to use bypass the URL in-line citations (since the only essential part is the #pagenumber). Ideally, an auto-generated link when using {{command|name|#page}}

Thoughts? Criticisms? Suggestions? =) Popcrate (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Popcrate. The {{efn}} template is for explanatory footnotes (E.F.N. is an acronym of that phrase), not citations. I suggest instead using either {{sfn}} (shortened footnotes) or {{Harvnb}} and calling them with {{reflist}}, rather than {{notelist}}. I like harvnb a lot. Also, that is not a transparent citation because the attribution details tell the reader little about the source. Let me give you an example (from an article I'm working on):
Text text text.<ref name="Proctor66">{{Harvnb|Proctor|Lynch|1998|p=66}}</ref> Text text text.<ref name="Pettingill32-33">{{Harvnb|Pettingill|1985|p=32-33}}</ref> "Quote text text text".<ref name="Proctor66"/> Text text text.<ref name="Pettingill187">{{Harvnb|Pettingill|1985|p=187}}</ref> Text text text.<ref name="Pettingill32-33"/> Text text text.<ref name="Proctor66"/> Text text text.<ref name="Pettingill187"/>
* {{cite book|ref=harv|first1=Olin Sewall, Jr. |last1=Pettingill|year=1985|title=Ornithology in Laboratory and Field. Fifth Edition|publisher=Academic Press|isbn=0-12-552455-2|location=Orlando, FL}}
* {{cite book |ref=harv|title=Manual of Ornithology: Avian Structure and Function |first1=Noble S. |last1=Proctor |first2=Patrick J. |last2=Lynch |year=1998 |publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven, CT |isbn=0-300-07619-3}}

Text text text.[1] Text text text.[2] "Quote text text text".[1] Text text text.[3] Text text text.[2] Text text text.[1] Text text text.[3]


  1. ^ a b c Proctor & Lynch 1998, p. 66
  2. ^ a b Pettingill 1985, p. 32-33
  3. ^ a b Pettingill 1985, p. 187


  • Pettingill, Olin Sewall, Jr. (1985). Ornithology in Laboratory and Field. Fifth Edition. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-552455-2. 
  • Proctor, Noble S.; Lynch, Patrick J. (1998). Manual of Ornithology: Avian Structure and Function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07619-3. 
Now click on one of the shortened footnotes, and you'll see it links to the full citation in the bibliography. Neat, huh? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What needs to be done to establish a Project Page[edit]

Hi, I have created an account and am registered. All I want to do is create a Proof of Concept for my team and really do not understand the process. We are just looking for collaboration of subject matter between different organizations that make up an alliance to support our client. Nothing fancy. NAEPAutomation (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the team. Projects on Wikipedia are called WikiProjects. They are intended to be collaborations to develop and maintain an aspect or subject area of Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a web page hosting site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone in the world, that everyone in the world can help to build and maintain. Thank you for asking. For business collaborations, you might want to look up web hosting service and wiki. The Transhumanist 22:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, NAEPAutomation. It sounds to me as if you are not wanting Wikipedia at all, but are wanting your own private Wiki (there are thousands and thousands of wikis on the web, some of them public and some private. Wikipedia is just the biggest and best known one) There are sites like Wikia where you can create your own wiki; or if somebody in your organisation has the know-how and access to a server, you could download the Mediawiki software that runs Wikipedia, and have your own private wiki on your own private server. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ColinFine. You are right. I found that out from an individual reviewer. So, I guess I can myself delete the page? (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to create an entry for an improv comedy troupe[edit]

I'd submitted an entry for my old improvisational theater troupe from Cincinnati. The troupe ran for nearly 6 years and gave rise to numerous other local acts within the arts community -- including the currently extant Over-the-Rhine Improv troupe.

I estimate the artistic contributions of such an organization to be comparable to other local theater groups. So why might such an article be declined?

...aside from my lack of published references for performances that is. And would classified ads from the Cincinnati Enquirer be adequate if I wanted to try again, this time doing my actual homework?

Jolachimera (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jolachimera, and welcome to the Teahouse. Frankly, your estimation of the organization plays no part here. It's all about estimation made in reliable sources.
On Wikipedia, there is virtually nothing aside from reliable sources that contribute to the suitability of content on the encyclopedia. It's all about summarizing what such sources have written.
No, ads don't count. All content must be based on published, reliable sources that are independent of the troupe. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

how to add notable person to Fort Myers FL list of notable people[edit]

how to add notable person to Fort Myers FL list of notable people? (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Please note that all of the listings of notable people are blue links, and references to reliable sources verify their connections to Fort Myers. The blue links indicate that we have biographies of those people on Wikipedia, If the person you want to add to the list has a Wikipedia biography, then click the "edit" button and add that person. Use the same format as the other entries. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Died/Passed away[edit]

Hey Teahouse, TPM here. I remember seeing a WP page where if someone passed away, you should use "died" instead of "passed away". Where on EnWiki did I see that?

The Phase Master 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey TPM, probably at WP:EUPHEMISM. TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that was it. Thanks!
The Phase Master 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Insert Flying Circus reference here... - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a WC page similar to files for discussion on WP?[edit]

Hi again! I am glad to see that wp has a way to remove a brain cramp, but I've got some on WC too. Does WC have an equivalent way of doing that? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey DennisPietras. I think you may be looking for Commons:Deletion requests. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Tournesol.png Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

how to mark an article for deletion?[edit]

I found an article ( Rafi Tshuva ) that only has one sentence and little very little evidence to make it notable. How can I mark this article for deletion, if need be? Bedsidelamp (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bedsidelamp. The process (and the three different kinds of deletion) is discussed at WP:Deletion policy. Please note that it is better to improve an article than to delete it, unless it cannot be saved; so it is worth doing a little research first to determine whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If he clearly does not, then nominate it for deletion; but if he might do, it is better to tag the article with a template such as {{unreferenced}}, and see if somebody improves it. If you do go ahead with deletion, the process is much much easier if you enable Twinkle and use that. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Bedsidelamp. Notability depends on the topic and how much coverage it has received in reliable sources. The lack of sources actually in the article does not mean that the topic is not notable. The first step is to investigate whether this person meets our Notability guideline for association football players. If so, the article should be improved rather than deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bedsidelamp and Cullen328: He meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for footballers as he's played for his country. As such, it'd be difficult/impossible to get a consensus to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
That is what I thought likely, Joseph2302, but since my personal knowledge of association football is negligible, I thought it best to let others express that opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References of Article's[edit]

Wikipedia is one of the best tool of knowledge, but as everything as some demerits and marits. So I think there are shortcomings which makes Wikipedia less reliable. These are lack cited or references sibject and less securities biz anyone types or edit anything even not pure knowledge about the articles. For an example some day ago I have seen an article about my city in which more things are written was not satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishor Jpotra (talkcontribs) 16:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kishor Jpotra. You're absolutely right: that is the down-side of allowing anybody to edit. Articles (and individual pieces of information in an article) are in a sense completely worthless without references that a reader can in principle check. But if we removed every unreferenced claim from an article, there would be a lot less material in Wikipedia. This is the dilemma.
What you can do, like anybody else, is to help us, by finding references to reliable sources: referencing for beginners will tell you how to do this; but even if you don't feel confident about adding the references to an article, you could list the references you found on the article talk page for somebody else to add to that article. Adding a few references to an existing article can be more valuable that writing a new article. Thank you for your concern. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page[edit]

this page is subject to cancellation In the discussion page I gave them the reasons why i do not believe this page should be deleted. can you please help me solving this case? thank you. Magise (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a host, just a newbie who has struggled to come to grips with current wp policies. I looked at the article. I think it should not be deleted. There comes a point, IMHO, when a sufficient volume of primary sources should make a topic notable. DennisPietras (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

General structure of an article[edit]

Hi! I'm editing the article "Slow Wave Sleep" for my physiology class. I remember from the trainings that thing to look for is a good leading section. Any tips on how a good general structure (subsections) of a medical article should look/address? C.q20n.17 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, C.q20n.17! All articles are expected to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you're looking for a layout for a specific type of article, I'd recommend reading another article of a similar subject, and looking at how that is laid out. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks! MereTechnicality 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding to what MereTechnicality said, it's best if you choose a Featured article or a Good article on a similar subject; otherwise you run the risk of copying the layout of a not-very-good article. (You can pick those links to get lists of the articles) --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with editing a biography[edit]

Hi! I am currently editing a biography, "Al-Kawthari" to be exact. Could you give me some tips? Khalidulhaq1982 (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Khalidulhaq1982. MOS:BIO lists conventions for biographies on Wikipedia. Looking at other biographies is also useful. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How do i get help editing articles[edit]

Hi, i have a article that was not approved for posting as it was seen as too much like a corporate advertisement. However, the purpose is just to create a information overview about what the company does. is there any way i can run the content through someone so that i can edit it for approval? (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes there is: Wikipedia:Article wizard – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol move vote.svg Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place to ask for help with an article?[edit]


I'm looking for help to correct a specific article. I know that every article has a talk page but if nobody happens to look at it you will never get a response. Is there a place to ask other people to help you with a certain article?

Thanks! (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which article is it? If it's part of a specific WikiProject, you could post at the WikiProject talk page where you'd likely get more response. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

creating user box[edit]

Hi. I was trying to create a user box and can't figure out if I was successful nor where the link is to it. It was called Black Lunch Table. I thought it was {{Userboxtop|Black Lunch Table}} or at least {{Template:Black Lunch Table|Black Lunch Table}} Thanks for any help! Heathart (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Heathart. Your userbox is located at User:Heathart/Userboxes/Black Lunch Table. You can link to it by pasting {{User:Heathart/Userboxes/Black Lunch Table}} onto your page. MereTechnicality 20:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want other users to see it and have the opportunity to use it, you can post it on the appropriate page of Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are separate pages for books, movies, TV shows, etc. etc. It's totally up to you whether you list it there, however. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much!MereTechnicalityWhite Arabian Filly--Heathart (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Four questions regarding article creation, articles existing in different languages and stub creation.[edit]


I have a few questions that are all related to the creation of articles and stubs.

Firstly, is there an established method to introduce an article or stub that exists in one language version of Wikipedia to another?

I tried to introduce a stub that exists on to, but it was rejected on notability grounds. I had thought that if an article or stub existed in any language on Wikipedia that its notability was established. I did some reading, and from what I understand the requirements for stubs seem to be the same as for articles. On the other hand, I have seen several stubs that are pretty slim on supporting references and are less than 750 characters long when first created. I have also just discovered that “stub maker” is a real label that some editors have.

Secondly, is it possible to request a “stub maker” to create a specific stub?

Thirdly, what would someone need to do to become a “stub maker”?

In the first case where I had tried to introduce the stub my plan was to get the stub in place and return to it later to flesh it out into a full article myself. I’m not sure if that is considered appropriate – it could be seen as a little self-serving.

Fourthly, is it acceptable to create a stub with the intent to revisit it later and expand it to article status yourself?

Thanks, Kumboloi (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Kumboloi - You seem to misunderstand a "stub". To quote WP:STUB:- "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." You should not deliberately aim to create a "stub" you should aim to create a full article, which, due to lack of coverage, may be deemed to be a stub. The standards for any article are the same - a stub that does not meet WP:42, is an article that does not meet our basic standards, so it should be deleted. There are no lower standards for a stub. - Arjayay (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Arjayay. I had read the requirements for stubs and saw that the requirements were the same as for articles. That notwithstanding, I've come across a lot of stub/articles that (in my opinion) don't meet the requirements. That got me speculating about the possibility that stub articles are given more leeway under certain circumstances to, in effect, "seed" the creation of more extensive articles. Kumboloi (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kumboloi. Each language version of Wikipedia has its own policies and rules, so it is quite possible that a topic considered notable on the French Wikipedia wouldn't be considered notable on the English Wikipedia, but I would say it is equally likely that it doesn't meet the notability criteria of the French Wikipedia but that that has not been noticed yet. You can certainly find articles on the English Wikipedia that should be deleted. I'm not aware of a policy for starting articles here that already exist on other language variants of Wikipedia, unless the article is a translation of an already existing article, in which case you need to credit the source article. See Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate on how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Cordless Larry. I'll take a look at the "How to translate" article. Kumboloi (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kumboloi: Wikipedia:Stub Makers is not an official position but just a term some users use to describe themselves. Anyone can say it. It has no consequences. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter. Thanks for the clarification. I think it was the article you linked above that gave me the impression that this was more of an official capacity rather than a function that they took on themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumboloi (talkcontribs) 04:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the feedback on my earlier questions. I am pretty much left with just one at present:

If stubs are just short articles and have to meet the same notability requirements, how do they ever get created?

Kumboloi (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

They don't get created much nowadays, Kumboloi. They are mostly relics of an earlier period, when we were less picky about new articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. What you're saying makes much more sense. I was trying to reconcile the current policy with the legacy articles that I was tripping across. The upshot seems to be that I should not worry about stubs unless there's an existing one that I can add materially to. Kumboloi (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Does a term from the field of theory of terrorism meet the Wikipedia's notaboility criteria?[edit]

Does a term from the field of theory of terrorism meet the Wikipedia's notaboility criteria? The term has been used in a book and in some other publications, but as far as I know, it hasn't been covered in any encyclopedia. The term in question is a sort of "measuring tool", a criterion for telling apart an act of terrorism from an ordinary crime.Stevdja (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stevdja. It may have just been a manner of speaking, but we don't normally have articles on terms as terms (or qua terms) – because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary (whereas Wiktionary is a dictionary). Of course, every article has a title, and so "terms" are involved; so too, many articles start with a definition, but an encyclopedia article covers much more, and once expanded beyond a stub, an encyclopedia article will look very different than a dictionary entry. If there can't be much more to cover as a topic than a dictionary definition, then Wikipedia is the wrong place for it, at least as a stand-alone entry. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary for more on this issue. That being said, the way to tell if a topic warrants an article is to see whether multiple, reliable, secondary and independent sources cover the topic in substantive detail (not just mere mentions). If that is the case, then the topic is notable and there are sources you can cite to verify the content to allow an article to be written. That is the only relevant test. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

why my article is not accepted[edit]

my college article is not submited in wikipedia why?? my college is the extension centre of bit nesra and my college bit mesra deoghar extension article is not submitted ,but the extension center jaipur and patna are having their wikipedia page.Sourabhbit (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sourabhbit. The explanation for declining the draft is given in the comment. Another way of looking at it is that Wikipedia is not intrerested in what you know, or what I know: everything in a Wikipedia article should be verifiable from a reliable published source. Everything. Furthermore, Wikipedia has hardly any interest in anything which a subject says about itself, whether on its website, or anywhere else: it only wants to know what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. The bulk of the material in an article - and everything which is in any way evaluative - must come from a published source independent of the subject of the article. Since your draft has only one reference, and that is to the official website, it is not surprising that the draft has not been accepted.
Words like "picturesque" and "very famous" are examples of what I mean by "evaluative": they should never appear in a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia's voice: they may be quoted from an independent source, but Wikipedia's text must be neutral.
Finally, the fact that other stuff exists is never a convincing argument. Wikipedia has five million articles, and many of them are substandard: if we let inferior articles be used as a standard of comparison, the standard of Wikipedia will tend downward, rather than upward. I am dubious whether Birla Institute of Technology, Jaipur ought to be kept. Birla Institute of Technology, Patna looks rather better, as it appears to have a reasonable number of reliable sources, though I haven't looked to see if any of them are substantial. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Undo deletion of large parts of article text[edit]

Hi, a while ago I added various bits of information to the London_Fire_Brigade_Museum page. When I looked the other day it had all been deleted since the museum had finally moved to it's new location. Personally I would have thought it would be useful to have kept that information and moved it to a 'History' section but I wasn't sure of the correct approach. I didn't want to undo the changes made by the user who deleted it without being sure. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Loweredtone (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Loweredtone. As usually on Wikipedia, the answer is to obtain consensus. According to WP:BRD, you can revert an edit, but you should not revert a reversion: rather you should discuss it on the article's talk page. If you think an edit might be controversial, it's best to discuss it first.
So, in this case, you could either restore the text to a "History" section, as you suggest, and wait and see if anybody disagrees and removes it again; or you could start a discussion on the talk page with that suggestion. Either way, the consensus may end up being yes, no, or something else entirely.
You realise that the old text is still there in the history of the article? So if you want to restore some of it, you can go to a relevant version in the history, "Edit source" (it will warn you that you are editing an old version) and copy the marked-up text to the clipboard before cancelling the edit. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
ColinFine Thanks for the info, I'll try editing it with an additional history section rather than undoing the previous change and see what people think. Loweredtone (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Loweredtone, I took at look at the removed information and do believe that is useful information that should most definitely be included in the History section. Thanks for editing and good luck! Justin15w (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Before the GA of the Hexapoda article, can you say if it meets all the GA conditions? I tried improving the article a lot, so can you say if it is of a good quality now?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, Adityavagarwal, it could do with some copy-editing. First sentence of [[Hexapod#Hexapod morphology|]]: "Hexapods have bodies ranging in length from 0.5 mm to over 300 mm and is divided into an anterior head, thorax, and posterior abdomen." (emphasis added). Third paragraph: "As is typical of arthropods adapted to life on land, each leg has only a single walking branch composed of five segments, without the gill branches found in some other arthropods an with gill on the abdominal segments of some immature aquatic insects." (emphasis again added). I didn't read any further. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the meaning of copy editing? Also, if I give it for a GA will it be removed immediately or there are minor errors that can be improved as the reveiwer says?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean spelling and minor word errors?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
See Copy editing, Adityavagarwal. Minor errors of grammar and consistency are not a big problem, but it is a waste of the reviewer's time reviewing articles that contain them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I did not see a few of them. Thank You. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, where you can request a review of the grammar and such in an article. There's about a month backlog but they're thorough, so it's usually worth it. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank You for your assitance. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal the GA reviewer will typically give you 7 days to address any concerns they point out.
My opinion is that the article is awfully short given its scope. There must be millions of pages of scientific literature about Hexapoda and I doubt that this article is a representative summary of them. Completeness of coverage is one of the GA criteria. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I should add more information maybe. However, I gave it for a review. So, should I remove the nomination or should I add more information while it is in the review list?Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal: Add information while it's on the list awaiting review. It usually takes a long time before someone begins the review (my nomination once took 6 months...) – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you seem right. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


hello Sum one deleting the proper information why wiki cant blocked them to do so (Naveed Musthafa (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Naveed Musthafa. Wikipedia will generally only block people for repeated violations of our policies. If someone's blanking articles repeatedly, the best thing to do is to let them know on their talk page. If you have other questions, please let me know! MereTechnicality 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Google search[edit]

Why my Article not appear on Google search result ? how much time it's take to appear or is there any official way to do this ? Ainul.Axom (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If you just created the article, it will take some time before google crawls the page. I don't think there is a way to crawl a specific page, unless you are the owner of the website itself. Just spend time on making the article higher quality, and eventually the page will appear in google search =) Popcrate (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I checked the articles you have been working on lately, and they all appear in my google search, when I search for the article's name. Try adding "wikipedia" into your search, if you still can't find it. Popcrate (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: I guess that Ainul.Axom is referring to Tirap Gaon, Ledo. That doesn't appear in a Google search, and I wouldn't expect it to appear as it is NOINDEXed. The article was created on 28 January, and is one of about 14500 pages queued up at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting the new page patrol which is now required to remove the NOINDEX. The queue is roughly 4 months long. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about inventory control[edit]

Having bought some stock at a discount to its usual price, should the margin be bigger than usual, or smaller than usual?Dhamarayg (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dhamarayg. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Reference desk. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Youtube explainer video summaries of wikipedia articles and improve user friendliness[edit]

Hi! I've a few ideas on how to improve wikipedia but don't know how to implement it

1. Problem - people are visual don't like to read it's unnatural boring long noone will do it except "nerds" (homo sapiens eyes evolved for other stuff).

Solution - animated explainer videos summarizing the article for people who don't like reading. This would allow people on youtube to get all the info in an easy way without boring reading

Maybe even create a youtube wikipedia channel and share the world's knowledge with video

2. Problem - the site's outline is confusing and for "nerds". A normal person who's not on computer all day and doesn't understand how internet works will find wikipedia too complicated confusing etc

Solution - the biggest websites in the world (

are all simple nicely designed visual to the point and user friendly in general

Look at all of these top websites. All these top websites look amazing and wikipedia looks awful compared to them but has lots of knowledge and if it looked better and had better user friendliness more people would use it

e.g. A clear "Outline" on the main page of how wikipedia works, simple navigation, nice design, better fonts, more visual, more pictures, better design in general

The main goal is to improve user friendliness of wikipedia to average people so that more people can read it / watch videos here and learn stuff

How to implement this? Maybe there are some better suggestions? What's preventing Wikipedia from using videos, better design and user-friendliness? Can wikipedia be redesigned and use video?

Other educational websites that look much better than Wikipedia and are more user friendly

Why can't Wikipedia look better? Is it so difficult or expensive? - this is how old wikipedia looked and the current one looks way too old, it needs to be redesigned

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dndm49 (talkcontribs) 06:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Dndm49 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dndm49: I think the best way to go here is to draw up some specific UI suggestions and show people what it should look like. You can upload these on Wikimedia Commons and start a discussion about it on the village pump to gather community consensus on any changes that should be made. Also, I'd recommend you change the entire framing of the problem to something other than "nerds vs. everyone else." I don't think this is a convincing or constructive way to suggest improvements to the UI, at all. I JethroBT drop me a line 06:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dndm49. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and get answers about editing Wikipedia, and so I recommend the Village Pump as a better place for a philosophical discussion about Wikipedia's future. However, I will offer some preliminary thoughts. Reading and writing has been the main method for people to communicate and transmit knowledge for millennia. Obviously, video is of great contemporary importance but good video is the product of great writing first of all, followed by highly skilled team effort .
When you linked to the list of biggest websites, you failed to mention that Wikipedia is #5 on that list. Google is #1 and mostly indexes and searches written content. Google's subsidiary YouTube at #2 hosts videos produced by others. Facebook at #3 allows people to connect with friends and family, using links to written, graphic and video content. Baidu at #4 provides similar services for Chinese readers.
Wikipedia at #5 outranks all the other big businesses you mentioned, and hosts by far the most comprehensive and extensive treasure trove of originally written educational content on the internet. Our readership proves our relevance.
So, if Wikipedia is so popular, read regularly by hundreds of millions of people, containing over five million English articles and tens of millions in other languages, then it cannot possibly be true that a "normal person" "will find Wikipedia too complicated . . . confusing".
As for your idea of adding more video content to Wikipedia, the only obstacle is the difficulty of high quality video production. There is no doubt that video production is far easier now than it was 20 to 30 years ago. But it is not truly easy. It is a team effort requiring research, planning, writing, camera work, on camera talent, special effects, editing, coordinating location shots and so on. One person can write a Wikipedia article on a niche topic although others may join in to help. Creating a really useful video requires assembling a documentary filmmaking crew. Because this is a volunteer project, they must all be volunteers willing to give away their labor and expertise for free. Do you think that is an easy thing? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Cullen328, and I'm not really sure what needs to change. Videos, explainer or otherwise, can already be uploaded to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, and a few articles, such as Zika virus, already contain explainer videos. (Zika virus video at right) As in all things here on Wikipedia, if you want more articles to contain explainer videos, you're going to have to create more explainer videos. SNice.svg Also, I find your idea that "normal people don't like to read" ridiculous. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

We have more than 180 high quality medical videos here[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with dndm49, I am very computer illiterate. I mostly find your service wonderfully informative and have donated a tiny bit in the past because I really DO appreciate your services. BUT as I came on your "dashboard" today to find out how to ask a simple question - i.e. how do I ask for a certain item to be written about? - I found there are lists and links and crazy stuff I don't understand EVERYWHERE, lol. And many times I don't have the time to sit down and try to wade thru all that "nerd stuff", which it pretty much is. If it's not written in "English", it doesn't help me at all. Just my opinion, thanks for the opportunity!

Theresa (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I'm good at editing but definitely NOT at verifying information. I don't even know how I found THIS page, haha!

Theresa (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone I actually got my 2 questions answered. First - there is a chrome extension Wikiwand which solves the user friendliness problem. Second - explainer videos already exist, to get more I / we need to produce more. So it's all good. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dndm49 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this... but I feel like I need to... Where should this be asked?[edit]

(EDIT: reformatted and Rephrased question in a more tasteful manner.)

So I have been discovering that Wikipedia broken links, and references in general, are being used for SEO.

" Find Broken Link Building Opportunities on Wikipedia Broken link building has it all ... There’s only one problem: finding broken links is a HUGE pain. That is, unless you know about a little-known wrinkle in Wikipedia’s editing system. You see, when a Wikipedia editor stumbles on a dead link, they don’t delete the link right away. Instead, they add a footnote next to the link that says “dead link” ... re-create that dead resource on your site and replace the dead link in Wikipedia with yours. "

This appears to me as vandalism, taking advantage of Wikipedia and Google search, generating bad references, and reinforcing bad sources. Is anybody familiar with this? How destructive is this? How can we combat it? Popcrate (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Popcrate: Ugh, that's a pretty underhanded and disruptive practice. Could you provide a link to where you found this? Replacing deadlinks with clearly inappropriate material is problematic, if that is what this snippet is suggesting. I haven't seen it happen myself, though. I think on high visibility articles, this is likely to be detected quickly and reverted, but it may go undetected on lower visibility articles. I don't have any solutions off of my head to detect when this happens generally. You might consider posting this to User talk:Jimbo Wales to get some attention on the issue from the wider community. Also pinging Doc James who has considerable familiarity with editing behavior associated with undisclosed paid editing, which this seems pretty consistent with. I JethroBT drop me a line 06:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes this is deadlink spamming. There are sits that promote this technique. I will block editors after they do it once but of course there are armies of socks involved :-( Hopefully once with get the internet archive bot to fix all dead links the problem will become less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: Sorry to see this has you concerned. This sort of behavior – gaming Wikipedia for the purpose of marketing/advertising – has been around for a very long time. Finding proper replacements for dead links is something good editors often do. The anti-spam and anti-vandalism robots are able to watch for bad replacements, but it generally falls to human editors to spot subtle but bad behavior.
It's really a shame that protecting WP from this and other sorts of vandalism takes so much time from volunteers. You have to see it as part of the price paid for having an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I think what mostly annoyed me about it was that they called it "white hat" and that they were highly recommending it as "really great to get an advantage over competitors". google search "Wikipedia Building Broken Links" (I'm sure you will find it because they spend all day scrounging to the top of the search page lol), and you will find what I'm talking about, and a handful of sites that are essentially just using wikipedia for SEO.
There could be a way to systematically destroy the effectiveness of this, but it might have more to do with improving search algorithms (google), than with wikipedia or mediawiki software. I've just found out about it (so I don't know if it really is that big of a deal or not), and you're correct jmcgnh: It's definitely the sort of thing that isn't worth the manual human resources, but there might be an automated solution. Popcrate (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok so basically, the phenomenon is Wikipedia:Link rot, and honestly now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think it's even worthwhile to waste effort against 1 tactic, which isn't necessarily that invasive of vandalism. I don't even want to post a link and give credit (or an extra backlink) to the site I discovered. In the grand scheme of things, there are most likely WAY more important issues to deal with. I'm going to ignore this BS for now, and continue working on light, photon, and various mathematics articles... Popcrate out! Popcrate (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Popcrate When it's discovered that an abusive editor is pursuing a strategy like this, ALL of their edits are subject to rollback, so it's the discovery that's hard, not the correction. Their coloring it as "white hat" is just an attempt to give false assurance to their prospects that what they are promising to do is actually likely to work.
There's some basic advice about SEO that is not underhanded or scammy – but it doesn't get miraculous results, just normal results, the web working the way it's supposed to. Then there's the underbelly of web marketing, schemes like this, or spamming, or link farms, that find chinks in the rest of the web that they can exploit. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, of course... Thanks for the discussion ^_^ ... and honestly, I'd rather have an underbelly that occasionally gets in the way... than have censorship of the web. Popcrate (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Popcrate: Yeah, I've seen this happen, more often than I would like. I think it's an excellent thing that more editors are made aware of this, not that it's something to go prowling around for, but if you should spot it you now know what it is :-) . And if you should discover a nest of such viperous links, WikiProject Spam is a good place to report them, after reverting. --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia adds nofollow to all external links so there is limited value for spammers in doing this. See meta:nofollow. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and becoming disillusioned with it[edit]

I'm new to Wikikpedia and already frustrated. At only 5 paragraphs, by first article included five references and citations from very notable sources, yet my article was not published. Instead, I received the message below telling my article "doesn't adequately show the subject's notability".

"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 films 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."

Can anybody tell me why this is? I've seen countless poorly written articles are far less notable topics on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your insights!

Bill Nemecek (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bill Nemecek, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear that you've had a rough start. Wikipedia is full of rules that can overwhelm new users. Creating a new article from scratch, in particular, is one of the most difficult undertakings on Wikipedia. It's recommended that new users spend some time editing existing articles first.
I can tell you why there are countless poorly written articles. It's because we did not have all of those rules in place since Wikipedia's inception. Some of them are fairly new. We have more than five million articles now. Pretty much all topics a general encyclopedia is supposed to cover have been covered. The remaining topics require us to judge inclusion, because many of them come close to what Wikipedia is not. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Bill Nemecek. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires that the content of articles be verifiable in reliable sources. Such sources should be predominantly secondary sources, written by third-parties to the topic – though primary sources, such as those written by the company itself, can be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that contain no analysis or evaluative content.

We also require that the notability of the topic be demonstrated, which unlike verification, can only be demonstrated by such reliable sources that are secondary and independent in nature (since writing about yourself does not show recognition out in the world). Such sources need to have treated the topic in substantive detail.

Articles should also be written in a neutral manner; they must not sound like commercials, and of course, copyright must be respected. Other than short quotes, marked as such with quotation marks and cited using an inline citation, you can't copy and paste previously written content unless it is in the public domain or has been released under a suitably-free copyright license. This is true even if you own the copyright to the content.

As to the draft, I was required to delete it for violating copyright. But if that overriding issue was not present, then please understand that the article read like nothing but a commercial for the company, which is not surprising since all the content was taken from press releases by the company, i.e., the types of sources we would not want an article to be based upon.

This does not necessarily mean that an article on DriverUp is not possible—if the types of sources we require articles to be based upon are in existence—but that article would look very different than the deleted one did. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bill Nemecek: I can't see the article you created, so I assume it's been deleted already. I can see one contribution by you to Wikipedia, at Bodffordd; it appears constructive and helpful.
I am not surprised at your disillusionment. Creating a new article, particularly on a subject of questionable notability, is really difficult. Unfortunately, it is common for new users to embark on this difficult task while they have little experience of everyday routine editing, become disillusioned, and give up. I would like to encourage you to make more edits of the kind you made at Bodffordd, and move on to improving the formatting and referencing of existing articles, and maybe improving the countless poorly written articles that certainly exist. Wikipedia is having difficulty recruiting and retaining new editors; and in my view it is because the idea "Wikipedia consists of articles, therefore the way to improve it is to create more articles" is increasingly prevalent. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Finnusertop, Fuhghettaboutit, Maproom, and Bill Nemecek: As a (still) relative newbie, this topic was of great interest to me, because I nearly threw in the towel when my first attempt at a new article was rejected because of notability. The key is what Finnusertop wrote above - "I can tell you why there are countless poorly written articles. It's because we did not have all of those rules in place since Wikipedia's inception." IF that sort of statement had been included in the rejection of my first attempt, I would have been tremendously less frustrated by the rejection. I strongly recommend to the powers that be that the notability rejection include that sort of statement to help editors understand why their work is being rejected. In summary, Bill, keep editing! Having gotten over that initial disillusionment, I now enjoy the exerience. DennisPietras (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Bill Nemecek, I can totally understand your frustration having been through a similar experience with a new article myself. To add to it, couple of days ago I had nothing to show for my time and effort when another article (created by someone else) that I thought I was improving was deleted and I was also questioned about intent!! Still I'd urge you to think over what Finnusertop wrote. Wikipedia probably began with fewer rules but poor content caused the rules to increase but maybe poor content increased faster than the rules. How about working on the poorly written articles to start with? As DennisPietras says and I agree, the experience is enjoyable. Now I can see more articles than I have time to work on. --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
WP actually has WP:Policies and guidelines, not Rules. Unfortunately, most of the most active Wikipedians do not know this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of belaboring the issue, there are at least 2 experienced editors I have wandered into that believe that wp policies and guidelines are in fact rules that are to be enforced without discretion. Fortunately, I've managed to avoid further interactions with them. DennisPietras (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason we have so much poor content has four predominant bases. 1) Failure to catch massive amounts of poor content as it is added, which is a problem with the gatekeeping function, i.e., new pages patrol (for example, probably one-tenth or so of articles start as copyright violations that no one catches, a scary high percentage) 2) – which is in turn partly a problem with sheer numbers of pages coming at us; the limits of our gatekeepers and our deletion processes to handle that raging firehose of a never ending stream, together with the de-centralized manner in which Wikipedia operates; 3) failure to put in place any pragmatic mechanisms to enforce verifiability in a manner that has any teeth, as well as allowing the the COI guidelines to remain fangless suggestions, both of which are sadly still true today; and 4) the unexamined, feckless manner that many people come here without knowing what an encyclopedia is or to examine our basic policies and guidelines and attempt to comply before adding content, as if Wikipedia was some LinkedIn analogue, and before that Facebook, and before that Myspace, and so on. The core content inclusion policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR; WP:NOT) have been in place in roughly the same core form since 2005 (when there were about 700K articles).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit sure, core policies have always been in place, but they have had wildly different content and context. Take notability for instance. Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Importance lists three criteria, which have little bearing on notability as it is defined today. Back in the day, a topic was notable if it met one of the following:
  1. "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (e.g. it is at least well known in a community)."
  2. "It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject." (cf. WP:ARTN which today directly contradicts this rationale)
  3. "Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance."
Let me quote Wikipedia:Notability/Historical for an excellent summary of its flaws:
"Importance (August 2004 – August 2006) – Criteria included the ill-defined "important", "famous" and "relevant", and even more questionable ones such as having a longer-than-stub article already, or declared to be "important" by multiple editors on the article's talk page (echoes of this idea remain in the Criteria for speedy deletion, in which articles that simply assert the notability of their topic, even without sources, cannot be speedily deleted on grounds of non-notability). This one is principally interesting for its talk page rather than its sparse and confused content. Disposition: Inactive and moot (replaced by more objective criteria on the road to WP:N)."
Before those criteria were devised, a topic had to be merely verifiable to exist, which was arguably even worse. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Article[edit]

So, I was reviewing a GA article and there seemed quite a few places where for a list a comma was not present. However, the person said that it was a reference or something which I did not completely understand the meaning of. So, can anybody explain what it means?Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that your question refers to the article Mentolat, and the phrase "the central portion of Magdalena Island, Aisén Province, Chilean Patagonia". You have mistaken this for a list. It is not a list; Magdalena Island is in Aisén Province, which is in Chilean Patagonia. It's like an address: "he lived in Dwyran village, Anglesey, Wales", with no "and". Maproom (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That seemed some misunderstanding. Thank You for assisting. Also, can you see if the GA review I did for that article was nice or were there any improvements that I should have had?:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityavagarwal (talkcontribs) 15:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I know nothing about the GA process. Maproom (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It is fine. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a look at your review and it seems mostly ok, though it's a little hard to tell since this article passed so many of the criteria: the difficulty in GA-reviewing is communicating what's wrong with an article. That said I have a few suggestions. Firstly, it's often ok for the reviewer to perform minor copyedits themselves (though you must be careful, as in your review, you could misunderstand the text). On a broader note, I prefer to provide more 'meta-information' in my reviews. That is to say, on top of the criteria breakdown, I like to give a summery summary of where I think the article is and what needs to be done (if anything) for it to pass. I also like to use colour to clearly signpost my thoughts. To see what I mean I suggest taking a look at my latest review here. All the best —♫CheChe♫ talk 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. It might be easier to edit once the problems with the article are mentioned. Also, I copyedit your "summery"? :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, haha, thanks. That happens more often than I care to admit. Best of luck with any future reviews, and don't forget I'm always around if you need anything. —♫CheChe♫ talk 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A link shows in my comment - I didn't add it![edit]

Hello, I added a section here and only one link in my text. However I can see a second link ( that I did not add at the end of my section. How did it appear and how can I delete it? Roshni Kanchan (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wish they were all this easy. There was a link added as a reference in the section above. Since the talk page had no "reflist" template, Wikimedia software automatically placed the link at the bottom of the page. I added a "talk reflist" template yo the section above which fixed the problem. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, Roshni Kanchan. John from Idegon (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, John from Idegon. (I'm relieved - I wasn't trying to sell Coursera courses on wikipedia! :) )
I've one more question about the same page - there seem to be no replies to any of the comments on the talk page since mid-2012 so should I ask in the Teahouse for someone to reply to my comment or is there another place to do that or just go ahead and edit?
--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources for the changes you wish to make, you can be BOLD and just make them. If someone objects, they will revert you and then you can discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Roshni Kanchan, if you wish further input on the article's content, a good place to ask is at the talk page of the WikiProject (or projects) that follow the page. They are listed at the top of the talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, John from Idegon for your help. I placed my suggestion and question on Coursera's talk page as well as talk page of Wikiproject Education. If there is no reply in a week, then I'll go ahead and make the change myself.--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Authority Control - how to do it?[edit]

I've read the authority control directions about two-dozen times and I still don't understand how to apply authority control to an article. Specifically, I'm trying to do it to America's 60 Families (a book). Can anyone provide some direction? DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DarjeelingTea See the WP:Authority control guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll try reading it again. DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
DarjeelingTea, I would suggest reviewing Q11 on this page, as I think it relates to want you are trying to do. I use {{authority control}} quite often and have discussed it a few times with other editors on my own talk page. If you need more assistance, I'd be happy to help. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Vycl1994 - thanks so much! That helped me figure out precisely what I was doing wrong, much appreciated! DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

uploading photograph[edit]

How can I upload a photograph to a piece I originated? Janbridget (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have done it!Janbridget (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janbridget: unless you took this photo in c. 1914, it did not originate with you. Evidence of public domain status needs to be provided every time, not just upon request. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why are things so complicated? I do not know who took the photograph originally. It was sent to me by a descendant of William John Sutton's wife, Helen Annie Fox, for use in a book I am writing about William John. Could you please tell me (in simple terms) what I need to do?Janbridget (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have just realised I actually have the original photograph - it was sent me by Basil Fox, descendant of Annie Fox. Now what do I do please?Janbridget (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have also just found the name of the person who took the photograph: John Savannah (1868-1925).Janbridget (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Janbridget, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy answer to your question. The issue is that copyright law is a very difficult subject matter. Wikipedia is very strict in ensuring compliance with copyright (especially US copyright law), and therefore, unless you can prove that the content is in the public domain, falls within the very restrictive guidelines for use of non-free content, or the owner of the copyright to the content (in your case, most likely the person who took the image) has donated the content for use on Wikipedia, there is nothing to be done. Perhaps you may find some guidance to your questions at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe I have sorted it now. The photograph was taken by the photographer John Savannah who died in 1925. It was taken in Victoria, B.C. Under Canadian copyright law this is therefore in the public domain.Janbridget (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to say thank you.Janbridget (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janbridget: thank you for the additional information. That's enough to settle that the image is in the public domain both in Canada and in USA. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank god for that! I had totally forgotten Basil had sent me the original and also, when looking at the original I was able to identify the photographer! Sloppy of me.Janbridget (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

how do you delete an article?[edit]

i just finished making an article and ive been trying to delete it all day soo pls can you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy345 (talkcontribs) 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

i just created an article(Omolara christy Ogundimu) and they are saying"this article nedds speedy deletion" so what am i to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy345 (talkcontribs) 10:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Christy345 and welcome to the Teahouse.
An article marked for speedy deletion will be deleted by an administrator, usually within an hour or two, if it clearly meets the criteria for speedy deletion. There would be nothing you need to to if you agree with the deletion.
Only administrators can delete pages. You can request deletion for a page in your user space or for which you are essentially the only contributor by placing the template {{db-user}} or {{db-author}}, respectively. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How to add a fictional character?[edit]

Guys can you add a fictional character without it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileyfrostfrost (talkcontribs) 11:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can provide suficient proof on Notability, than yes. (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


how do i put my info in the internet . — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Silva(Thugga) (talkcontribs) 10:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello De Silva(Thugga) and welcome to the Teahouse.
While this page is for asking questions about how to edit on Wikipedia and new questions are normally placed at the top of the page rather than the bottom, I'll take a stab at answering while leaving the question down here.
Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising your website. You should be able to easily find website hosting services on the internet, a few of them are even "free" for small, starter websites. They vary a lot in the types of services offered. If you're just a beginner, I suggest paying the modest amount needed to put up a website on one of the "full service" web host providers. They have software that makes it relatively easy to put up a nice-looking website and their systems will usually do a good job of preventing your website from being hacked or abused. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 10:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

how i can edit a page[edit]

I want to add something in a page but always removed my data — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usamakaror (talkcontribs) 14:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Usamakaror. Your edits to Karor Lal Esan have been reverted because they are inappropriate. Adding the postal code alone would be fine (though it really belongs in the infobox rather than in the text, and all information is better if it is referenced) but adding the name of an internet adviser looks like promotion, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. In any case, if someody reverts an edit you make, you should not just apply it again, but should discuss the matter with the other editor: see WP:BRD. Please also read WP:42. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Article can be edited, but only to add material[edit]

I wanted to make minor copy edits to a section of an article, and the edit box was mostly blank. What is going on? [4]--Quisqualis (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That section of the article is transcluded from another article, entitled Glass–Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate.
If you make changes to the latter, they'll show up in the main article. (But maybe only after doing a 'refresh', or just waiting a while - or a 'purge', see that link) (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles about parasitic diseases in humans and animals[edit]

I would like to greatly expand some articles on parasites of Tropical game herds. I keep being told different information, which seems more related to other editors having a sense of ownership of the articles than to any real policy. For example, I was told I had to add the information about non-human animals at the end of relevant sections to the article about the disease in humans, rather than the separate article, and that this was policy. Now that I point out the animal disease article already exists, the person is back peddling.

But I don't see any policy that says I have to do that in the first place. It would be ridiculous to add ten paragraphs on wildland herd immunities to the end of a section that doesn't exist in a human disease article that is much more sporadically and differently distributed in humans. It's like, okay, here's the disease in humans, now let me add nothing about this aspect than talk about the eastern and western game herd spreads and farm animal breeds. Humans are impacted by parasites in sometimes the same way, sometimes different ways than other animals. But if you have entire departments in dozens of countries and billions of dollars to study the disease in animals, you shouldn't force writers to add 20 paragraphs, spread out, as an afterthought, to the human disease.

I can't find the policy that says I have to write about animal parasites as an afterthought to humans. My edits are being reverted, and I am being lectured. The parasitology articles have large sections that are plagiarized. They need work. I am willing to do it. But I get told it's against policy, no it's not, yes it is, revert, go away.

And, no I will never ever try a user name again. So don't tell me it's easier with a user name.

I want to edit animal parasitology articles. I want to see the policy that is causing my edits to be reverted. Can anyone show me that?

2601:648:8503:4467:F090:EC3E:A4AD:A34C (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't help explain why edits were reverted unless we can see the edits. Because you are using an IP address which has no other edits, it's hard to know what edits you are talking about.
In broad principle, you're right that a subject (such as an animal parasite) could warrant its own article, if there is enough information about it available in appropriate reliable sources.
And if there are sections that are copied from non-free sources, then indeed those need to be removed immediately.
However, in the above, I'm only seeing your side of the argument; I'd need to see the context of the discussion.
Therefore, please show us where you're having problems - which articles - and where this discussion has taken place, and then we can try to help. (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

General question on an AfC[edit]

This is a real greenhorn question, and I know I'm failing at the "be bold" directive, but I'm looking at this AfC submission and don't know what to do. It strikes me as fulfilling the WP:PROF notability guideline (the subject is the chair of a mainstream department at a prestigious school), but the article reads like his CV, which strikes me as coathangery. Am I correct in concluding that the article should be accepted on the basis that it seems to satisfy notability and the guidelines on citations for BLP, and is just in need of a substantial amount of editing? Dunready (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your first task on reviewing the AFC submission would be to address the copyright violation from (so you were correct in saying that it looks like his CV). - David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Dunready (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(I went ahead and followed your advice. Thanks again for the help.) Dunready (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, I now see that the article John H. Byrne, created by the same editor, was speedily deleted for the same reason in June 2016. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing articles in my Sandbox[edit]

I have a partially completed article in my Sandbox, but wish to start writing a second one.

Is there anywhere to store partially written articles for later work or can I only work on one at a time?

FRAS (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can have multiple userspace drafts. The easiest thing is to move User:FRAS/sandbox to User:FRAS/Ipswich Scientific-Gossip Society and then start your second draft at User:FRAS/whatever you want the next title to be. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)