From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions)
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

File moving from en to commons[edit]

Hi! I am an Active Tamil user! I would like to use all files related with Wikiproject Scout in my wikipedia. So Please move all files to commons which are in Scouting category. Such as logos of Scout association and etc shold be moved. Hope you'll reply. Thank you.--Shriheeran (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Shriheeran. Only files which are public domain or released under a licence such as CC-BY-SA may be hosted on Commons: Logos are nearly always copyright protected, and can only be hosted on individual Wikipedias, not commons. (I haven't checked those particular ones, but I would be surprised if itwere any different). What I suggest you do is look at the file descriptions in English Wikipedia, and you will probably find URLs showing where they were uploaded from - then you can upload them to tawiki (assuming tawiki's rules on Non-free content are satisfied). --ColinFine (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I like it FranciscoQ001 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rajput Barsar clan deleted why ???[edit]

Hello bro , i created my clan page Rajput Barsar but it has been deleted one week ago. Please tell me why this is happen. I am from punjab and Rajput Barsar is a forward caste there . So please help me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rao jesh (talkcontribs) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that Rajput Barsar was deleted twice, not a week ago but in January. The second deletion was after the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Rajput Barsar. Rajput barsar has also been deleted twice. There is no record of any article being created by your current account, but it has been noted, for example at User talk:Badal Singh Barsar, that a number of accounts have been making similar edits on subjects in this area, giving rise to suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Rajput Barsar is a clan in punjab . Yes it was not created by me but my family and so many other people are belong to this clan of rajputs. I visited this page once but now it is not appears why ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rao jesh (talkcontribs) 06:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The reasons for deletion are discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajput Barsar, Rao jesh. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice Requested - On Multiple Non-Neutral Articles[edit]

I am not entirely sure where I should be asking this. I don’t want to take a good-faith editor who is violating Wikipedia policy with good intentions directly to a drama board. User:AngelicBeaver has created multiple articles in article space, one on each of the principles of the Black Lives Matter movement. They have put the following comment on each of the talk pages: "I am a part of a group of two people attempting to create articles for each of the guiding principles, defining how the guiding principle is understood within the context of Black Lives Matter, as well as how it is or is not implemented within the movement. Edits or suggestions are welcome to improve the article." I have replied on their talk page that this appears to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a web host, and of neutral point of view. My thinking is that the articles should be replaced by redirects to Black Lives Matter, and that an article on each principle is of course fine on the movement’s own web site, and the Wikipedia article can and should link to the web site. However, I am not comfortable just arbitrarily changing articles to redirects. Should I nominate the articles for Articles for Deletion, not on notability grounds, but as incapable of being made neutral in their current form? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This should definitely be brought up on WP:ENI, it's a course project issue. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:; also pinging @Seraphimblade: who G11'ed everything created by one of their classmates. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like these need to go too. Either G11, or AfD, or if they would be plausible redirects (which I kind of don't think they would), we could do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I contacted the article author and they've agreed to deletion, so they can now be done under G7. But given this issue, and a similar recent issue I was involved with, I think we need to very carefully consider how we engage educational organizations. I don't want students and instructors to end up having an experience like this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
One of the three articles had been deleted by G7 (author request). There were still three remaining, for which I have submitted a bundled AFD. In my view, they aren't candidates for any of the speedy deletion criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a matter that should be discussed with the Wiki Education Foundation. I know a couple of their staffers and they are good people who take these issues very seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
These issues seem to pop up al the time when it comes to school projects and have been discussed before at WP:ENB. Basically, students are working on their drafts with what looks like very little input from their instructors. Most of the feedback they get seems to come from other students in the same class. Lots of these drafts are then directly moved to the article namespace without any sort of formal review, which in turn means that many end up being tagged/nominated for deletion for one reason or another. I understand the principle of allowing anyone to create an article at anytime, but I feel there might be some merit in encouraging students to not move their creations to the article namespace themselves until they can be approriately reviewed. The student's grade should not depend on whether what they create is in the draft namespace or the article namespace. If the draft has merit, it will eventually be moved; if not, it will still be there for the instructor to evaluate before it's eventually be deleted. Just my two cents on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that these issues are now happening more often with educational projects than they should, and they don't do anyone any good, not the instructor, not the students, not WMF, not the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm as a general rule one of the people who is contributing to this issue (as in creating the problem) and I know others at my school, while not creating random pages, have created [problems for Wikipedia]. Is there some way to propose a block on educational institutions at the first case of WP:Vandalism or WP:NOTAWEBHOST violations? It could be considered in violation of WP:AGF but it's a chronic problem and there should be a policy for student abuse of WP. Creeper Ninja (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning alerts \ Solving problems[edit]

I am the official biographer for All information provided is 100% correct. I would be extremely grateful if you could kindly let me know how to solve any doubt\alarm in order to finalise a clean page. Many thanks for the kind cooperation in advance. Maoelarivoluzione Maoelarivoluzione (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maoelarivoluzione: In order to answer your question as correctly as possible, I must ask you one: Are you being paid to edit the article? If so, by whom? Gestrid (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Never mind that question. I saw this in your talk page history, which answers my question.
Anyway, because you are paid, you must read and follow what WP:PAID says. This is required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use. While you have already declared a conflict of interest, there are additional requirements if you are being paid by anyone to edit or create the article. Gestrid (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually I am NOT paid, but I am his official biographer. The biography I added was deleted but was 100% true. Is there a way to re-add it? Many thanks. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maoelarivoluzione even if you are not being paid, being someone's official biographer still means that you almost surely have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to the subject. Although COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, it is something highly discouraged because it can lead to other more serious problems. So, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and familiarize yourself with the kind of things the Wikipedia community expects from COI editors. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequesnces and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, is there a way to provide a signed official biography by the person whose the page is about? Thanks (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maoelarivoluzione (talkcontribs) 15:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)
@Maoelarivoluzione: I'm not sure what you mean by "signed official biography", so I'll give you a general answer instead. Generally, only those subjects which satisfy Wikipedia's notability guideline are considered suitable for a stand-alone article. What you will need to establish is that Mao satisfies WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO and the best way to do such a thing is by showing that he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia articles about individuals are not really official biographies per se; rather, they just reflect information written about the subject in independent reliable sources. The information needs to be written in your own words and be supported by citations for verification purposes. In addition, all the article content must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons since you want to write about a living person. If you feel you are able to do all of that and feel you can address the reasons why Mao (singer) has been nominated for deletion, then you can request in the deletion discussion that the article be moved to the draft namespace where you can continue to work on improving it and fixing any problems associated with it. When you believe the article is ready to upgradeded to article status again, you should request that it be reviewed per Wikipedia:Articles for creation, so that more experienced editors can assess it and offer advice on how to further improve it.
Finally, please try to sign your talk page posts as explained in WP:TILDE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Content creation[edit]

I have noticed that a lot of users go around suggesting pages for deletion because in the users opinions, the page is not noteworthy. Since that is subjective, how do you defend yourself against page deletion for your hard work? CRAuser (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CRAuser. "Noteworthy" is actually not that subjective on Wikipedia. We have a main notability guideline that we all refer to as well as specialized notability guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:NBOOK. Show your article meets those guidelines and you'll be okay. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi CRAuser. You might find the information in WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions helpful. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in particular WP:PLEASEDONT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly That's very helpful! It's amazing how complicated Wikipedia is CRAuser (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Experienced editors[edit]

Do experienced editors have more power than beginners? If an experienced editor created a page, and a beginner editor marked it for deletion, would the page be deleted? CRAuser (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@CRAuser: Experienced editors have more knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, enabling them to write articles that meet those guidelines. Still, I've seen articles written by the most experienced editors deleted. It doesn't matter who tagged the article for deletion. What matters is that they provided a reason rooted in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines why the article should be deleted. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And who gets the final say and decides if the article is deleted? CRAuser (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
A closer, often an admin, assesses the arguments and evidence put forward, and determines the conclusion of the discussion. But the closer is supposed to decide on the basis of who had the stronger policy-based arguments, not who yelled loudest, nor on his or her personal opinion. The closer should be someone who did not participate in the discussion. The closer will mark the discussion closed, and indicate the result. If the result is 'delete" the closer will usually do the actual deletion. If the result is not to delete, the closer will include a record of the result on the talk page of the article. If someone thinks that a closer acted improperly, not in accord with the arguments presented or not in accord with Wikipedia policy, the close can be reviewed at deletion review, but most closes are upheld there. Not all, by any means, however. Deletion review is mainly for procedural errors, not differences of opinion. DES (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@CRAuser: Also see WP:!VOTE. Gestrid (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, also, I believe you're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mao (singer), right? Gestrid (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I was just speaking about articles in general. But that article was what made me curious, yes. CRAuser (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
That particular article is a very clear case for deletion. Its actual text is only one sentence, and it provides no evidence that its subject is notable. Who wrote it, and who proposed it for deletion, are irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Reflective Solar Tracker[edit]

I was recently declined and told someone in this space might help me with my problem. I tried to publish or create a page for something Called the Reflective Solar Tracker. I do not know what went wrong whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelsegui (talkcontribs) 11:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Noelsegui: the decline notice at the top of Draft:Reflective Solar Tracker explains one reason why it was declined: it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". I can see two other reasons why it would also be declined: it's not clear whether it's about a device or the company that makes that device; and it cites no sources. To be accepted, an article must establish that its subject is notable, by citing several reliable independent published source with in-depth discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In the spirit of nothing is simple I'll add that articles can also be 'marked for deletion' by WP:PROD which is used to propose uncontroversial deletions (which are almost never uncontroversial to the creating editor) and WP:SPEEDY which can remove articles quickly without waiting or discussion. Gab4gab (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Does wikipedia generally do page for individual species?[edit]

I study a rather obscure group of insects. The page about their genus is just a stub, and no wikipedia pages exist for any of the 600+ species. I was thinking of making pages for at least some of them. So my question is...are species level pages generally made in wikipedia? Or are they not encouraged for non-notable groups? Zportman (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You might be talking about Macrotera. Luckily we have some people who know about insects. You might consider asking User:Blythwood for advice, since he or she has already made some improvements to the Macrotera article that you created. Take a look at Category:Andrenidae to judge the level of detail that is provided in our current articles. If you are a specialist you will probably find people here who are eager to collaborate with you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You can also try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How to ask for reverse the decision of deletion[edit]

Hi, There is one page called KartRocket[[1]] which is got deleted due to lack of sufficient evidence of notability. Now, this article (brand) got significant coverage by independent reliable sources. What to do to get the page back. Raghavhere (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Raghavhere. I suggest you first discuss this with Darkwind who is the administrator who deleted the article per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. It would probably be helpful if you could add a list of the sources you have found to your user sandbox and explain how they show the subject is now Wikipedia notable. Darkwind should be able to tell you whether a formal Wikipedia:Deletion review is needed of whether you can simply recreate the article using the new information you have found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Marchjuly for your prompt reply. I will contact DarkWind and ask him to review the references. Raghavhere (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How to create article for your organization[edit]

I wanted to create a new article for our organization but if I do it then it will violate the guidelines and can result in a conflict of interest. Someone, please help how can I get help from the community to create a page for our brand. We have coverage from news and it is about the funding, top management, and business model. Raghavhere (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Raghavhere. The fact that you are trying so hard to get your brand and organisation into Wikipedia indicates that you are here to promote it. Please understand that we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to promote anything. There is no deadline. Have reliable sources unconnected with your organisation commented in depth about your funding, top management, and business model? If not, then those do not belong in an article. If reputable newspapers have covered you in depth, then you might meet our criteria for WP:notability; but as has been made clear to you, your conflict of interest makes it very hard for you to write an acceptable article. (Note also that if you are in any way paid to publcise Krafty, then you are violating Wikipedia's terms of service by not declaring this).
Wikipedia has little interest in what your organisation has said about itself, and even less interest in what you want to say about yourself. Any article must be based almost entirely on what independent sources have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad positioning of notes, in Agritourism[edit]

Hiya. could some kind editor take a look at the positioning of notes, in Agritourism?

You'll spot a couple of notes that appear after the usual end of an article.

If you correct it, I'll see how you did it, so I learn.

Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your problem was that you had included references (within ref tags) after the references section with its {{reflist}} template. I have turned those references into separate external links in this edit, but I haven't assessed whether they are appropriate external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at your edit, David, & I think I follow your gist. Thanks very much, Trafford09 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What can I publish about my ads at Roadside Rescue[edit]

Hi I am the owner operator at Ac Pro Jumpstart how do I fit into your guidelines for? (RonnieWoods (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi RonnieWoods. Just... don't. You are very welcome to help out on Wikipedia by editing, but using Wikipedia for advertising is not allowed. In fact, if you work for Ac Pro Jumpstart you should avoid writing about them here at all. Edit articles about your hobbies or interests by all means, but if you try and use Wikipedia as a free source of advertising, your account will be blocked. Yunshui  11:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Still learning how to edit and create pages. Have just created EdenTree. Hope it's right? I'd like to upload the logo for EdenTree and Allchurches Trust How do I go about uploading the logo in infobox? Seems really fiddly process. Is there a page on this somewhere? Can someone talk me through ... Thanks for your time. Joelionheart (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Joelionheart See Help:Files#Uploading files. Yes, it's kind of "fiddly", because we have to be very careful not to violate copyright. --Thnidu (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Invalid nofitications[edit]

I got these nonsense notifications (nothing has been linked):

Notifications inside, collapsed for readability by TigraanClick here to contact me 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What is going on? Also, am I posting in the right place? --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi David Hedlund, welcome to the Teahouse. Your post has been moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse. You must have "Page link" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. The notifications are a delayed reaction to edits to {{Hallucinogens}}. It's the first article edits after the links were added to a template displayed by the articles. The job queue may not have updated the link tables for the articles after the template edit, so the software first registered the "new" links when the articles were edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Page link was enabled.
In this case I didn't find ‪Solanaceae‬ on the 25iP-NBOMe article. I still don't get it. Can you please explain more? David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 14:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How to capitalize all characters on an article[edit]

Hello! I've been researching and seem to have run in to a dead end. Musical group LOCASH has an article that has incorrect page title capitalization. They are listed as "LoCash" which is not correct. It is always stylized uppercase. I attempted to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:LOCASH}} but it returns a warning: "Warning: Display title "LOCASH" was ignored since it is not equivalent to the page's actual title." But it does seem to be equivalent to me. Thank you in advance for your help. Here is the page: Peterstormer (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Peterstormer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page was moved from LOCASH to LoCash on 14:41, 9 January 2015 by TenPoundHammer, with a reason stated of "per facebook". You could ask for it to be moved back at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Or if there are reliable sources which indicate that LOCASH is the preferred form of the name, i could do it for you. (Since a redirect will need to be deleted, an admin will need to perform the move.). If you want me to do this, please reply saying so and indicating the sources which demonstrate that "LOCASH" is the proper form. DES (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! The band's PR agency has their name in all caps on all press releases:

And the band demonstrates it in all caps in the display name on all social channels:

If it's not possible to change it to all caps, it should at least not have a capital C in the name. If you don't mind, would love your help making the change! Peterstormer (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to know how many articles there are on Wikipedia?[edit]

Is there a counter or something? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Try the WP:Magic words {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, which gives 5,395,130. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It's also displayed at Special:Statistics and the top of Main Page (not in the mobile version). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Another Search Indexing Question[edit]

Hello, this is a follow up to an earlier question I asked about search indexing. I'd like to know if there is a setting preventing the Gryphon Investors article page from showing up in search engines even though the related Talk page does.

I recently participated in the creation of the Gryphon Investors page and it was accepted for publication a few weeks ago as Start Class. On Page Information, it shows "Indexing by Robots: Allowed". Within the page code I see <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>.

The last time an update was made to this page was today.

Any advise would be appreciated. Thank you. Arsenl2017 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arsenl2017: The page will have the noindex tag which prevents indexing until it has been patrolled (a special software feature) or is 30 days old. The feature to automatically noindex new pages is relatively new and has not been coordinated with the claim on "Page information" which only checks other ways to control indexing. I think the 30 days started 11 April where the article was moved from a draft. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, PrimeHunter. Is there a way to ask for it to get "patrolled"?

Arsenl2017 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Arsenl2017: There is no official procedure to ask for an editor with the required permission to patrol a page. Users are not expected to worry about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
And to explain why that is.. If your motivation is to end up in Google search, then we consider that a bad motivation to write a page :) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

user_talk section[edit]

Are we allowed to erase old user_talk posts/replies in our user_talk page? Songuitar333 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, Songuitar333. Yes (except unblock requests regarding a current block), but you might prefer to archive them instead. This can be done automagically by placing a notice and letting a bot do the dirty work, see the link I gave. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you so much for your help!! Tigraan Songuitar333 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A template didn't edit[edit]

I edited Template:Barcelona Metro Line 2 route map because it was showing old/outdated names of the open L9 Sud stations that Line 2 will share with Line 9 when the extension opens. However, when I checked the article (Barcelona Metro line 2), I found that the changes I made to the route map hadn't carried over to the article. Do you know what's going on? Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@DraconicDark: It takes some time to rebuild a new page structure with all the newest template changes included. You can request that be done immedately by the 'purge' command. It appears as a link along edit/history/watch above or below the whole page. It can also be presented as an asterisk – try hoovering the mouse cursor over it and see the tooltip text. --CiaPan (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@DraconicDark: This is a link to force purging: --CiaPan (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Thanks. DraconicDark (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

using a professor's faculty webpage information as source for biography[edit]

Can I use the information a professor of mathematics provides on her website for my biography on her?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MauraWen. Her website does not contribute to her notability. Please read our Notability guideline for academics for what is needed to establish her notability. If this professor is notable, then her website can be used for non-controversial biographical details such as her degrees, previous academic positions, and similar things. The shortcut to the relevant policy language is WP:SELFPUB. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This person is notable because of a professional mathematics award she received. She is on the women mathematician redlists of notable WikiProject Women that I am working thru.

MauraWen (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

how to post an article[edit]

how can i start my first article and be successful in submitting it? Qadar008 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:YFA might be useful for you. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Writing about a new service[edit]

Hi,my name is Jessica. I was about to write about a new service which I came across recently that similar to this: and my article was quickly be removed by wikipedia as its suspected to be a commercial write up. May I know how should I customise the content to fit with the guideline? Please advise. Jessica7989 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jessica. Your first article will give you a lot of useful advice about how to approach the difficult task of creating a new article. Please be aware that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion in any way: it has little interest in what a subject says about itself, and no interest at all in how a subject wishes to be portrayed. Articles should be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing page title[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to change a business page title (we've rebranded), but I don't appear to have the rights. Any suggestions? Or can someone assist?

Link to page:

The business is now called CU Coventry. As you can see here:

Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks, Adam.

Adam.Hartland (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adam.Hartland. When I look at the web page that you linked to above, I see a copyright notice for "Coventry University" at the bottom. It does not say "CU Coventry" as the copyright holder. Wikipedia does not change article titles based on an organization's "re-branding" efforts, but rather we give titles to articles based on what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. So, in this case, far better sources would be those independent of the university which report on the name change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Another point, Adam.Hartland. When you write "we've rebranded", that implies that you may be trying to edit this article as part of your job duties. If this is the case, then you must comply with our disclosure policy for paid editors. This is mandatory. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Creation of an Article[edit]

Hi there ,just wondering if there is a way to submit the articles so that they get self formatted ,like a template ,i love to research on various subjects from varied sources and i can get the wiki pages updated or created if need be. Thanks Wiki for all the helpful articles a great source of reliable knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greendevil1356 (talkcontribs) 10:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Greendevil1356. When adding new content to existing articles, the most important thing is to provide one or more references to reliable sources. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn how to create properly formatted references. As for new articles, please read Your first article, and you can use the Article wizard to assist you through the process. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to respond when my Talk page comment is edited by another?[edit]

Forgive me, this is the first time I've asked a question here.

What is the accepted response when one's comment on a Talk page has been edited by another person?

Am I wrong to believe that this sort of thing is frowned upon? When I discovered this had happened, I pressed the Talk history page's "undo" button for the session that had edited my comment - something I've never done before. I was incensed that the other editor had done this.

Then, I got nervous and worried that I'd erased some useful work (this is a Talk page) that had been added since my comment was vandalized, so I "undid" my own "undo". What a goof! Actually, I think that no damage was done.

What should I do? I've been an occasional editor for more than ten years but I've never had someone vandalize one of my comments before. The page in question is Talk:Jed_York. Rt3368 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is wrong Rt3368, user warned, no need to be nervous. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) @Rt3368: Your comment at Talk:Jed_York#Okay, it's not an article on quantum field theory, but... has a timestamp of 15:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC). At that moment the sentence in the article you were refering at the Talk page, was:
It has been reported that York and Harbaugh had a clash in the personality department.
(Revision from 30 November/1 December night of 2015, the date depends on the timezone you are in)
just as you wrote it. And it looks exactly the same today, in revision from 20 April 2017. So you're absolutely right to restore your comment to the original form.
If the sentence had been changed in the meantime, the other editor might want to fit the comment to the current article contents. But even then I think the direct replacing your comment would be inappropriate and I'd strongly recommend to add a new version instead, with a clear reference to a specific revision of the article, either by the revision id. or date (or with a link, as I did above). --CiaPan (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rt3368. As explained in WP:TPO, there are certain specific cases where it may be acceptable to edit another editor's talk page post, but these primarily have to do with fixing formatting errors, accidental damage, removing prohibited content, etc. An editor should never refactor another editor's in any manner which might change its meaning. Even simple corrections such as fixing a typo or adding a period should be avoided even in the spirit of just trying to be helpful. If this happens again, just remember to assume good faith and post a reminder to the other editor that this kind of thing is not considered acceptable; linking to WP:TPO may even be a good idea. As to your own posts, you can change them if you like, but you should keep in mind WP:REDACT and be careful when changing a post which has already been responded to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

All, thanks very much for this attention and for the good advice. Rt3368 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability.[edit]

Firstly I have drafted this article with same contents then it was contested for copyright or plagiarism. Now that I have gotten official email from the website owner where this profile was already published, it is rejected once again due to not notable resource. I want to reassure that the author, whom this article is about is a genuine scholar and have a plenty of publications on said references websites. It is worthy to be published in Wikiepedia. I will improve and update sources if any in future. Thanks. Me.en.mine (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of your text seems to be an unattributed quote from Ellen Gould Harmon White. Is it plagiarism by the website you used? Dbfirs 18:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Me.en.mine, presuming this is about Draft:M. A. K. Aurangzaib Yousufzai, the subject might be notable but you need to demonstrate this by citing multiple independent sources that discuss him in depth. Sources are also needed to meet the requirement that article content is verifiable by readers. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
... and all of the plagiarised content, and the unreferenced opinion needs to be removed. Dbfirs 09:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please assist in one simple edit[edit]

James Washington Humphreys regarding:

by James Blair Humphreys (Grandson and namesake)

Please correct (or reply with simple instructions) the spelling of the last name (Humphreys) and add middle name (Washington) Jashumph (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I have changed "James Humphries" to "James Humphreys" in the article Athletics at the Inter-Allied Games. It would be good to have some published evidence for this change: the cited source in the article refers variously to "James Humphries of Texas", "Humphries, U. S.", "James V. Humphries, U. S.", "Humphreys, James W.", and "Humphries, James W., Pvt". Maproom (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

No userbox for important thing[edit]

Why isn't there a userbox for "This user was born in Washington State" or "This user lives in Washington State"? PLEASE?!?! PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEASE add one! Face-sad.svg Face-sad.svg Face-sad.svg Face-sad.svg Face-sad.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanGamer77 (talkcontribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you would like to add a userbox like that, check out Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location#Creating_a_location_userbox. RudolfRed (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you look in Category:Washington user templates? I see at least six templates that convey "This user is from Washington" or "This user lives in Washington." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

! Oh sorry... I added some, but I am a bit freaked out due to the way you said that. I'm sorry to tell you this, but I thought it was worth saying. GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@GermanGamer77: See also Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/U.S. states 2#Washington. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a lot for your help, PrimeHunter! I already heard of it and immediately added 5-6 new Washington user templates. Sorry I saw Malik Shabazz's comment first, that's when I did, but thanks anyway! =D Face-smile.svg But how can I make a giant animated waving Germany flag like on some Swedish guy's page with a giant Sweden flag? GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ken Ham Article[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why it says in the Ken Ham article:

[Ken Ham] "believes that the Book of Genesis is historical fact and the universe is approximately 6,000 years old,[n 1] even though scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion years old.[2][3]"

To me, that sounds biased against Ken Ham (no offence) especially since it is at the very beginning at the article. I think it would be better to move the statement about how old the earth is to somewhere else in the article, but I'm a new user and I don't want to make a rash edit without more opinions.

Please let me know what you think! MollytheMouse (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It says he believes that on the basis of the book it cites as reference 1. There is also a footnote titled "Explanatory notes", which quotes his (and his co-author's) views on the age of the earth. Personally, I would be in favour of removing the clause starting "even though". I don't think the article on Ham is a suitable place to be told what scientists believe. Maybe that clause could be replaced by "a view incompatible with the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth." Maproom (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, MollytheMouse. Ken Ham is notable only as a supporter of a fringe scientific theory, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which reflects the broad scientific consensus. It is not proper, in my view, to describe Ham's fringe theory without making it crystal clear that his theory is not accepted by mainstream science in any way. The beginning of the article is called the lead and it should summarize the whole article, and the article should summarize what high quality reliable sources say about Ham. Since reliable sources make it clear that his theory is fringe and far outside the mainstream of science, then I believe this clause summarizing the well established scientific consensus about Ham's theory is appropriate. Perhaps the wording can be adjusted a bit. The relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which says that we should not denigrate the advocates of fringe theories. A brief statement of the scientific consensus is not denigration, in my view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! MollytheMouse (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

conflict of interest[edit]

I'd like to write a page with information about a particular poetry festival that is notable - a fact-based page with dates, names and a history of its development. Would it be a conflict of interest issue as I am the chairman of trustees?Belatrovapete (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Belatrovapete: Yes, it would be considered a conflict of interest. We discourage editors from creating articles about subjects where they have a close connection, but it's not disallowed outright.
You could try creating a draft article. Drafts exist outside the main article space and are at less risk for deletion. It would give you more time to develop the article, and then submit it for review by other unaffiliated editors. If satisfactory, it will be published - if not, you will receive feedback for further revisions.
There are some important considerations that you should know about:
  1. A proper disclosure of your affiliation is recommended. In fact, if you are receiving compensation for your work here, it is required.
  2. You should review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines - there's also a simplified version.
  3. Note that topics must be notable, with more specific guidelines for events at Wikipedia:Notability (events). You will be expected to provide links to reliable third-party sources to establish this event's notability.
  4. Avoid using copyrighted text as this would constitute a copyright violation, and will be swiftly deleted. This applies even if you are the copyright holder.
  5. Be aware that an article must be neutrally worded and cannot be used for the purposes of promotion or publicity.
  6. You won't have any right of ownership or editorial control over an article you create. Any editor acting in good faith may make changes at any time. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and article content is arrived at by consensus.
Hopefully this hasn't frightened you off, but rather informs you of the care and consideration needed to craft an article that will be accepted. You certainly did the right thing by coming here first and asking for our advice, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Good luck to you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thank you --Drm310, very useful information, and helps clarify my position. I shall take the draft route and submit it for review. (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How can editors know what noticeboard claims will be seen frivolous?[edit]

I received this comment from admin Bishonen on my talk page today. (extended discussion) I am being warned of a lengthy block. My question is - how can I know what claims an admin will consider frivolous before I file them? If I am going to act in a way that leads to a "lengthy block" I want to know before I do something whether that action is allowed or not. It is not meaningful to say "Note that this does not mean you're not allowed to file complaints at noticeboards." This is overly vague - it means a sanction can be imposed solely on a judgment call of whether a complaint was "frivolous" - even if I have made that complaint in good faith, there is no way I can avoid sanction with certainty unless I don't post any complaints on noticeboards. This would have a "chilling" effect - I am posting here to seek advice about this from other editors. Seraphim System (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ask one of the people already discussing it on your talk page, Bishonen will most definitely be able to help you understand the policies around your actions, for pete's sake look at their pages, and this: [They don't agree] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creeper Ninja (talkcontribs) 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The question is not whether or not User:Jytdog is running sockpuppets, I have already discussed with the folks at SPI and I understand what kind of behavior patterns they are looking for. Obviously I will not file more SPI claims - that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about sanctioning an editor who consistently acts in good faith for some nebulous and unknowable offense. That incredibly humorous post does not help answer my question about creating an opportunity for abuse by allowing sanctions based on a vague term such as "frivolous complaints" - this would allow arbitrary application of sanctions to non-disruptive editors, which I am discussing on my talkpage Seraphim System (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • You pinged me and I am not sure why. (in my view which I think reflects the common one, you can talk about an SPI filing that happened to be about me and not ping me, as i am not the topic in this discussion. if i were the topic, yes you should ping me). Since you did... What you are ignoring is WP:CONSENSUS which is the foundation of this whole place. What that policy recognizes is that the work done to build and maintain WP is done by a community. A community of individuals. That only works if we listen to each other. Really listen. That is both content-wise, and behavior-wise. So if a bunch of people are telling you that you are screwing up, (for instance, making very serious charges that have no actual basis) you should listen and not argue that what you did was OK. I am pretty infamous for being harshly clear (as I am doing now) but I know this about myself and I hear it when people tell me that it is a bad thing (it can be a bad thing). If i were just to essentially say "go screw yourself" when people criticized me (which is what you essentially did at SPI, on your Talk page, and here) I would have been thrown out of here ages ago.
Bish was being very kind to you (!) by taking time out of their day to write that long thing, to try to help you understand this CONSENSUS thing. Pure, gratuitous, kindness that they didn't have to do. I reckon that Bish did that because you have a lot of promise as an editor and because you are showing signs of self-destructing (by reacting so negatively and defensively when people are telling you that you are screwing up). So please - hear the advice. Please try to become more resilient and able to hear and respond positively to the criticism that comes when you screw up in a community. And most importantly try to actually learn from it.
Answering the OP. If you haven't done it, it is really useful to read a bunch of filings at ANI, SPI, and AE to see what works and what doesn't (not to judge what you think is best -- look at what works and what doesn't in terms of the outcome in light of the the kind of case, who brings it, how the evidence is presented, and what kind of evidence.) There is a ton of case law to study  :) (by the way, "knowing what works and what doesn't work" is a key part of WP:CLUE - that is a link to probably the most important little essay in Wikipedia) It takes time to acquire clue, and while you are acquiring it, it is good to walk gingerly, checking yourself as you go. I don't know if you have come across or started relationships with any admins or experienced users whom you respect and who have wide respect in the community (both are important to consider). If you are considering going to a serious board like ANI, SPI, or AE, ask a couple of them via email before you take action. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, I am going to limit myself to a couple of brief comments. You have received excellent advice, both here and on your talk page, from several highly experienced editors. I encourage you to heed that advice and also to go out of your way to avoid conflict. I have been editing Wikipedia for eight years now, have written many articles and expanded many more. In addition, I am, I believe, the most active Teahouse host. I have never once been caught up in any lengthy conflict at SPI or ANI or any other noticeboard. That is simply because I try to avoid conflict unless it is absolutely necessary, and also that I am sure that my own behavior is proper. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328 I have noticed the definition of what is WP:DUE changes between different language editions of Wikipedia. To help reduce systemic bias, I have decided to translate some of our English language articles for addition to Turkish Vikipedia. This way, I can be sure that my conduct is proper, and avoid conflict - because these articles are consensus versions and have been written by our established editors. To that end, while I have you on the line, can you please remind me which policy governs cross-wiki translation, and how to correctly deal with attribution issues? Thank you Seraphim System (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, you can find a lot of information at Wikipedia:Translation, including how to attribute properly. However, not all of our articles are "consensus versions" which have been written by "established editors". We have over five million articles and frankly many of them are of poor quality. Only Featured articles and Good articles have gone through an organized review by experienced editors. I suggest that you start with them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System There are currently 3325 featured articles and 19955 good articles that have not yet been translated into Turkish. Here is a list of featured articles from the English Wikipedia that do not have a corresponding article in the Turkish Wikipedia. Mduvekot (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Mduvkot Thank you, that was useful. Seraphim System (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The subject seems to have changed, but I'll respond to the original question. It's strange to me to see Seraphim System practically quoting my own rhetorical question when I warned them — "How, then, can you know in advance whether a complaint you make will be deemed frivolous and put you at risk of a block?" — but ignoring the answer I gave: ".. I suggest that the only safe way is to ask an experienced user you trust, preferably an admin, and abide by their advice". Instead Seraphim System complains here at the Teahouse that my warning "means a sanction can be imposed solely on a judgment call of whether a complaint was "frivolous" - even if I have made that complaint in good faith, there is no way I can avoid sanction with certainty unless I don't post any complaints on noticeboards. This would have a "chilling" effect," etc. @Seraphim System:, didn't you see my suggestion for 'a way to avoid sanction with certainty'? If you ask a trusted, experienced editor (and to make sure you don't misjudge these qualities, better make it an admin) in advance and are given thumbs up by them, then I won't blame you, and certainly won't sanction you, for filing a complaint, even if I personally shouldn't happen to think it was the most constructive complaint. My personal opinion won't come into it. I'm sorry this wasn't clear in my warning. Note that if you insist on filing your next complaint without taking any advice, you'll have to take your chances for it being seen as frivolous, not just by me but by everybody who responds (as was the case with your recent AE and SPI complaints). Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 16:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC).
Ok, I will ask an admin before filing a complaint in the future. Seraphim System (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


How do o protect a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvjkyitfudrtdfgudyfgfthdxhft (talkcontribs) 21:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gvjkyitfudrtdfgudyfgfthdxhft: Only administrators may protect a page. You may make a request at WP:RFPP, if the page is being persistently vandalized for example. RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


How do you make boxes, like the kind barnstars appear in? WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

WP teahouse logo.png Teahouse Reply
Hi WikiSquirrel42. Looking at code and grabbing and modifying it, playing around and so forth is often the way to do things. Here, you could go to Wikipedia:Barnstars, navigate to a few of the many provided on that page, once at one of the barnstar's template pages, click edit, and then copy the code, just as I did to make this reply. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


how to publish my pageSriganesh123 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sriganesh123 and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to know that Wikipedia is not a social network that allows editors to publish pages about themselves, but it is an encyclopaedia that publishes articles about many topics, including notable people. Please read WP:Autobiography and WP:Biographies of living persons. If you have been written about elsewhere in multiple independent reliable sources, then perhaps you could request that an article be written at WP:Requested articles. Dbfirs 06:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

quoting Wikipedia[edit]

I thought I saw a policy about when and how to quote from Wikipedia, but I can't find it. Help, please. --Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Michael David Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in Its Context, Oxford, 2008, p. 116
  2. ^  Levias, Caspar (1905). "Numbers and numerals". In Singer, Isidore; et al. Jewish Encyclopedia. 9. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company. p. 349. Retrieved 2017-04-27.  [plus a long quote outside the template, which doesn't support quotations; the Jewish Encyclopedia is public domain]
  • (And can anyone explain where that long narrow dashed box came from?)
    Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Thnidu: The {{reflist-talk}} template does not like to be indented, as you did here. There's a mention of the phenomenon you just observed on the doc page for it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a photograph[edit]

How can I add an image to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaywardSoul (talkcontribs) 05:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, WaywardSoul! Hopefully Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images can answer your questions. :) --CiaPan (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Article on Aurangzeb[edit]

I am new here. I observed that in the article on Hinduism in Wikipedia, a sentence, "destroyed Hindu temples and persecuted non-Muslims", with a link to, "Persecution of Hindus" is mentioned. I want someone to add that same sentence (or better still, it could be, "persecuted Hindus", with the link to "Persecution of Hindus") to the article on Aurangzeb, using the same references 476, 478 and note 33 in the lead/introduction. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvankaTr (talkcontribs) 17:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello IvankaTr and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like we failed to respond to your question the first time around.
The best place to make a suggestion like this is on the talk page of the article in question. You could title your section "Edit request". You could also just be bold and make the change yourself – that's what Wikipedia is all about. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Request Editing Ideas[edit]

Hello! I am new here, I am really glad to join the community. I will try to give out the best information I could provide to the world. I don't really know where to start. So please give me some topics I might be able to cover.

Thank you ✓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theerockzz1 (talkcontribs) 06:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Theerockzz1 and welcome to the Teahouse.
My most emphatic piece of advice is that you spend some time learning how Wikipedia works before attempting any ambitious projects, such as creating a new article on a new topic. I've placed a welcome message on your talk page that has a number of helpful links. I don't see that you've gone through The Wikipedia Adventure yet, which is a worthwhile thing for new editors to do, even if it seems a bit childish.
Spend some time improving existing articles. There are organized lists of suggestions on the WP:Community portal page that are a good way to get your feet wet on small edits before you start to tackle bigger projects. It looks like some of your first edits have been reverted – I realize this can be discouraging or frustrating, but we at the Teahouse would like to see you succeed and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia. Ask us questions. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

improving entry[edit]

hello, I got some feedback on my first entry "MAG Interactive". How can I improve it?

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (April 2017) This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (April 2017) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2017)

Erinfears (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

In the notices to which you refer, in the box at the top of MAG Interactive, the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which will give you further advice on each of the problems. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made fixes to the article , but do not feel comfortable to remove the maintenance template myself. Can someone review that the issues seem fixed and remove the maintenance template?Erinfears (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it ok to make interwiki links to an article multiple times on the same article?[edit]

What is the best practice for making multiple interwiki links to a single article? I've seen that it's usually the case that you put an interwiki link on the first mention of a topic on an article, but I've also seen the case that an article gets multiple links within a single article. Obviously, putting too many links is not a good idea, but sometimes it's helpful, like with people's names. What is the best thing to do in these cases? (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello anonymous editor and welcome to the Teahouse.
The best practice is to use good judgment: usually the first link is the only link and that's considered sufficient, but there are some exceptions, such as lists or infoboxes, where the consideration "for the convenience of the reader" allows for additional links. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Usually a link in the lede (if appropriate) and one in the body of the text is sufficient. Exceptions are lists and very long articles. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for film and TV plots[edit]

What constitutes RS for this? I have seen the "show itself" and "need secondary/tertiary sources". Is there policy on this? It seems that the vast majority have no citations. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The common practice seems to be that the work itself is a sufficient "primary source" from which an editor may briefly summarize the plot. There are more details at Wikipedia:Plot summaries. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, jmcgnh! Jim1138 (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason for not having WikiProject related to field hockey,only ice hockey is available?[edit]

I try to create articles related to hockey teams such as Namibia,UAE,Uganda etc.I would like to share something relating to hockey through WikiProjectAbishe (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abishe. WikiProjects can be started by anyone. Right now, there hasn't been interest among editors to start a WikiProject about field hockey. If you'd like to start one, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating_and_maintaining_a_project for some good tips. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@ User:NeilN,thanks for your advices.But I will look for some time if I get the idea of creating WikiProject Hockey.Thank You.Abishe (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice for a returning rookie.[edit]

Hi all. I don't know how long it's been since I've made any useful contributions to Wikipedia. But I've had exams and IRL stuff happen for 3 months. But in any case, I've returned to continue my journey on becoming a successful Wikipedia editor & I'd just like to get some advice for my return.

When I first started, I was told by Gronk Oz (I think that's the right person) to start out small and make little edits to pages with mistakes and such.

So, what new advice would you give me? Cypher7850 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, we can certainly use your help.
If you see a WikiProject that covers an area you are interested in, joining that project and working on its "To Do" list would be a great way to start contributing. Check out the WP:WikiProjects page, particularly WP:WikiProjects#Finding a project. You can also find projects by looking at the talk pages of articles you are interested in to see if there's a banner for a WikiProject that's looking after the article.
To get more diversity in your life, you could go to WP:Community portal and select from the organized lists of articles needing particular kinds of edits. There's always lots of cleanup needed and making these smaller edits will build up your experience and exposure.
And if you run into any difficulties, the Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, Cypher7850. You can very easily check when you last made contributions by going to Special:Contributions/Cypher7850 (which there is a link to in the top-right of the screen when you are logged in). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


I work for Berry Global and I am wanting to update our Wikipedia page. The two main things I need to accomplish are to update the "Berry Plastics" to "Berry Global, Inc." on the top of the page. There is also an image of our old logo to the right of the page. I need to have that updated to reflect our new logo as well. (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, IP editor. First of all, since you work for Berry Global, you must familiarize yourself with the mandatory disclosure described in that link. In particular, if you have edited the page or connected articles before, you need to disclose it in the manner prescribed. You are also extremely strongly encouraged to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making future edits.
Also, although the changes you suggest look fairly non-controversial, I must warn you: Berry Plastics is not "your" page and you do not "need" to do anything. If other editors disagree with your proposed changes with arguments founded in Wikipedia policy, they won't happen, no matter what your employer required from you. You have no more control over content about you that Joe from London does, except for very few specific cases (e.g. copyright violations) which do not apply here.
I performed the edits you requested, both of which require the autoconfirmed access level:
  1. The change of page title is called "moving" a page, I did it here. Notice that I did not do so just because you requested, but because the specialized press has picked up the new name.
  2. The logo in the page is included by the {{Infobox company|...}} code in the page, which contains logo = [[File:Berryplastics.png]] , meaning the image located at File:Berryplastics.png is used. I uploaded the new version, in a low-resolution version per this guidance on copyrighted content. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there a way to update the logo to the new and current logo? Also is there a way to update the headquarters picture? The headquarters of Berry has changed. I can provide images if need be. KaSandraMilitello (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
While I might be wrong on this, it appears s/he did change the logo, though it was a lower resolution for the reasons stated above. I do not believe there is a way to use a higher resolution version without making it open source (which is a bad idea for most corporations). The same goes for the picture of your headquarters, though making that open source is likely harmless. Creeper Ninja (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. It would still be advisable to handle any WP:COI issues by stating your affiliation on your user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creeper Ninja (talkcontribs) 20:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just copyedited the article, fairly extensively. The paragraph about the purchase of Rexam was a close paraphrase of the source. I did a fair bit of copyediting to make it less close and to tighten up prose. Also, the source says "In millions of dollars, except as otherwise noted", so I changed "$351 ($340, net of cash acquired)" from dollars to megabucks. Aren't you glad we have a culture of checking and correcting? See Talk:Berry Global, Inc. (but it's almost the same as this note). --Thnidu (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

How to mark a Start article?[edit]

Dear editors, My first attempt to create a page was unsuccessful. I tried to describe a term (Lean Brand) and it was considered as promotional. After I spoke to a kind editor by the name of GermanJoe and we figured out that I am not paid to edit Wikipedia, I would like to ask for feedback on starting another first page. I am a Lean enthusiast and would like to start with things I am familiar with. My goal is for my next attempt to mark a page as a Start Article and ask editors for feedback, engage others in discussion in order to produce a valuable content. So, how do I mark it as a Start Article, so it is known that it will need more work on it? Thank you in advance! (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Assuming this is about Lean Brand (←click on that to see its deletion log entry), are you sure we would need a separate article on this, rather than a redirect to either of the existing articles, Lean manufacturing and Lean startup? (I am truly asking; not being rhetorical; I have not studied this sufficiently to see whether this is just an alternate title, or if there is sufficient overlap [and maybe then, a section in one of those existing articles can be developed, rather than a stand-alone article]).

Lean Brand was deleted for reading as blatant advertising, and after viewing it, it did read as highly promotional. Please read the Neutral point of view policy, WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOTADVERTISING. To give you an example, an encyclopedia article would never properly say (in Wikipedia's voice): " renowned for its focus..." "...embraced in the business world..." In essence, the entry read like a commercial trying to convince the reader of how wonderful the subject is. In any event, if you are going to pursue any type of article, I suggest creating it as a draft, through articles for creation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote above "(←click on that to see its deletion log entry)". I now realize that will only work if you are logged in, so, here's a direct link.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
"not paid to edit Wikipedia" is not the sole criterion for writing an article. A more definitive criterion would be "has no connection with the company (other than usng their products)". For instance, you might be an owner, "friend," consultant for, or employee of Lean--Quisqualis (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
.. also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It doesn't define terms, it has articles about subjects. If the subject denoted by "Lean Brand" is covered by Lean manufacturing or Lean startup, there's no need for another article about it. Maproom (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Confused as to why my article was rejected.[edit]

Hello, I wrote a piece on a company I had come across but it was rejected for not being notable. However, the article has a plethora of outside independent sources. Can you help me understand what is wrong?


Nicacedric (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nicacedric: If I take a look at your "references", the first doesn't mention it at all, the second gives it a one-liner mention in a table (and that table doesn't even confirm the fact the reference supposedly supports, the number and location of customers), the third doesn't lead anywhere but to a 404, the fourth only mentions "Inflectra" in a couple of footnotes, and the fifth only name drops it without going into any detail. In order to demonstrate notability, it is necessary that the subject of the article (itself, not the area it operates in, not its general principles, etc.) be substantially covered in detail by multiple reliable sources independent of the article subject. If such reference material exists, you need to rewrite the draft to use those references instead, and stick carefully to only facts those references actually do confirm. If such reference material doesn't exist, Inflectra is not a suitable article subject at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Rejected - Non-English sources ok?[edit]

My article on a new-founded company with 11,000 employees was rejected as not being notable and possibly being marketing. I feel that a company of that size is notable. Anyway, the rejecters asked me to add better sources, which I understand. Problem is that the really good sources, which there are some of, are in German. Is this a problem? Is it advisable to add them anyways?BraasMonier (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@BraasMonier: English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are allowed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, BraasMonier. As RudolfRed says, you may use non-English source if there are not good-quality English ones. But note that they must have significant coverage of the subject, and be independent of it. That's what notability means in Wikipedia-land, not your (or my) feeling that a company is notable. If it is a newly founded company, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that it is yet notable. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

How is album art added when we only allow CC-BY-SA images?[edit]

I want to add album art to some album articles like I have seen for other articles, but isn't most album art copyrighted?

Scarkrow03Talk 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scarkrow03. We allow limited use of non-free copyrighted images here under a claim of fair use, where they meet our stringent standards for that exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law. The area is complex, but here's some rules of thumb (which have extraordinary exceptions):
  • You can use images like the cover of an album, or a film poster only in, respectively, an article on the album (not one about the band), or on the film (not one about the actor);
  • The image can only be used once the article is in the article mainspace – not when it is in any other namespace such as drafts in the userspace or draft namespace;
  • The image must be uploaded locally, to this Wikipedia, and not to the Commons (where, by contrast, public domain and suitably-free images should be uploaded);
  • The image must be of relatively low resolution;
  • Generally, only one fair use image will be allowed per article;
  • If there is an existing free image that serves the same general encyclopedic purpose, even if not as good, no fair use image may be used;
  • You must provide a suitable, filled-out, fair use rationale and a copyright license upon the upload, for its use in one location that your rationale targets as a proper subject of its fair use; and
  • In general, no fair use images of living persons are allowed at all.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist edits[edit]

Is it possible for anyone to edit a Watchlist? Is a watchlist "owner" able to tell, by means of a "history" or any notification?--Quisqualis (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. I assume some of the developers could do so. Barring that, no. Administrators, for example, cannot even view your watchlist, much less edit it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Having issues dealing with conflicting sources and not wanting to violate WP:Synthesis[edit]

I'm working on my first article about Lilias Armstrong and unfortunately a lot of my sources don't clearly agree with each other about basic facts like names and dates when it comes to her early teaching career (see what I've written so far sentences 2–4 of paragraph 3 in Early Life: "She began teaching in East Ham Central School").

Is it better to explicitly summarize each source, so instead something like:

According to her file in the Teachers' Registration Council Registers she was an assistant mistress at an school whose name is illegible from 1906 to 1910 and was the senior assistant mistress at Higher Elementary School from 1910 to 1918,[ref1] and according to her obituary in The Times, she worked as the senior assistant at the Higher Elementary School from 1906 to 1918.[ref2]. In the forward to her 1932 book, her colleague Jones wrote she taught for seven years prior to 1918.[ref3] A paper by Andrzejewski says she taught at East Ham Central School in London from 1910 to 1918,[ref4] and a book by Collin & Mees says she was a senior mistress at East Ham Central School.[ref5]

That just seems really clumsy.

Or, it okay to primarily trust her file in the Teachers' Registration Council Registers since that source is the oldest, is the only source directly about her teaching history, and it's the most nuanced (e.g., it lists two schools and two positions whereas all the other sources just list one school and position), and then just say explicitly when other sources say something different, either in the text or in the reference footnote?

That's sort of what I've currently written (see link above), although I'm not really happy with it.

(In the past when I've had conflicting sources it's easier to figure out what actually happened and then mention the others in a footnote, as I've done in footnotes 8, 17 and 18. Hopefully those are okay?)

Thanks for any advice, sorry if this is too specific or if I'm rambling too much. Umimmak (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia only accepts what it says in published sources. The Times is a published source, Council Registers are not. (This rule can have surprising effects, for example a birth certificate is not accepted as evidence of date of birth.) You don't generally write about the sources in the article, you just cite them, so this might be possible: "she worked as the senior assistant at the Higher Elementary School for 7[4] or 12[5] years." Maproom (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
But they don't even all agree with what the name of the school was or what her position was,[quick edit: even ignoring the register] so then it'd have to be like "she worked as the senior assistant[2] or senior mistress[3] at the Higher Elementary School[2] or East Ham Central School[4][5] for 7[3][4] or 12[2] years." [Quick edit: this doesn't seem to be desirable either, or do you think this is okay and I'm overthinking it, Maproom?] Umimmak (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe, and I hate to say it, the best option is just to cut out all these sentences and just say "She taught French at a school in East Ham for several years", and just not bother with any specifics when it comes to which school, how long, or in what capacity. Umimmak (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Umimmak. Published, for purposes of the verifiability policy, is interpreted as meaning "made available to the public in some form". As such, whether a reliable, primary source is published may depend on the laws of the country, region and even really quite local laws. In the U.S. for example, some death certificates are "published", because they are publicly available, while some are not. This may also depend on age. For example, in New York City, "modern" death certificates are unpublished, because they are restricted to family members and certain other (see here), but death certificates from 1949 and earlier are publicly available and thus "published". So it's highly context-specific. The same is true for birth certificates and so forth.

I hope this helps clarify the issue sufficiently for you to come to some conclusion yourself on whether the Council Registers' file is published and usable. With that in mind, primary sources, though they must be used with care and only for certain purposes, depending on how they are situated, may be by far the most reliable sources for certain types of information. When I have had a similar issue, and where I believe the primary source is the end-all, be-all for the information at issue, I have cited the primary source with a footnote explaining the contradiction among sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, that helps. The Teachers' Register in question was "published" on Findmypast (link); it requires a paid subscription but anyone with one can verify it. (Unfortunately I've yet to find a free link, even though I imagine one really should exist somewhere. Umimmak (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

New Entry[edit]

How do I add a new entry for example for a news personality in a tv channel that does have its own article but the people from it don't.M1363b (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello M1363b and welcome to the Teahouse.
One approach would be to add material about the news personality to the existing article about the TV station. At the point where there appears to be sufficient well-sourced material to substantiate the person's notability, it could then be moved out into an article about the specific person. Trying to create the article without sufficient support for notability will usually result in the article being deleted, which is frustrating to both the editor creating the article and the other editors who must delete it in order to follow Wikipedia policies. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Did I properly link other pages to my article to 'un-orphan' it?[edit]

Good day my fellow editors!

I tried linking 3 different wikipedia pages to my only published wikipedia article but the site still says it is an orphan. Am I linking them the wrong way?

This sure is a learning curve...

Thank you all,

MarthaDaisy MarthaDaisy (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy and welcome to the Teahouse. The orphan tags are added/removed manually by editors. Once it no longer applies, any editor can remove it- I have done so. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

creating a tournament bracket template[edit]

Hello! I need to create a nice looking template similar to, but with an fourth round between two participants. Help from anyone familiar with the necessary scripting would be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovedelicc (talkcontribs) 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lovedelicc. Welcome to the Teahouse. Does this {{6TeamBracket-Cust}} help?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In addtions to that, I am following the nuteral precpective and point of view. If I am missing anything, could you please inform me? And I will fix it as soon as posible. PrinzTyronix (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


I created a page about myself that took 5 hours to make. I have now been told that it doesn't follow certain guidelines. So could you please tell me what I am missingPrinzTyronix (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi PrinzTyronix. Wikipedia is not a social network site, it is an encyclopedia. The page you created has no place here because of what this site is. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
@PrinzTyronix: Probably you're missing the first of the Five pillars of Wikipedia:
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
which means among others Wikipedia is not a blog or a social networking service nor means of promotion (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; WP:NOTBLOG; and WP:NOTPROMO).
Additionally you miss several Wikipedia Principles and Key policies and guidelines, among them the neutral point of view and independent, reliable sources, which make the contents verifiable (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability). --CiaPan (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry Mr. Fuhghettaboutit, however Prinz Tyronix is a famous person in certain countries. If YouTubers can geet a page in Wikipedia, why can't a singer and Youtuber get a page for himself???

Hope that you will respond

regards Prinz Tyronix PrinzTyronix (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy and pasting paragraphs from one article to another.[edit]

Hi there teahouse I am just wondering whether you accept editors copy and pasting paragraphs from one Wikipedia article to another without changes? The 'Cartwheels in a sari' article has 3 paragraphs copy and pasted directly from the 'Sri Chinmoy' article. Seems a bit odd? Maryanne881 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Maryanne881. It is acceptable to do that (providing that it makes sense for the material to be added to the article concerned, of course), but the material should be attributed with a link to the original article in the edit summary. This is covered by Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you know or suspect that this attribution did not take place, then there are instructions for dealing with this at WP:RIA. The revision history search tool, which you can access easily via any article's history page, can come in handy for trying to work out who did the copying and when. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a closer look, and the material was added by Softlavender with this edit, and the edit summary gave proper attribution ("added info from Sri Chinmoy article"), so that's all good. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find deleted Page?[edit]

I had created a page of an actress which got deleted. Where can I find that page ?Indira1993 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Indira1993. You can't: that's what "deleted" means. However, if you go to Special:Log/delete you can type in the name of the article, and it will give you the log of the deletion. Depending on the reason for deletion, that may point you to a discussion which resulted in its deletion; or if it was deleted according to one of the short-cut deletion processes, it will have a link to the explanation of the reason. In any case, it will tell you who was the admin that actually performed the deletion, and you can ask them for more information on their user talk page. In some circumstances, the admin may agree to restore the content in a user page, so that you can work on it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
So only admins can see the deleted content? Or is there a secret trick for normal users, too? Thank you --boarders paradise (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Only admins can see deleted content. Writ Keeper  13:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --boarders paradise (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Creation[edit]

Was told the page i created out of a nowiki link was prone to be an Advert wat should i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanshelkaunda (talkcontribs) 07:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hanshelkaunda. Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't understand your question. You yourself edited the only article you've created, El Kopala Derby, with the edit summary "Deleted Terms that were deemed to be promotional characters", and the article has since been edited further. The main problem I see with the article now is that it's not clear what it's about; the lead sentence makes little sense. You also created your user page, which looks a bit like a résumé or CV. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

regarding my account and first article[edit]

Dear Sirs I have my first article, BIO of H.R.H Mubarak Abdullah Al Mubarak Al Sabah is deleted for no reason, it is not promotional or advert. I have provided with all the references including related of existing Wikipedia pages. I kindly request that my account and first article to be re activated.

Kind help me. Mohammed AL NOOR Alnoori22 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alnoori22. As far as I can tell, you have never created an article. What you do seem to have done is to add article content to User:Alnoori22, which is supposed to be a page about you as a user, not an article. If you want to have another go at creating an article, I suggest doing so via Wikipedia:Your first article. Note that although your user page was deleted, your account is not deactivated. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps an old account was blocked because of the article's content? Creeper Ninja (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail when trying to link 2 wiki pages. Please help.[edit]

Hi. I want to link to (in the language section). But the instructions given are not very clear (there is talk about "ID", "site ID", "sitelink" ... but it is never specified whether they mean source or target ID, source or target site ID, source or target sitelink). I tried, but I always get an error message saying: "The link enwiki:Iskandar is already used by item Iskandar (Q437299). You may remove it from Iskandar (Q437299) if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." Can somebody please give me dummy-foolproof step-by-step instructions (1,2,3,...) for how to link these 2 wikipedia articles? Please don't do it yourself, I would like to try myself with your instructions. Thank you. --boarders paradise (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Boardersparadise. Wow, this was a tricky one (but I think I've fixed it). Interlanguage links now usually go through Wikidata; but there is a firm restriction in Wikidata that a Wikidata lemma may only be attached to one article in any given Wikipedia. This means that when there are articles with different scope in different Wikipedias, there may be no good solution.
The issue here, is that in enwiki, there are effectively two different disambiguation pages for Iskandar (though only one of them is called a DAB page). Iskandar is a diambiguation page for people with the name Iskandar, whereas Iskandar (disambiguation) is broader in scope, covering places and other uses. The Wikidata lemma d:Q437299 was connected to broader DAB pages in several other languages, but to the "people only" page in English. I tried to edit the Wikidata link to point to Iskandar (disambiguation), to be told that I couldn't because that was already connected to the Wikidata lemma d:Q27788130. Looking at that, I found that it was connected only to enwiki (Iskandar (disambiguation)). So I moved that link to point to Q437299 (that was the point at which I had to give an ID: 437299). This links that English DAB page (correctly, I think) to half a dozen others; and leaves the enwiki page Iskandar unlinked - again correct, I think, because the other languages don't seem to have a page which is only people named Iskandar. It also leaves Q27788130 without any Wikipedia links, so I will probably nominate it for deletion.
I then tried to add de:Iskander to the original lemma (Q437299) and it said I couldn't because that was already linked to a third lemma d:Q16069990. This turned out to link to three DAB pages in different Wikipedias called "Iskander" rather than "Iskandar". Since I believe this is just a variant spelling, I used the "Merge" command in Wikidata to merge Q437299 with Q16069990. The result is a Wikidata lemma which links to DAB pages in 11 different Wikipedias, some called "Iskandar" and some called "Iskander". Whew. --ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but I asked for step-by-step instructions and emphasized: "Please don't do it yourself, I would like to try myself with your instructions. Thank you.". Now you did the exact opposite ... :( I wanted to learn how to do it *myself* --boarders paradise (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Boardersparadise, I missed that bit of your request. But I could not have complied. I could have told you what I thought was needed, but as my description above shows, it wasn't until I tried each step that I discovered the next thing that was needed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"I missed that bit" ... you mean, you didn't fully read my request :P … what a pity, but ok ... could you then please give me general step-by-step instructions for a generic case (with particular focus on the shortcomings I described in my OP), so that I would know how to do it in the future ? thank you --boarders paradise (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Football players vs Youtubers[edit]

A little hypocrisy I noticed that really disturbs me.

A large number of pages about "professional" football players being created every single day. Low quality references being used to backup information on those pages, in most cases - spammy sport directories. It seems like as long as page is about football player, and as long as it has at least one reference - it's sufficient to pass all criteria.

As opposite to the "football" pages, Youtubers are seen as a spam and promotion, despite the fact that some of them have millions of subscribers to their channels and their videos has been seen more times than average TV show on BBC.

Can someone please clarify why football/soccer players are so worshipped on Wikipedia and their notability is not even questioned? Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jone Rohne Nester. Exactly who do you believe is being hypocritical? Wikipedia is created and maintained by thousands and thousands of volunteers, each with their own interests and prejudices. If you see articles on subjects that you think are not notable, then please help us to improve the project by challenging them: at least tag them with {{Notability}}; and if you have time, do a bit of research to see if they do seem to be notable, and if not, nominate them for deletion. You may feel that it's not your job to do this: but it's nobody else's, or it's everybody's. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi@ColinFine:Thanks for your answer. To be more precise, I am referring to notability guidelines of footballers. LadyofShalott once said on my talk page our notability guidelines of sportspeople are far too lax. I believe I'm not the only person who is aware of this issue, so perhaps you could point me to the right direction; maybe Teahouse is a wrong place to start this discussion and there are some other, on-going discussions somewhere else (related to this topic)? Thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As luck would have it, Jone Rohne Nester, such a discussion is currently underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Ohhh, you're a star, @Cordless Larry:! Thank you so much! That's exactly what I was looking for! Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing a navbar[edit]

I just updated a navbar. How do I get it to update on all the pages it appears on? RM2KX (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You could purge each page, or otherwise wait a while and they will eventually be updated. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I link my article (in english) to a french version of it ?[edit]


I recently created the article "Je Sers" about the chapel boat. It's actually an english translation from an article that already exists in French. I wanted to knwo how it possible for me link both articles. Or, do I have to recreate the article as a translation from the french one? I hope I was clear with my issue.

Y1207E Y1207E (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello Y1207E. (Traduction française disponible sur demande)
For other editors, and for copyright compliance, you should use the template {{Translated page}} on the talk page. For readers, that is where interlanguage links come in handy, but apparently it is already present. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added the English page to the relevant Wikidata page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

how do i get badges?[edit]

i cannot figure out how to earn badges? pls, i really need your help, thanks. Comicbookaddict (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Comicbookaddict: We have lots of different kinds of badges. Do you mean barnstars? If you do, those are usually given to people who others think deserve them. They are given out by clicking the little heart icon you will see on a user's userpage and following the directions. There are many different kinds of barnstars and many different ways to get them. The only way to be sure you'll get them is to keep editing and to get involved in other Wikipedia processes when you feel you have enough experience. They aren't given out at every turn, so be patient. Gestrid (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
There are also WP:Service awards that you award to yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

I was reading some general manuals of style the other day and had a question. If I know for a fact that a page was created and mostly only revised by the person who that page is about, what should I do? That is against Wikipedia rules isn't it?JinkiesShaggy (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JinkiesShaggy, and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your question, it depends on the context. Sometimes, it could sound promotional or the person isn't notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word, and that would make it eligible for deletion. Other times, the page could've been neutrally written and the person may be notable, so that wouldn't necessarily violate Wikipedia's policies to my knowledge. Even though it is strongly discouraged that they write about themselves, it's not necessarily forbidden. Are you talking about a specific page? If so, can you please link it? Gestrid (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If it was written in an overly promotional or similar way (see WP:PUFFERY and WP:COI), you can file a report as detailed at how to handle conflicts of interest. Creeper Ninja (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to leave my rejected, article "Draft" in my Sandbox to attract that possible?[edit]

My article draft (about a method I devised to estimate the Pythagorean Theorem) was rejected for lack of references but, since it's brand new, it hasn't had time to garner any notoriety of its own. Can I leave it "up" as a draft in the hopes that it will be seen by people interested in Pythagorean-related articles and, hopefully, gain attention that way?

I'm new to this whole experience and just curious as to the best way to approach getting some exposure.

Thanks, in advance, for any advice you might offer ... tom

Thomasjjsullivan (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thomasjjsullivan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sandboxes and Draft: pages are intended for things being worked on, although sometimes the work may be quite slow (I have at least one draft in progress that is over a year old). But even if you leave this draft in place in a sandbox, it will probably not have the effect you have in mind. Both sandboxes and draft pages have codes in place to prevent google and other search engines from indexing them, so no one will ever find such a page via a web search. Unless a draft has been submitted for review, few people here are likely to look at it and make comments. Neither sort of page should be in any article categories, so it won't be noticed that way.
Furthermore, your plan comes into conflict with two Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free web host says that Wikipedia pages are only for use in furthering the building of the encyclopedia, not as personal web pages nor as part of some other project. No Original Research says that "Original Research" should not be included in Wikipedia articles. If this page is about a method that YOU devised, and that there are no published sources for, it does not currently belong on Wikipedia.
In my view, your best approach would be to get a description of your message published somewhere that does wqelcome original research. If it becomes accepted and other people write about it, it might eventuyally become eligable for a Wikipedia article, preferably written by someone other than the method's inventor. Good luck. DES (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion[edit]


When a page is nominated for deletion, who gets to "be the judge." Can anyone not involved with the page decide? CRAuser (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CRAuser. Only an administrator can delete an article so administrators close debates where consensus is to delete. Any uninvolved editor can close such a debate if the consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article. This is referred to as a "non-administrator close". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In addition to Cullen328's answer, at an AfD, editors discuss whether or not to delete the article before the admin performs the close. Anybody can comment there, page creator included. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
See also the responses to your questions above, at #Experienced editors, CRAuser, if you haven't seen them all. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Movies - notability guidelines and CSD movies[edit]

What is the correct CSD tag for movies ? WP A7 covers only: people, animals, organizations, web content, events. I'm familiar with WP:NFILM , but this tag/policy could be used only for PROD, not CSD. Do we have any on-going discussions on this topic? Please help @Cordless Larry: or anyone? Thank you Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse Jone Rohne Nester. There is no CSD criteria for articles on films that don't contain a credible claim of significance (which is close, but not identical to notability). The options here are PROD and AFD. Indeed, not all situations have CSD criteria because CSD is the exception and not the rule when it comes to the deletion process. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Finnusertop: , thank you for your answer! I believe we have a huge problem here. In the last two months I noticed a large number of pages on "notable" movies. As we know, IMDB is a leading source for movies database(paid version - and people are turning back to Wikipedia in order to avoid paid IMDB pages), but what I have noticed that Wikipedia does not have a decent movies policy control. Can you please guide me to our notability policy/guidelines for movies? As I mentioned before, A7 is ineffective in this case, and we don't have anything for CSD related to movies.Please help @Masum Ibn Musa: Thank you, Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jone Rohne Nester: it appears that the standard is set in WP:NFILM and that says that for films Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (GNG) applies and there are no exceptions. Now then, GNG is a bit subjective, so your milage may vary. But whenever there is doubt that a particular films meets GNG, the article should be taken to AFD.
I don't see a "huge" issue here. It's more likely that the sources about these movies exist (in print media, newspapers, magazines etc.) but they aren't actually cited in the articles. This is just bad article writing and does not warrant deletion. For some, very obscure films with small distribution, or upcoming/very recent films, such coverage may not exist and the films may not meet GNG. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello Jone Rohne Nester. I think that Wikipedia:Notability (films) (aka WP:NFILM) is the page you are looking for. It outlines what makes a film/movie notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Note that it is a guideline, not an inflexible rule. Ultimately community consensus and basic policy such as WP:NOT are used to make the decisions on any and every article. The notability guidelines are often useful rules of thumb, to which there will be exceptions. DES (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Also note that particularly for older films, contemporary sources may exist, but may not be online. DES (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that there is no specific CSD criterion that covers films. Of course a completely false article could be speedy deleted as a wp:HOAX. The CSD criteria are all relativly narrow, and there has been considerable debate each time someone wants to add a category to A7, or add a new criterion. This is because once a speedy criterion has been accepted, only one or two people (one of them an admin) are needed to delete a page. This can be very frustrating to new users trying to create new articles about legit subjects, who do not understand how to create a fully developed and referenced Wikipedia article. It also leads to our losing valid starting stubs. So there must be agreement that there is a significant problem to solve, and that a narrow, bright-line criterion can be created that will solve it. Read some discussions of modifing the existing criteria at WT:CSD if you are interested further. DES (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What's Updog?[edit]

It's occurred to me that the childish prank updog does not have a wikipedia article. Would it be appropriate to add it?

ThatEeveeKid (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
ThatEeveeKid, can you find reliable published sources that discuss it in some detail? If not it clearly does not belong on Wikipedia. If you can, then perhaps it does. DES (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy without copyvio[edit]

Much of the Barrayaran Imperial Auditor article is identical with Imperial Auditor on the Vorkosigan wiki at I haven't checked the histories, but the wikia page was almost certainly the source:

  1. It's got plenty of refs and our page has none.
  2. At a quick look-thru, the wikia page seems to have significantly more content than ours. uses CC-BY-SA licensing. ( Suggested actions? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss.

Mobile edit[edit]

Incidentally, I am posting this via my mobile phone. I tapped Ask a question and inserted .m into the address to get to the mobile editor. When I saved the entry, it appeared at the top of the page.

I remember that that used to be standard for this page, contrary to (AFAIK) every other page; and I remember the proposal to make insertion match the standard, and the decision to do so, and the implementation. So why is the mobile editor for this page stuck in the Dark Ages? I had to edit the section again, get into the mobile editor, cut it blank, edit the then-bottom section, and paste mine at the bottom of it.

--Thnidu (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Do you have the gadget enabled? In other words, when you attempted to reply, did you see the standard code editor or a popup? – Train2104 (t • c) 02:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)