This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.
Greetings Pavankum, I see someone else removed the notability tag per your comment at the Teahouse. After I approved your article for creation, I saw a number of prior attempts to create the article, which caused me some concern. I would propose to leave the notability tag on the article for 60 days to see if any editors disagree with my approval.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I was told to wait for 60 days to see if any editors disagreed with the approval of the article. Now that 60 days are up, i dunno how to contact the placer of the comment to say no one has disagreed with the approval.
Can any other wiki editor verify independently for removal or will it always be vetoed by the placer
I suggest that the notability tag should remain in place. The referencing on this article needs work (work which I can't do just now) and the notability is, to me, still questionable. Goodreads is not a reliable source and the Indian Book of Records entries don't look like they are of much better quality. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)15:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Tracking down items in my Watchlist
I just found this
20 January 2019
(Deletion log); 04:58 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 3 revisions on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: edit summary hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57 Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden and username hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57 Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57 Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
and would like to follow up on what it means, but I haven't found a way to gain access to the material. Have tried various ways of searching the Wikipedia:Teahouse page (by RD2, by Drmies, and by date).
Could someone please give this newbie a step-by-step guide?
The idea of changing the visibility is so that you can't gain access to the material. Only administrators can see the information which has been deleted. The relevant part of the article history shows that the edits in question took place, but the material which was deemed to meet revision deletion criterion RD2 is now not visible to normal editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for your responses. I can't imagine what was "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" and would never intentionally have written anything of the sort so I'm deeply troubled by those deletions. The idea of making the material invisible seems a bit ominous. I did obviously look at the history of edits, and it seems that these deletions connected with something I added to the page.
So I'm still looking for the explanation with regard to the deletions themselves. Fuhghettaboutit, I will try your links.
And this time I'll remember to sign my post and complete the publishing process.
Tarkiwi25 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, yes, I had gone to the log, but had no joy of it. I'd tried filling in the blanks but got no response.
I'll keep at it, and thanks again for responding.
--Tarkiwi25 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tarkiwi25: Hahaha! I'm sorry Tarkwi, but this is hysterical. I hope after reading this you'll find it funny too (maybe also a bit relieved). I – and I'm 99.99% certain David Biddulph also – thought that you asked your question out of curiosity, because if we thought you didn't know how watchlists work, and understood that you were worried about why your edit had been hidden, as flagged as grossly offensive, etc., we would have relieved you of your misapprehension. Tarkiwi25: this had nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING , NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with you! You watchlisted this page, just like me and a few thousand other people have watchlisted it. Every one of us who has this page on our watchlists has the edits that are made to this page pop up on our watchlists when made. Every one of us—the few thousand people mind you—if we looked at our watchlist at the right time, would have seen that revisions had been hidden for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" edits, just like you did. The edits at issue were made by some bored, likely male adolescent who giggles when bodily parts are mentioned. He added a bunch of vulgarities and sexually explicit nonsense to this page, after choosing a vulgar account name. That user was quickly indefinitely blocked and the vulgar edits hidden. And you've been sitting here all this time thinking that because you saw the revision on your watchlist, the edits in question were somehow about your edits! Sorry, but, LMAO.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, this just confirms my sense that I'm some circle of hell where I'm doomed to be repeating episodes of my earlier life. That is, it is now appropriate for me to say that I am only here to amuse you. (As I once found myself saying in French at the local greengrocer's where the radish was so big that I didn't recognize it for a radish and rejected it saying that I didn't feel like cooking that night. The French family behind the counter, by then many months into finding me bemusing if not amusing, looked at me and started laughing. Recently I have learned that in fact there are recipes that involve cooking radishes. And their greens. So take that, you French grocers!--OK, never mind, that was a longwinded story in an attempt to be both clear and amusing. Or rather to continue to amuse you.)
OK, I know I have some setting ticked for watchlisting. Are you saying that some git messed up the Ann B. Ross page and that's what got picked up? Or is it this teachouse (how's that for an apt typo) that got messed up and some bot/person caught the offensive material? I'm guessing the latter, but if so I don't understand why what I copied at the beginning of all this would have appeared on the Ann B. Ross editing history page.
Either way, yes, I am relieved.
I also understand what "meta" means and the sort of infrastructure necessary for Wikipedia to function. But I'm also finding it surprisingly difficult to navigate the complexities of this infrastructure. Lots of rabbit holes, when what I want to be doing is editing as well as creating a page or two. I'm in New Zealand and we have a Wikipedian-at-large who's trying to boost NZ's representation within Wikipedia.
Erm, could I impose upon you from time to time with direct queries? If I can figure out how to do that? My initial queries in this teahouse went unanswered, so ... well, this looks like too good an opportunity to pass up. (By way of being a thank you for helping me to understand some part of the chaos.)
Well, what exactly did you think the mutant radish was?
Please drop directly by my talk page anytime at all, to ask any specific question you have whatever.
I don't know what you mean about Ann B. Ross? Since I see you made some edits to that page, I assume you also have it watchlisted, but none of the hidden edits have anything to do with that page. Are you understanding that edits made to all page you have watschlisted show up in your watchlist together, ordered by the time they were made? I'm guessing that, here, when you looked at your watchlist, you saw an innocuous change to Anne B. Ross in your watchlist, right above or below the hiding of an edit to this page, and didn't notice that they were two separate entries on your watchlist—no edit made to Ann B. Ross by anyone has ever been hidden.
Anyway, what happened here was that a user who was not an administrator noticed a bunch of spree vandalism being made to this page; they reported the user to WP:AIV for a block and in the meanwhile, reverted their edits a few times; an adminstrator came along and indefinitely blocked the user and revision deleted the history; when you came back to your watchlist, you saw the log of the revision deletions in the history of this page, because you have the Teahouse watchlisted. Though we do try to deny recognition to vandals, because they feed off of reaction – the worst thing you can do to them to defeat their whole purpose in vandalizing is to simply block them with no reaction; when they look for the reaction, their edits are just gone and their account locked; no muss no fuss – but it's no big deal to tell you more specifically what was hidden on January 20. First, here's the log of the indefinite block. See the vulgar username? Now you know why the name of the user was hidden, not just their edits. And the edits were things like adding under the headline "Would anyone like to suck my [0[K?" this darling little post: "Would anyone like to suck on my [0[k tonight? It's getting long and hard." In sum, just a bored 14 year old looking for a reaction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Wikip1950 and welcome to the Teahouse. It might have helped had you signed your post here and also given a link to the article you are talking about. I guess it must be Foil bearing? May I ask, what is the actual question you have about this? It is possible that whatever your concerns, you might get a more knowledgeable response from editors by posting on the talk page of the article itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Done It was a simple case of the website owners changing the layout of their pages, and thus their old urls no longer worked (a very common issue). It's now sorted, but you could easily have corrected this yourself, simply by editing the page and pasting in the correct url. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia's references. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Using a WP article verbatim on a website. Kosher or not?
Hi. I'd like to include the content of a WP article in whole on a different website. What are the rules for this? Provide attribution? Don't do it?!? Or do it and no attribution necessary? Thank you.- AWCzarnik (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, John. You fully answered my question. And regarding legal advice... sometimes I hear lawyers who give off-the-cuff advice to friends say that the advice is worth what the person paid for it.- AWCzarnik (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism - World almanac
why would the first sentence begin world almanac and book of "judgement" for world almanac (possible vandalism)? Is there not a bot that would spot or check that daily if not hourly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.204.234.112 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. I have corrected the vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. Please be aware that you could correct the article yourself. As for the bots that revert vandalism, they are very good but not perfect. My hunch is that the bots did not pick up this particular vandalism because the words used were plausible, and not words most commonly used by vandals. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
If a bot was clever enough to be able to, we'd probably have to give it the vote! {The poster formerly knoiwn as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.1.40 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I found a unique username: Games are generally copyrighted, which means that we can only use the image under fair use. This means that the image should be uploaded to Wikipedia, not commons, and the screenshot should be low-resolution (scale the image down to the size that will be used in the article). You'll want to use {{Non-free video game screenshot}} and follow the instructions there. Gaelan💬✏️04:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I found a unique username: Looks like if you select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.", then "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use." there's a "Game screenshot" option in the resulting popup menu. Gaelan💬✏️05:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gaelan:: it seems every time i think i'm done, another thing pops up. I got some sort of error saying 'invalid form' or something, then it it said it was uploading, no image came out. now what happened? I'm Unique! :) (talk)05:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I've been waiting ~3 hours into the night so i don't get my image for my draft hit with every fire possible, which in turn is a work-in-progress for an Already-created false redirect protected to administrator level. I'm Unique! :) (talk)05:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You uploaded the image to the Wikimedia Commons, rather than locally, to Wikipedia. The Commons only accepts free media – material in the public domain or that bear a suitably free license. Non-free, copyrighted images intended to be used under the fair use exception to the exclusive grant of copyright can only be uploaded to Wikipedia. (I will go tag the image for speedy deletion at the Commons, after I post this.)
You placed the image on your userpage. You can never do this. We allow fair use images under very limited circumstances, including only in mainspace articles. There, the image and its use must meet every part of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
After claiming it as your own work, you purported to release the copyright, when you have no ownership interest in the image, and cannot affect its copyright in any way.
The image is too large, I think, to meet the muinimum extent of use requirement of the doctrine – the file size would need to be reduced.
To sum up a bit, if there is to be a valid use here, it would need to be:
only in an article on the game itself;
uploaded locally;
only allowable if there is no free image that could be used (even if the free image is not as good);
Go look at the image page. See how it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below"? You may have been shunted there, on the upload, without realizing you were sent to a different website, but you did not upload it to Wikipedia. The excerpted text "description page there" is a link. Click on that to see the actual locatio of the image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I Found a unique username: Oh, and of course, you do not need to reduce the file size of the other image, because you're not using it under a claim of fair use. (Gaelan has fixed the page to list the correct author of the image and correct license).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@TheHelpingHandMan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Being an administrator is not something that you simply sign up for; there is a process called Request for Adminship to go through. It is a community discussion about whether a user merits being given administrator powers. It usually takes years to develop an edit history and other evidence that you understand Wikipedia guidelines and have the right temperament you also need to show a specific need for the tools; the likelihood of a new user succeeding at getting administrator powers is probably close to zero. Keep in mind that you can do 95% of things on Wikipedia without being an administrator. Administrators simply have a few extra tools that would be irresponsible to give access to for all users. Concentrate on working on this project in any way you wish to; after much time others will eventually notice if you merit administrator powers and nominate you. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Messed up coding
Hi,
I messed up the coding on the ‘Singles’ section of Melody Thornton really badly. I’m not sure how to rescue the previous coding without reverting all of my edits? I’ve done a lot of beneficial edits to the page and I don’t want to revert it all. Can someone help restore the singles section? – Joesimnett (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I just looked at the history for the Alex Oates page and spotted three edits from an IP from the same theatre which is currently running a play by the same playwright. The play has created controversy of late in both media and social media. Am a bit stumped if this page needs more experienced eyes to look in to this. Chricon79 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Helo Chricon79, thanks for raising your concerns. Sorry you didn't get a reply until now. I've only had time to take a brief look at the article, and I agree with you that some strange editing has gone on. I'm not quite sure how you've concluded that the IPs are from the individual theatre putting on this allegedly controversial play, but someone with a personal point of view has certainly been contributing too much content. I have raised my concerns on the article's talk page that there seems to be a danger of the article about the person becoming a 'coatrack' article about another topic entirely - one of his plays. There is far too much detail there, and it does need trimming down a lot, and POV wording removed. I'm afraid I don't have time to do this myself, though realise you might be wary, as a new editor, of diving in causing more problems. Hopefully, other editors might wish to assist in cleaning it up. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nick Moyes I checked the Goelocate for the IP in question (three edits make on 14 Feb)and it came back with the theatre's website URL as hostname. About the POV going on that in part maybe a by-product of current off-wiki debate going on about the play on Twitter and possible culture war going on between two philosophical schools of thought within the Autism community. Chricon79 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, Chricon79. Good spot!. I must have missed that - the IPs I checked looked like generic TalkTalk addresses, but I see you're right. So good detective work - I've slapped a COI notice on one of them. Sorry I can't help further right now. I see the same overly-detailed content has been added to pages about Southwark Playhouse and Charlie Brooks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Chricon79 Have a try at cleaning them up, as I'm not going to be able to spend time on this now. But do tread carefully - ensuring you leave a clear edit summary of every changes or content removal. Don't reinsert your edits if they been reverted, but discuss on the relevant article page, or on user's talk page. Always be polite and explain why you believe a certain action you've taken is justified. If in doubt, don't make any changes. I noticed wording like 'hypocritical' and 'signed by people who hadn't seen the play' Unless these are quoted in citations, and relevant to the topic of the article, these should all be removed. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
What's the article about?: A building in south London.
What's the problem?: The infobox displays a crazy map.
What do you mean, crazy map?: The map shows Ponders End – which is in north London.
Have you checked the coordinates?: Yes, carefully. The numbers are correct.
Then why does the map show Ponders End?: That's what I can't understand.
Has the map always shown Ponders end?: No, for a long time it showed Kiev, Ukraine. See the talk page, "Absurd map".
When did the trouble start?: When an editor created the infobox − on 3 February 2017 at 15:29.
Why can't you fix it yourself?: Because I don't understand how this mapping works. I can't see anywhere in the markup language that even tells it to show a map in the first place.
What would you like the expert to do? Ideally, make the map show the correct geographical area; if that can't be done, remove it.Ttocserp (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I went to Google Maps and changed the coordinates in the infobox in the article to those Google Maps provides for Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe, but it did not change the display. I wonder if this worked but it needs to rebuild and won't display correctly for a while?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Linking/uploading image that appears in another Wikipedia article
Hi,
I've been trying to use an image uploaded to another Wikipedia entry. Obviously it's fair use? It even has a url on wikimedia.org.
However, I tried every syntax option I could think of or find online, and nothing worked. So finally I just downloaded the image and uploaded it from my laptop. Of course, the mifterbot (whatever that is) serves me with a warning tag that image will be taken off in 7 days.
By the way, is it only me, or is the Wikipedia edit interface not so friendly, to put it mildly? I teach programming and know a variety of markup/markdown systems (e.g., Latex), and now I am even more in awe of the type of information people have put on Wikipedia despite its unhelpful interface.
The human "reception committee" could also be a tad more friendly. I spent weeks of editing and adding what I thought was a pretty rich content, before daring to submit my article for first acceptance - only to be slapped with a C by two different graders with zero explanation or detail. I looked up the grade examples, and it seems to be a pretty harsh grading call. Not that I care much about grades, I care that the article is posted; but this community doesn't seem too welcoming (that was not my only experience with this attitude).
C-class is common. I recently put in 150 edits and a 10X expansion to get Vitamin deficiency to C-class. Rather than trying for B-class, editors may attempt an improvement to Good Article, which incorporates a peer reviewer. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Haha, yes kinda confirms my suspicion. Again, I was not complaining about a particular grading I got, but rather about a rather clear whiff of snobbery that welcomes the new editor onboard. Your Vitamin article looks a solid B (at least) to me in any sane 21st-Century grading system.
Maybe because you have "Image"? Try what shows up here when you click on edit: your text here You can probably still size it larger. David notMD (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I changed to 'File', seems like now it does point to the original Wikimedia upload by whoever edited that other page. I guess the trick is to click on the image and see exactly what the image's official Wikipedia name is? AforBaheer (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Classes B and C are just some editor's opinion and have no particular force. Only good article and featured article classes are based on a formal review. Ignore the classification for now and try not to think of them as grades.
It appears that the image you were starting from was this one at c:File:Staircase-Verfahren (Transformed Staircase).png and its translation at c:File:Staircase Transformed Up Down English.png You are allowed to use this original image and you are allowed to modify it (such as by translating it), but you are expected to point to the original when you upload the translated version. If you do not supply the attribution, your upload will have to be deleted as a violation of the license which lets us use these images at all. (Or deleted as a duplicate.) This is not a matter of fair use. I wish you had asked here at the Teahouse when you first ran into problems.
You've written a substantial article - albeit aimed at a more technical audience than the general reader at Wikipedia (probably more technical than a lot of admins) - and got it accepted by a reviewer. Congratulations, that's quite an achievement. Creating an acceptable new article is a difficult task. Thank you for your contributions. I'm sorry if your reception came off as snobby. Encouraging new editors is something we try to do here in the Teahouse.
But Wikipedia has a lot of rules, policies, guidelines and customs; nearly all of them emerge from a gradual consensus process involving many editors over several years. While some things should be considered fixed in stone, other parts are still being hammered out. Keep working on contributing and you'll master the parts of those rules that you need and get (gentle, I hope) recommendations if you stray. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)04:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You have created and saved an incomplete draft at Draft:Sri Bharat Mathukumilli. You can find all of your contributions by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top right-hand corner of any Wikipedia page. Drafts (and other non-article pages) are not found in the default options in Wikipedia search. For guidance on how to develop your draft, please read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Adding a list of articles under category to my watchlish
Hi I want to add a list of articles all at once that all are under certain category. I don't want to do it one by one! Is there any way to do it all at once! Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@شرعب السلام: I'm not sure if that's possible, but as a workaround you can browse to the category, then click "related changes." That will show you a list of changes to articles in that category, but it won't actually add anything to your watchlist—you'll have to go back there whenever you want to check it. It's not as nice as what you're asking for (which might be possible, but I don't know of a way), but it works. Gaelan💬✏️09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@شرعب السلام: I think that if you do what is called "edit raw watchlist" you can type in the names of all articles you want to follow at once. If you click edit watchlist, there is then an option to "edit raw watchlist". 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help. I will try what 331dot said. Seems like a good idea! I didn't know there was such an option. Thank you!.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Akinfeda Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not pay contributors. All of us are volunteers who are here to improve this project. We cannot stop you from offering your editing services to others for pay(off wiki), but this is not encouraged and in that situation you must comply with WP:PAID. You would be unable to guarantee any particular result, however. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Some free advice: if your research and proofreading skills are such that you allow the word "free Lance" to appear in that form you have some work to do before you earn money at this anyway. Britmax (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Need help in finding reliable sources for my first article
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I'm trying to put this article about XLN Audio together but have run into some issues in finding sources that fulfill the WP:NCORP requirements. I found it odd that there was no Wiki article about XLN as their name and products keeps appearing in interviews with both world-leading songwriters and reviews/product articles in magazines about music plugins. If anyone can help me find some reliable sources on them it would be highly appreciated (this is my first article and I would really like to get it up and running so any advice would be much appreciated).
@Owlsia: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if you have any association with XLN Audio. Regarding your question, there needs to be independent reliable sources with in depth coverage of XLN Audio. If the only coverage is brief mentions, name drops, or press releases, this company likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@311dot: Hi 311dot, no I am not associated with XLN audio. I keep hearing about them in articles and interviews but could not find any Article on wikipedia about them as I was looking to read more about them. Been looking for a topic to write my first article about for a bit and thought this may be a good subject.
I just find it a bit strange that a company that seems to be widespread and known in the songwriting and music production Industry did not have a Wiki, especially as I could find articles about similar companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlsia (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Owlsia: I'm 331dot, not 311dot, but I follow this page so it's okay. It is possible for a company to be widely mentioned but still not merit a Wikipedia article. The key to meriting an article is significant coverage. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Companies do not "have a Wiki" as a Wiki is a type of website, but a Wikipedia article can exist about them. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: Sorry about that, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia on the editing side. Trying to learn as much as possible. For example, when looking into similar companies within the Audio software I found this article for EZdrummer holding no significant WP:NCORP references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZdrummer . Am i missing something here or are the rules for these types of articles different as they don't fall under the organization cathegory? Thank you in advance. (Also did i get the sign correct this time?) Owlsia (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you did. It seems that EZdrummer may not meet the criteria for an article either. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to exist for some time. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a truism that none of the hosts know it all - and tonight I am really stuck. I need help to understand why I am not receiving notification alerts when someone posts to a talk page of a sub-page of my own user page. That's a bit mind-bending, so let me explain...
I've just adopted a new user, Clovermoss, so I decided to create a sub-page for all our activities and discussions. This is something I've not done before, and we've started discussing various subjects on the associated talk page at User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss. I had hoped I would receive an alert whenever she posted anything there. (Email notifications are of no use to me as I don't have email access on my mobile, which is currently my main form of editing.)
My question is: why am I not receiving on-wiki alert notifications when they post to that talk page? Are alerts only produced when a person posts to the primary user page and not to a sub-page? I can't see anything in my preference settings that would allow me to enable alerts for this scenario. Wikipedia:Notifications offers no explanation. I have, however, found this open Phabricator ticket], but it's so old and so complicated I can't deduce what, if any progress has been made on it, but it does sound like it might be a known weakness. Any advice or work-around is welcome, or suggestions for the best way to reactivate this ticket.
Greetings, Nick Moyes, and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't know if I will be able to solve your problem in full, but I do have a work-around to offer: have you tried adding that page to your Watchlist? Not as good as a notification, but at least it might stop updates from going un-noticed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I have never come across this before, but it seems to be working as designed. According to Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What_kinds_of_notifications_can_I_get?, it sends an alert "when a message is left on your user talk page". No mention of talk pages for your user sub-pages. Nor can I find any way to add those pages to the list of what generates an alert. There are preferences (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) that determine what you get notifications for, and it what form, but they still don't include what you're after. I think the only way to get it would be to raise a change request ... sorry.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Gronk Oz. That would normally work, of course. But I have had to turn off my watchlist since last spring because a) I rarely see emails because of my real world commitments and b) when I do, I'm just swamped with messages on my webmail account, and tend to miss the really critical ones. To make life manageable, I've stopped all watchlist notifications and innumerable Facebook-type notifications altogether. An on-wiki alert notification would be ideal. Wading through two weeks worth of trivial emails and notifications to eventually respond to someone is not fair on them. That's why I'm looking for on-wiki notification alerts, but I thank you for replying with that advice. It's exactly the kind of advice I would have given another user. Your subsequent post does suggest one obvious thing I hadn't thought of - posting at the talk page of WP:Notifications itself. I might well do that, and not worry about Phabricator tickets for now. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I hesitate to suggest it because I expect even if you don't say it in response, you'll probably think "duh", but I'll say it anyway: if there was a singular page that I was especially keen on knowing if there was changes to, wanted the most direct, single click method of checking for changes, and was resigned to the fact that there was no way to have changes to it pop up through notifications, I would save a link to the URL of its history at the top of my user or user talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: It's a fair and sensible comment, thanks, though certainly not an ideal or elegant one. I've taken Gronk's advice and asked at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. As an adnin, may I ask if you were aware of this apparent limitation? It was certainly a surprise to me that alerts don't seem to work by default from edits to sub-page talk pages or, I presume, from sandbox talk pages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: It has now been ascertained that, following an RfC, a Phabricator task for this matter to be resolved was assigned in 2017 (some 13 years after it was first raised as an issue). That developer appears to have ceased activity shortly afterwards, and nothing has happened since. We now wait hopefully for another person to pick up or be assigned this task. For details, see: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T5234 Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Wiki page
I am really lost on how to create a wiki page; going through the help forums and links provided does not help; can you please give a tutorial video or link that will guide step by step on creating the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.176.67 (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've placed a welcome message on your user talk page with a bunch of links to helpful information. I suggest that you do the Wikipedia Adventure as a starter and then try one or more of the other tutorials. If you are thinking about creating a new article, please read WP:your first article before you attempt this. We usually suggest that new editors contribute by improving existing articles for a considerable time before trying to create a new article. One way to find small tasks that you can work on is to look at the WP:community portal, which lists pages that need various sorts of editing help, categorized so that you can choose which of your skills to apply. Come back here to the Teahouse when you have more questions! — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
What does one need to do when a question hasn't been answered by any host.
I have posted a question 2 days ago on the teahouse and seeing it close to being archived with no answer, I am unsure whether posting it again is the best course of action.Sadenar40000 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello again Sadenar40000 and I'm sorry you're feeling neglected at the Teahouse. That's not our intention, but sometimes things get busy and questions get missed. Asking again, as you've done here, is perfectly fine. There are other venues as well, such as WikiProject talk pages, the Village Pump pages, the WP:Help desk, but sometimes it's unclear which one is the best one to use. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleting Unsourced Addition
I am an editor who rarely deletes anything.
Recently I went to the "Power Boys" page, which I'd once worked on. Someone added to the "The author" section and stated the first book was apparently written by William Manners, because his name was on the title page of the original manuscript. No reference was listed for that claim. I added a conversation to the "Power Boys" Talk page, expressing my misgivings about non-referenced additions.
Should I copy the questionable lines onto the Talk conversation, and then delete them from the article? That way the sentences will be there if anyone can come up with a published source on what was typed on a 1960s manuscript cover page.
I've read various article Talk pages where editors are battling over lines that are constantly being deleted and then restored, and I don't want to make an enemy by eliminating another person's work. I only work on "low traffic" Wikipedia pages, but that un-sourced data may be someone's "baby" and I want to avoid possible hard feelings. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced information should not appear in Wikipedia articles. You may freely challenge any unsourced information; the initial level of challenge is the famous {{citation needed}} tag. (The rules for BLP articles are a bit more stringent, but I don't believe those rules apply to the article in question.)
You may also go beyond tagging. Bringing up a question about the edit on the talk page, as you have done, is a good next step. Removing the challenged material to the talk page while consensus is being worked on is also a good step, but if you think that the added material is likely wrong, you may simply remove it from the article (it lives on in the history and can be recovered if needed).
A Wikipedia article is not the place for someone's original research based on viewing unpublished manuscripts. The comments about the manuscript title page need to be cited to a secondary source.
jmcgnh, thank you for your advice. I have no idea who wrote the first novel in the Power Boys mystery series, so I don't think the article addition is likely wrong, I think it's likely unprovable. I will place a {{citation needed}} after the unsourced material, then come back in a week or two and move it to the Talk conversation. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Question on categorization
I am currently expanding articles by translating their more expansive French counterparts into English.
I have found the Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia to be a great help in that end, but I have noticed that the category is full of French communes and that the sub-category Category:France geography articles needing translation from French Wikipedia exists.
Should these articles be put in the appropriate sub-category only or should they be present in both categories? Or are communes articles not a type of article that should be put in said sub-category? Sadenar40000 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
When an article is placed in a category where a more-specific and applicable sub-category exists, it is best to place the article in the sub-category only. An article should not be placed in two categories when one of the categories is a descendant of the other. See WP:SUBCAT for more information. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
jmcgnh Thank you for the answer, but I see that there is a whole lot of miscategorized articles in that case, will I risk being blocked due to a "spam" if I decide to move a large number of these articles to the appropriate maintenance category?Sadenar40000 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sadenar40000: Large-scale bulk moves should be discussed before implementing. That way, your edit summaries can refer to the discussion and foreclose most questions and objections. Blundering about with bulk moves can lead to a block, but if you've done the advance work and are operating in accordance with the rules there should be no danger of being blocked. Instead, you may get a barnstar or something. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)21:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
jmcgnh The page does seem rather inactive, when should I perceive having achieved consensus by lack of opposition, or if I do not receive answers, should I kick the issue up to Intertranswiki? Sadenar40000 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sadenar40000: 48 hours is the usual standard for waiting for a response before activating higher-level choices. There's a general preference that you not post to many different places all at once, but it's okay to post in more-watched venues if a question in a less-watched venue is not getting a response within a suitable response period. Since this is a categorization issue rather than a translation issue, I'm not sure Intertranswiki is a good place to ask. I'm sure there are editors there who would have advice, but it's something that seems off-topic for them. I suggest maybe WT:WikiProject Categories as your next step. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Adding to an existing template on Jefferson Starship Page
Greetings Teahouse
I've been trying to add Craig Chaquico to a template on the Jefferson Starship article that links to articles about his solo albums: Acoustic Highway and Acoustic Planetwithout success. Reading about templates has left me even more confused! It is the template at the bottom of the page which currently lists Paul Kantner, Grace Slick, Marty Balin, and Papa John Creach to their respective solo albums. Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton
Hey Cheryl Fullerton -- I'm sorry for the delay in answering this question when you asked on the article talk page last week. I'm writing an answer back to you now on your User Talk page. But it's definitely a good idea to ask here at the Teahouse if you're having trouble finding an answer or if people aren't getting back to you! -- Cloud atlas (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Done It was a simple case of the website owners changing the layout of their pages, and thus their old urls no longer worked (a very common issue). It's now sorted, but you could easily have corrected this yourself, simply by editing the page and pasting in the correct url. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia's references. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
--CiaPan (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I will be able to solve your problem in full, but I do have a work-around to offer: have you tried adding that page to your Watchlist? Not as good as a notification, but at least it might stop updates from going un-noticed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
