Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 495

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 490

←

Archive 493

→

Wondering whether creating a new article for a service provided by the US government makes any editorial sense

Hey there!

I'm a volunteer working with America House Kyiv, a non-profit cultural center and NGO funded by the US Embassy here in Ukraine (I'm afraid I don't know all the nitty gritty of our background off the top of my head, this is my second week here, so please don't take all the background I'm aware of as 100% fact). My boss, the social media manager, had been approached with an idea regarding having a page for America House for general information purposes. I have noticed certain pages regarding similar US efforts, such as "Belgrade Youth Center" and "American Corners in Kazakhstan", are up, but not particularly well-linked with relevant pages or categories. In our case, the concept as far as I'm aware would regard the current services offered by the center. From my perspective, it would also ideally provide a quick history of the building we occupy (a former school which was then used as the Consulate prior to the new Embassy's construction).

I personally believe that this information would be more relevant on the "Embassy of the United States, Kiev" in some sort of section on services offered, as putting it anywhere in the "Foreign relations of Ukraine" or "Ukraine-United States relations" would be out of place. However, one of my fellow volunteers has had experience with the public relations and social media fronts within the Embassy, and is hesitant as to whether this sort of major edit would be approved. I'm sorry if this isn't the appropriate forum to bring this up, but I'm unfamiliar with how an organization like ours is to be represented on Wikipedia, or whether it should at all.

Thank you very much for reading, I look forward to further contact,

Santiago.de.la.Compost (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are connected to this subject, you should not edit it. See WP:COI. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking. Thank you very much for the quick response!

Santiago.de.la.Compost (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Santiago.de.la.Compost: welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for asking. People quite often mistake Wikipedia for a social media site, but it is something completely different from that: it is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles based almost entirely on independent published sources. It is never appropriate to advertise yourself on Wikipedia (and it doesn't make any difference whether you are commerical, charitable, governmental, or anything else). If Wikipedia is to have an article on you, you will have no control of its content: you will be encouraged to suggest edits, but strongly discouraged from making them yourself.

The question of whether there should be a separate article on your organisation depends mostly on whether it is notable, in the special Wikipedia sense of "there is substantial writing about the subject, written by people who have no connection with it, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers". If that is the case, then there can be an article, based almost entirely on these independent sources. As an employee, you are discouraged from writing such an article, but not forbidden: you must, however, declare your status: see WP:PAID. If these independent sources do not exist, then there may not be an article on it, however written.

If there is some published material about the organisation, but not enough to establish notability, then information about it may be added to an existing article, as you suggest. Every piece of information added should still be referenced to a published source: independent sources if possible, but non-independent sources may be used as long as what is included is only uncontroversial factual data. And you will still need to take note of the provisions about conflict of interest and paid editing.

In short, if you are here to help us build the encyclopaedia, you are welcome; if you are here only because your boss has told you to promote your establishment, please use social media for that, not Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Legit way to update company information

Hi, This is my first experience with Wikipedia updates.

We would like to update some factual information on the Wikipedia page about our company. Stuff like provide our new tagline & logo, update old stats that were cited from articles that are 5+ years old and things like that. We would also like to add new information.

Everyone, including our PR agency says DON'T DO IT!!. I've read through as much as I can on the help pages, but I still feel very wary about updating any info. Should we just submit the updated and new info on the talk page with a CIO tag/disclaimer and hope that an editor updates our public-facing page.

We want to be completely above boards, but we would also like to make sure that the changes get made.

What is your take on this?

MermaidsmeadowMermaidsmeadow (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mermaidsmeadow. The first thing that you should do is to start a userpage and declare your conflict of interest. Click on the red link in your current signature and click on the option to start the page. State the name of the company you work for and indicate your willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines. Then, post your proposed changes and the reliable sources that back them up on the article's talk page. In my opinion, you can update the logo yourself, as I consider that non-controversial. Return here and provide a link to the article, and an experienced editor will help you out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, Mermaidsmeadow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty well it, Mermaidsmeadow; but if you add {{edit request}} to the request on the talk page, it will make it more likely tha somebody will notice it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the quick and informative reply. I'll work with our team to get the appropriate documentation and then will proceed as you described. I really appreciate your help with this! MermaidsmeadowMermaidsmeadow (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

changing the spelling on a page name

I created a page on a Canadian curator. I spelled the name wrong. The only place I can't seem to figure out how to edit is on the actual page itself. Thebaconfairy (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are using the standard interface, the Move command is to the left of the search box (possibly under More). I have moved the article for you. --Boson (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

referencing help

I tried to write an article about a famous person whose music is on tube but my article got denied because ai don't know how to do the referencing. any idea what to do?(Fariborz00 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Try reading about reliable sources and referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

My article has been flagged for speedy deletion - Marico Innovation Foundation. I don't believe it should be deleted. what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maricoinnovates (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You need to read the messages on your user talk page, and the message in the box at the top of the article. Each of those has useful links. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In your case, it was deleted as advertising. You may request the deleting administrator to restore the deleted article to user space or draft space via Requests for Undeletion if you don't think that it is advertising, that is, if you think that it is a neutral presentation about the foundation. However, are you affiliated with the foundation? If so, you must make the required disclosures under the conflict of interest policy and possibly the paid editing policy. You may then submit your draft via Articles for Creation for review by volunteer experienced editors. Bear in mind that if you are affiliated with the company, it is very difficult to even try to write a neutral draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't just that it was advertising. It also had no credible claim of significance.

Also, @Robert McClenon: has perhaps forgotten that Requests for Undeletion says "Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here."; in this case, those were the two criteria for deletion. David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I had forgotten those. Also, it appears that the original poster has been indeffed as a promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page and Making it stick

Hi there,

I'm creating a wiki page for Tobacco 21. It's a political movement in the United States trying to get governments to raise the sales age of tobacco from 18 to 21.

Can you review my page and let me know what I missing to make sure the article sticks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_21

TMC2015 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The place to start is to find a couple of independent sources that actually discuss the political movement. When I checked there were 16 sources on the article. The first one is a primary source as it is the movement's website. Of the remaining 15 only #6, #14 and #15 use the term "Tobacco 21" in the article. All 15 of the other sources are not actually about the movement but about the legislation. Are there any sources that are about the movement? -- GB fan 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi TMC2015, Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that this movement/campaign/foundation "is the driving force nationally..." without citing reliable sources that support the claim. Gab4gab (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?

Where is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page? My talk page has no such thing as a "new section" tab, but I was told to go there to leave a message for Materialscientist. It wasn't on his talk page either.

I searched for "new section" using the search tool, but found nothing of use. Zee99 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zee99, welcome to the Teahouse. First navigate to the talk page you would like to leave a message at. For Materialscientist it is User talk:Materialscientist. The "new section" tab should be located directly to the right of the "Edit" tab and to the left of the "View history" tab. These tabs should all be located directly to the left of the search bar. However, if you're browser window is small, the "New section" tab may be located in the "More" dropdown menu. Take a look at this picture. Do you see it now? Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to your helpful advice, but I wanted to say God bless you! Thank you,

Your directions were followed and the "New section" tab suddenly appeared. I have no idea why it didn't show earlier.

Vern. Zee99 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Zee99:

You're welcome! If you have any further questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask here. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Zee99: I moved your second post to the existing section. Clikc the "edit" link to the right of a section heading to edit that section. A new post can be added at the bottom of the section. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How to make multiple drafts in my user space ?

Dear Team, I finished working on my first article Draft:Purplehed Records, meanwhile this gets improved via AFC process I wish to work on my next one but I am afraid I don't know how to do it technically. With reference to below article Wikipedia:About the Sandbox "If you want more sandboxes then make a page in your userspace and designate it as your sandbox. Unlike your primary sandbox, Wikipedia does not automatically keep a way to link to these, so be sure to bookmark it or otherwise have links on your userpage which go to your other sandboxes." I understood the logic but kindly guide me practically how do I make a page in my Userspace and designate it as my sandbox ? Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Catrat999. You need a link to create the wanted page names. This can for example be done by creating red links like User:Catrat999/sandbox2 and User:Catrat999/sandbox3, and clicking on them. You can also enter the wanted page names in the search box and then click at "You may create the page". The page names should start with User:Catrat999/ but can be anything after that. You can place {{User sandbox}} or {{Userspace draft}} on the pages to designate them but this is optional. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, Thank you so much for teaching me how to do this:) Very informative and I appreciate your guidance. Thanks and Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, I'm having problem on my talk page. I can see edit button on desktop site, but not on mobile site! (Please ping me up, If you can help) INVISIBLE^knock! 08:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Invisible Guy: On the mobile site, the edit button is a gray pencil located at the upper-right of the page, on the same line as the page title. Does it not appear for you? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The upper right pencil icon only edits the lead section. Each section heading is supposed to have a pencil icon. They didn't before but they do now after I closed two open divs in the lead.[1] @Invisible Guy: I don't know whether your former talk page design with a border [2] can be combined with mobile section editing. It cannot be tested with previewing and I don't want to experiment with saving variations to see what happens. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, It worked! INVISIBLE^knock! 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Visual editor - problem with "further reading" and "external links"

Visual editor -

I did a draft in my sandbox using visual editor – it went well until I got to the “Further reading” – when I added the bullet point & selected cite template (book) it was given a number (following on from the reflist above eg. reference 3, following reference 2 above) – I just want the bullet point

By going into wiki source I noticed a <ref> tag had been inserted at the beginning and end of the reference. By deleting this coding the reference saved ok and the numbering was removed. The same happened in external links. Not sure if this is a bug or if I'm missing something?

Cheers

Gerringong coast16 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerringong coast16, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think the "Cite" button can omit placing the chosen citation template in <ref>...</ref>. The "Insert" button can do it but then you get a general interface for adding templates with no special features for citation templates like automatically generating data from a url. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia place where it is okay to solicit uninvolved editors to a couple of contentious articles?

I have been editing for 12 years, particularly in areas involving technology, economics and software and interesting intersections of economics with technology. I've recently stumbled upon another interesting intersection, and have edited to do basic content building. For some reason, unclear to me, there are editors frequently opposing each other there on several related pages.

I know it is explicitly not okay to solicit partisans to come in and take sides etc., but I also know that, say in the example of an RfC on a narrow Talk page issue, it is okay to randomly invite folks who've offered their services to being neutral/uninvolved editors on RfC narrow issues.

My question, is there a similar area where it is okay to randomly invite editors to come over to an article page or set of a few article pages more generally? Just to get a wider set of eyes on contentious matters.

Thanks. N2e (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at WP:3O, it might be what you're looking for. If not, maybe it will point you to the right place. RudolfRed (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes alert the most relevant WikiProject to get more input. This works best when the WikiRroject talk pages are popular and active, of course. Some of them, like WikiProject Biography, really just don't attract much traffic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas RR and NRP! I don't think the WP:3O is quite the correct avenue, as I'm already a 3rd opinion (between two sides, apparently) and the crazyness and WP:DRAMA continues. But I did learn from going to that page something: WP:RfC is not only for narrow, straightforward issues like I thought. RfC can also be used for issues like I've witnessed on those pages, and so can be used as an acceptable method to invite uninvolved editors to take a look and weigh in. So your pointer was, indeed, helpful RR. And it would seem useful to perhaps put a note on the relevant Talk pages for Econ and Software technology as well. Good advice. Much appreciated. N2e (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

N2e, I've used WP:EAR in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

posting a new topic

i don't wish to promote or publicize anyone, but this person called Mark Angel is gaining popularity and wiki doesn't have a page to let it readers know who he is! so instead of creating a page i just wanted to suggest that topic. how can i do that? Rooppam (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)RupamRooppam (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rooppam. Does this refer to this Mark Angel, or someone else by the same name? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am positive the person I am talking about is a different Mark Angel

Rooppam (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It might help us answer your question if you tell us more about who he is, Rooppam. More generally, see Wikipedia:Your first article. For Wikipedia to have an article about someone or something, that person or thing must have been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so you would need to be able to demonstrate that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What are mistakes in my article because of which it is not approved by wikipedia?

My article can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Au_Financiers_(India)_Limited Aufin1996 (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As explained in the note left on the draft, it does not meet the notability guidelines. You need to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not from the company but are specifically about it. In other words, press releases are absolutely useless.

Another issue not addressed in that note is that your name rather indicates that you are employed by Au Financiers and so should not be writing articles about them at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

how to remove the tags mentions in my edits by some other editor

how to remove the tags mentions in my edits by some other editorMakkdp (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

how to remove the tags mentions in an Article by some other editor with valid reasonsMakkdp (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Makkdp. I don't understand your question. I'm guessing this is about Art Fund, which has been nominated for deletion. It was previously Proposed for Deletion (a quicker process), and you removed the proposal, which you are entitled to do. Majora then took it to Articles for deletion, a more formal process, where discussion can take place. You are encouraged to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtFund and make the case for keeping the article there; but please understand that you need to do so by arguing according to Wikipedia's principles: I suggest you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions carefully. In the meantime, you can continue to improve the article according to Wikipedia's policies; but any discussion about the deletion should take place on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtFund, not in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is about ArtFund rather than Art Fund, which is a long-standing redirect to another article. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

images and photographs

what is the difference between images and photographs? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, @Super ninja2: A photograph is taken by a camera. An image is a broad term, but to put it simply, an image is something that depicts something visually. An image could be a photograph, a map, a scan, a graph, a view from a mirror, or any number of things. Every photograph is an image, but not every image is a photograph. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and wikiversity

Is it possible to create content on the general wikipedia platform that can be used for training students, like giving them their daily homework tasks via the platform and the relevant tutorial. I've noticed you talked about wikiversity or mediawiki but I can't see how I can do that on the current wikipedia app that I downloaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenztaf (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jenztaf. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia and everything that takes place on this website should be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. There are no exceptions. We do host university courses devoted to writing Wikipedia articles but not others. Wikiversity is separate website with no direct connection to Wikipedia, except that both are projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not aware that a Wikipedia app will work at Wikiversity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki is the software package that runs both sites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:ItsNOON

I reviewed Draft:ItsNOON and declined it as reading like an advertisement. Its author, User:Rglundberg, has asked me on my talk page to take another look. I would like the comments of other experienced editors. It still looks non-neutral to me, and like it as much about the crowd economy or sharing economy than about the platform, but I would appreciate the comments of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I would criticise it on the grounds that it just says that its subject is an "online platform", and nothing about what that platform does. Maproom (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPEEDY, or let it be?

Hello - during NPP I tagged an earlier version of new article "Serenitea" for CSD G11 (advert). The original author then removed the CSD tag. How much further should a patroller go in this situation? Retag G11? Or just unpatrol the article and let more experienced editors determine next steps? Thanks for your guidance. --dstone66 ^{(ṭạḷḳ)} 20:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an advert. I wouldn't say I'm experienced in deletion, but I have no doubt that G11 is appropriate. Re-speedied. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Dstone66 the article creator is not allowed to remove speedy deletion tags. If they do, then you can undo their edit and put the tags back. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have asked the author to make the appropriate conflict of interest and paid editing disclosures, and, if they are not affiliated with the company, to come here and state that they are not being paid. At this point, it looks like it may survive a speedy, and I am considering whether to AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is great guidance; thanks, everyone! --dstone66^(talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates

I do not know what is happening with templates and me at the moment, but any template does not seem to work for me :-( Do you have any suggestions? East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Which templates are not working for you? Can you link examples and expected output? Note that you can't embed CSS like this. Intelligentsium 19:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Can you give me any good templates for fancy usernames? Thanks, East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S, Do you know how to archive talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Intelligentsium East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we have the same understanding of the term Template? I would recommend just looking at the markup in the signatures of a few different users (feel free to hit "edit" to look at mine; WP:SIG may also be helpful). However whatever you decide, as long as it's within policy, your signature isn't all that important, and most users place more stock in your contributions and ideas than your signature. Intelligentsium 19:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm also unsure what you are trying to do. If you want to change the way your username is displayed at top of User:East Anglian Regional then you need DISPLAYTITLE, for example placing this on the page:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:User:<span style="background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold;">East Anglian Regional</span>}}

See Help:Archiving a talk page for archiving. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Article creation

Hello, Wikipedia Teahouse. I have a question about an unwritten article I would like to create. The article is about a popular YouTube organization called The Nation with over 8 million subscribers. The Nation consists of five channels: Trap Nation (trap music channel), Chill Nation (chill music channel), Bass Nation (bass boosted music channel), House Nation (EDM music channel), and Rap Nation (Rap music channel). I think this article would be notable, containing trustable sources, but I am not exactly sure if the article would be encyclopedic or accepted by Wikipedia. Thanks! Blacksmith210 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Try it out and se what the reviewers think of it. East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It sounds like it could be notable, but to know for sure, can you post some examples of significant, reliable coverage in third-party sources? The relevant notability guideline would be WP:WEB. If you want some feedback on your article from an experienced editor before it hits the mainspace, you're welcome to use WP:Articles for creation. Intelligentsium 19:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have found first-party sources, but I was unable to find third party sources.

Blacksmith210 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, first-party sources (or primary sources) cannot be used to show the notability of a subject. Some good third-party sources would be news articles, academic publications, and interviews or profiles on reputable websites unaffiliated with the subject. Intelligentsium 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Thank you for your support.

Blacksmith210 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiBreak

Hi I am Inter&anthro, because of a real life situation outside of my control I will be unable to edit Wikipedia between June 18 and July 30. I am usually quit active on Wikipedia, is there anything I can post on my user or talk page that will let other editors know of my absence? Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: You could use {{wikibreak}}? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You can also just put notes on top of your user and talk pages saying, "I won't be on Wikipedia from June 18 to July 30". It's possible to highlight the words to make them stand out--see the note about replies I have at the top of my talk page for an example. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalized Page

How do I report a vandalized page to be fixed by an admin or user with enhanced permissions? Marcel Pagnol was heavily vandalized, and I don't see an easy way for me to help fix it on my own. Lizzius (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe all you need to do is post a message on an admin's talk page. Try User:SwisterTwister or User:Randykitty, remember, use the talk page. :) #bodyContent a[title="User:East Anglian Regional"] { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ffffff; font-weight: bold; } (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.s Sorry for that junk next to username. East Anglian Regional (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed it, just found an earlier version that looked good and reverted to it. -- GB fan 19:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Lizzius (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Report vandalism at the vandalism noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you report pages there? I've only seen templates for reporting users (this page was being vandalized by three users). Lizzius (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I was also going to suggest posting on that page, but it is for reporting vandals rather than for requesting help in reversing the vandalism (although you might find that administrators taking action against vandals might help out with the latter). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Often you don't need special permissions to handle vandalism. You can do what GB did by clicking on the "View history" tab and finding the version before the vandal edited. Then click the time stamp of the edit. It will take you to the old version. Click edit, leave a good edit summary, don't change anything else and save. Voilà, vandalism fixed. If there are multiple vandals attacking a page, you can ask for semi-protection or pending changes at wp:RFPP. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorting on a category page

Unlike other categories I've looked at, Category:Articles_using_infobox_person_with_unsupported_parameters isn't in alphabetical order, or any order at all as far as I can tell. I'd like to get it sorted. After reading a variety of help pages, I still have no idea how this is done. Please help. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi BlackcurrantTea, welcome to the Teahouse. Category:Articles using infobox person with unsupported parameters is sorted first by the name of the unsupported parameter and then by the page name if articles have the same unsupported parameter. Please don't change this without getting consensus at Template talk:Infobox person. For the technical details, {{Infobox person}} says

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Articles using infobox person with unsupported parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview = Page using [[Template:Infobox person]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|...}}

. _VALUE_{{PAGENAME}} is a sort key controlling how the article is sorted if Module:Check for unknown parameters adds the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter. I didn't think a template change would be involved. It makes sense that it would be sorted by parameter, but that wasn't obvious. I appreciate your taking the time to explain, especially the technical part. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Perge

I want to publish a page about Perge, bee bread. Can any of the editors help me? Please visit my page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Perge and please join my disscusion at Draft talk:Perge Ica2000 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

See also the lengthy thread #Draft: Perge and Bee bread below. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Archived here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is discussion at Talk: Bee pollen. You are welcome at any time to add to the article (as long as you are not violating any Wikipedia policy, such as by advertising products). Unless there is consensus that a separate article is needed, it would be much better to add to the article than to create a new article, which might be subject to an AFD with a conclusion of Merge. If you ask the same question here that has been asked within the past week, it may annoy some of the editors, who may think that you are trying to get a different answer this time. Please respond to the comments at Talk: Bee pollen. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if i am very persistent about publishing a page, but what do i do when i gave arguments about reasons of publishing a page on Talk: Bee pollen, but the editors don't answer? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ica2000 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ica2000. So far, you have failed to provide high quality scientific sources written by academic experts on bees that discuss "perge" or "bee bread" as a discrete topic. The current sources in your draft are promotional and credulous. One is so promotional that it includes recipes. If you want to include any medical claims in an article, then your sources must comply with WP:MEDRS. These matters were explained to you several days ago, and you have not improved the referencing of your draft article. You have a lot of work to do to improve your draft before it has any chance to be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The recipes were not intended to be promotional, but as an example to what can be made with bee bread, or with such substances. If you are giving an audience an article that includes most parts about bee bread, you might just as well give them an example of an dish that (not as a promotional matter, but more as a practical use of bee bread) includes bee bread. And to as the sources that I used. In the article the second source (that I used for describing the production of bee bread) is a scientific book that is used on a university in the city Novi Sad. As for sources that include medical claims, I'll change it until the time being (until i find a source of medical claim for bee bread). User:Ica2000 —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Nigeria)

I reviewed Draft:National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Nigeria) and declined it as not providing enough evidence of notability. Its author, User:BroVic, has asked me on my talk page to take another look. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. Is The Nation (Nigeria) a reliable source? (I know that The Nation is a reliable source on facts but partisan.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it again. BroVic (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Nigerian newspaper has no relation to the US magazine of the same name, Robert McClenon. I would consider it reliable for general purposes, in the same way that most newspapers are (i.e. we should beware of its ideological position and attribute opinions rather than reporting everything it says as fact). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A Sandbox not to be taken seriously?

Hi, again. I was creating my own User Sandbox page that would include a history of me (Sith Lord Amadeus), but it's more of a joke and I'm not planning to actually publish it or anything. This is my first time using a Sandbox and I wonder if it's a bad thing to do. It's more of a parody for after the end of Return of the Jedi. Should I not save the page since it's more of a satirical joke?

Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sith. Wikipedia is not a social media site and userspace is intended for work on the encyclopedia rather than personal stuff. While not being part of the main encyclopedia user pages are visible to the general reader if they look for them and they are subject to certain rules including copyright, civility and not using Wikipedia as a web host to publish stuff not directly relevant to improving the encyclopedia.Charles (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so it must be deleted? Sith Lord Amadeus (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sith Lord Amadeus. Think of it this way: Wikipedia is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not a social network. On the other hand, a certain amount of humor and joking around is accepted here, if the purpose is to build collaboration and working relationships among editors. In your case, you have made 19 edits so far. I think that there would be much more acceptance of a joke page if you had made 1900 productive edits to improve the encyclopedia. That is my opinion as an experienced editor, and other editors may have different opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Other editors may choose to let it alone, but is it is referred to WP:MfD it will most likely be deleted I would think. You do not have to do anything now.Charles (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

upload photo

How to upload a photo in the article. I'm trying to upload a picture of Meghan Jadhav. Pls help. Iamnewtowiki (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You need to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons first and pass the scrutiny there to ensure there are no copyright violations. Good luck! - BroVic (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Where does the picture come from Iamnewtowiki? If you took it yourself, you almost certainly own the copyright, and can licence it as required when you upload it. If not, unless it has already been explicitly licensed with a licence compatible with Wikipedia, you would need the copyright owner to release it explicitly, according to donating copyright materials. If it is a picture you found on the internet, it is unlikely that you can do that - not impossible, but you will have to work hard identifying the copyright owner, and persuading them to release it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Iamnewtowiki You can upload your photo Here at Uploadwizard –– مجتبیٰ (Talk!) 09:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

How can an unreliable source be challenged and deleted?

In the Manchester United and Liverpool FC pages there is a reference to the Liverpool v Man Utd rivalry. When accessing this site there is a section called Football Rivalry 1992-present. In this section there has been a systematic undoing of a decades long truth about trophies which count as Major. It has long been established that in England, Major Trophies are the 3 domestic titles; League, FA Cup, and League Cup. In Europe it is the Champions League, Cup Winners cup( now defunct) and UEFA/Europa Cup/League. By this measure Liverpool lead United by 41 to 40. But United fans have obviously resented this and so decided to try and include ALL honours , even including the pre-season curtain raiser- the FA Community Shield. This has often been shared, and,in the case of a Double, has necessitated the involvement of another team altogether. Now, I and many long time football fans allowed the Community shield to be mentioned, but at the same time wished it noted that Major Trophies(like Tennis, or Golf) need to be acknowledged. Every publication, TV description ever always lists Major Trophies. Over recent years there has been occasional use of European Super Cups, or World Club cups but NEVER the \charity/Community Shield. It is an acknowledged practice. Now these biased fans have tried to suggest there is a 'dispute' as to who has the most major trophies. To back this up they have 3 sources (34),(35), and (36). the first two correctly list a set of trophies. The third-poorly written and full of random statements- cherry picks some international titles,and ignores others, and even mistakes one for another. I have left a comment on the source site just below this article. To counter this I tried o show that, even with international titles, Liverpool still lead (44-43), and I used the UEFA site. I was met with the response 'dude, what makes UEFA the authority on this' UEFA is the governing body for all European football! Source 36 is merely a blog. Enkayaitch (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Enkayaitch. The proper place to resolve this issue is Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Please be aware that there is an expectation that all Wikipedia articles be written from the neutral point of view and it is not a place for Liverpool and Manchester fans to argue with each other. There are plenty of places online for such debates, but not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked and there has been no discussion on that talk page in 2-1/2 months. Please take the matter there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

what you are stating isnt true and is only you're opinion. If you would like to discuss any issue you have sensibly, feel free to do so with me or on the talk page, I have replied to your talk page in the hopes of getting some kind of conversation started....and please stop having digs at other editors and United fans over fallacies and differing opinions. Davefelmer (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Writing new article in English and linking it to the same topic which has a really short version in German

I'm in the process of creating a comprehensive English article on the artist G.H. Rothe. Even though there isn't any comprehensive article on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the Internet about her, there is a short Wikipedia page in German about her life. I'm wondering how could I link my newly created article (which I haven't published yet) with the German version.Juan Pablo Pacheco 14:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

Hi Juanppacheco, welcome to the Teahouse. After saving the article you can click "Add links" under "Languages" in the left pane. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

New account

Bureaucrats Note!
Special:CreateAccount and click user rights management
Email - <redacted>
Password - <redacted>
Rights by changing group membership - Bureaucrat, rollbacker, ip-block exempt, edit filter manager, autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, page mover, account creator, mass message sender, file mover and template editor. 112.134.81.42 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to post personal contact info here where all the world can see it, so I've removed it. Rojomoke (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your post is about. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions if you want extra permissions for an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to publish/ use crowdsourced information?

I was hoping to do an update to this wikipedia page: Comparison of XMPP clients and was able to compile data with the help of a reddit post in this spreadsheet . Is there any way that I can use this data or are the citations and references required too difficult to obtain or not reliable enough. Thanks and let me know! PS: I have yet to post anything to wikipedia and am pretty unfamiliar with how it all works so take it easy please! Signed Tiger_Respecter (I don't have an account yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.71.24 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, Tiger_Respecter, until it has been published by a reliable source (such as a reputable publisher). As it stands, even though anybody may access it, a reader has no way of determining whether any of the information in it is valid: it may be completely accurate, it may be completely invented, it may be cherry-picked from a larger report, it may be basically accurate but have errors or malicious alterations: a reader has no way of knowing, so it is not acceptable as a source in Wikipedia. Once it has been published by somebody with a reputation for fact-checking, we may take their published version as reliable. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

content flagged as promotional

I am completely new to this, trying to update page for artist friend, Paul Tamanian. Some content provided by the artist, is considered promotional. Is there a way to know what content is considered promotional? Which specific items need references? How the references are qualified...sorry, so confusing, I get lost in layers of pages..appreciate your assistance. Neilneiljforrest 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljforrest (talk • contribs)

Hello, Neiljforrest. Basically, Wikipedia isn't interested in what a subject says about themselves, (or what their friends, relatives, employees, agents, or associates say about them). It's only interested in what people who have no connection with them have published about them. So material coming from the artist is basically useless in updating the article (and if you are a friend, then you have a Conflict of interest, so you are discouraged from editing their article in the first place). If there are changes that you or he would like to see made to the article, suggest them on the article's talk page, preferably citing independent published sources. If the talk page does not get much traffic, it is worth adding {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) as that will bring your suggestion to more people's attention. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I would look into WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV for any content that is questionable for promotion. Also make sure to use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign your comment. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help regarding citation

Dear Team, I need help to fix this issue:- I wish to cite AV media but its complicated, problem is that original AV is now private on MTV india youtube channel , Refer https://www.facebook.com/mtvindia/posts/10151879968645213 and the only copy left, is available on https://vimeo.com/87850673 which is AV's Director's official channel. Is there any way that I can consolidate these two proofs in single citation ?

I tried below code but system throws . External link in |publisher= (help); URL–wikilink conflict (help) when i clicked help its says Help:CS1_errors#param_has_ext_link

Below is the code I was using cite AV media| title =MTV Sync Episode 4, Music Video Dust by Talvin Singh feat Frame/Frame | medium =Television production | publisher =MTV (https://www.facebook.com/mtvindia/posts/10151879968645213)%7C location= India|date = 23 February 2015| url=https://vimeo.com/87850673

Thanks and Best Regards Catrat999 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Catrat999. The publisher field should not include a URL. A Wikilink to MTV is fine. I am not sure if that is the only problem, but please try removing the URL. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328 , Yes sir to fix this code removing url from publisher works. Thank you :) Catrat999 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Issues using a specific map!

Afternoon,

I am adding content to Alps Hockey League, and as such i'm trying to include a map that features the locations of the teams within the league. Currently I'm using a map that isn't quiet suitable (a lot of the team names are squashed etc). As a result I would like to use this one as it better suits my needs:

However, I can't seem to use it in the same way. I suspect it is due to the fact that it is a file rather than a template, however, the map in question appears to be used on the Italian wiki such as here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-National-League_2012-2013, so clearly it can be used in the manner that i'm trying to use it. However, I have no idea how I can go about using it as it doesn't appear to be a template. How would I go about doing so? Thanks in advance! Mark49s (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mark49s: you could try using {{Location map many}} instead. I have no idea if the output would be any different from the template used but you can but try. Nthep (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

do we have to have the orphan page message tacked onto a new article?

Hello friendly teahouse editors, I have just had an article go up (Paul Smith - clergy) and I think a bot put an "Orphan tag" on it. Does that have to stay? I know what I should do is figure out how to link the article to others but I don't have the time right now to figure out how that's done. Lame, I know... Thanks! alfhild-anthroAlfhild-anthro (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alfhild-anthro. No, the tag should remain there until there is another article which links to this one. As soon as another article links to it, anybody may remove the tag. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be that a lot of reviewers/patrollers tag articles for being orphans when they're not. I've seen short articles with over 10 wikilinks get tagged as orphans. I think it may be a problem with the scripts that are being used. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: I may have misunderstood your post, but it seems to imply that an article with lots of wikilinks in it is not a orphan. An orphan is an article with no incoming wikilinks (i.e., other articles that wikilink to it). An article can have quite a few outgoing wikilinks and still be an orphan. All it takes is one incoming wikilink to de-orphan an article. One way to check whether something is an orphan is to click on the "What links here" link on the left side of the browser window. For Paul Smith (clergy), Special:WhatLinksHere/Paul_Smith_(clergy) shows that there are no articles linking to it, which is why it is an orphan. There are couple of articles, such as List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, South Bend, Indiana#Notable people, Talladega College#Notable alumni, where a link to the article could possibly be added. To de-orphan an article, just follow the instructions at WP:DE-ORPHAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Citing if most of my sources are primary research that I conducted

I'm writing the biography of G.H. Rothe, an artist who doesn't yet have a full Wikipedia page or comprehensive biography online, despite being one of the most commercially successful printmakers of the 20th century. Most of the facts that I have of her life come from original research done with her son, whom I have interviewed several times. What would the best way to go about this citing be, in order to account for the facts? Juan Pablo Pacheco 15:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

There is no way, I'm afraid Juanppacheco. If information hasn't been published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, then it shouldn't go into Wikipedia, ever. Once you've had your research published by a reputable publisher, then it can be cited (but you would need to be cautious about inserting it yourself, because that would be regarded as a conflict of interest on your part. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE allows you to cite self-published sources under certain circumstances, but there isn't really any way to publish original research on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikinews will publish interviews you've conducted yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

adding In Popular Culture to a page

Many actor bios have a section called In Popular Culture at the end of the page.

I put in the same section for Tyrone Power, and now it has been removed. The editor has not yet answered me as to what I did incorrectly so I can correct it. In the History section he has written: uncited or details unsupported by 3rd party sources for notability).

Power has been mentioned in several films: All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, Fade to Black - I'm not sure how to add them. He was also mentioned on I Love Lucy and several episodes of The Simpsons - again, I'm not sure how to add this.

There is a fictional book called "Ty" with his photo on the cover. I put in a full citation but it was removed. Ditto a set of plays where the main character is named "Tyrone Power" after him. If the publisher is not good enough, how do I cite it? Thanks for any help.Chandler75 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor who removed that section explains his thinking on the talk page of the article, which is the best place to discuss this. The disagreement seems to be about what sources can be used. Wikipedia is particularly fussy about sources for biographies. Dbfirs 20:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chandler75. I recommend a useful essay called Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content which has lots of good recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure Difficult to Navigate

Hello! Whenever I try to complete a task in the Adventure, it leads to a dead-end. I finish the task, but all it gives me is a back-button. I can't go on. And I know I'm missing something, because if I click on the next mission, they say "we left off with..." and go on to tell about something I never heard. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, or if my computer maybe doesn't support the experience? I'm not sure. But I want to go on the Adventure so I know how to navigate, edit, and contribute to Wikipedia! Thanks for your help. Tyke9494 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tyke9494: "Don't [x] out: This box is your spacesuit: if you close it before completing a mission, you leave the adventure and need to restart the mission from the beginning." - so it may be possible that you may have to start from the first mission. The Adventure has seven missions total, so if you've completed seven, that's it. From your question, I can't tell what specifically went wrong, so please pardon the vagueness of the advice. Happy editing, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

how to be a host?

i want to know that after i edit something someone is there to check....who checks these guys who are keeping an eye on us manyatimes there are literally rubbish and links used as source that even a 3rd grader would be ashamed of using in their projects

Over the time wiki is loosing its significance of being authentic please make sure to not include biased and inauthentic content

secondly is every word written on wiki page from a link or some of it can be written by an editor as well

please explain

Oldnewland (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Oldnewland and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anybody can edit. There is not necessarily anybody there to check on your edits, though there are many editors who do watch new changes. Certainly "biased and inauthentic content" does slip through sometimes, and may survive for a long time. I don't know whether our overall reliability is going up, or down, or staying about the same.

In answer to your second question: every word (apart from limited quotation) is, or should be, written by an editor; but every word should be based on what is said by a published reliable source. See Verifiability and [[WP:Original research|] for more information about this. --ColinFine (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)