Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Contents

Most recent archives
978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997

(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)


My page draft got rejected[edit]

I created a page for one of my Company's products, which is an open source eCommerce solution. I see that there are pages for other open source eCommerce solutions. Kindly help me. What steps do I need to take to get the page published? User:Smitha.piccosoft —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with revising a draft needed[edit]

Hello Experts

I tried - putting a lot of work into it - to write my first Wikipedia entry about an artist who is in the business since more than 20 years. I submitted the article and got the following feedback: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Certainly nothing unusual for more experienced people like you. The links I put on the article to show this artists international career were for example newspaper reviews. I'm afraid I don't understand what isn't "significant, reliable, secondary source and independent about this. It might also just be, that I haven't technically understood how to submit references with "ref", all I placed were links. I'd very much appreciate if one of you could help me with a contact who knows how to do this. There is no doubt, this artist deserves a Wikipedia entry. Many thanks and best wishes, --Fmkaiser (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmkaiser (talkcontribs) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fmkaiser and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't looked at all of your eighteen references, but can you point us to two or three that are independent (not interviews or publicity) and discuss the subject in detail? Dbfirs 19:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dbfirs! Thanks for your fast reply. Sorry if my question is "stupid", but how can I point you to links here? Of course I'm happy to send you some links to international newspaper reviews, that aren't interviews nor publicity, but reviews of the artists performance and therefore independent. And I'm happy to discuss how I can revise the article so things get in the right way.

Fmkaiser (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just tell us which numbers in your draft. If you can find better references, then add those first because the numbers will change. Dbfirs 20:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
ok, take a look at 1, 3, 5, 7, or 13, 14 etc.

Fmkaiser (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone who can read German to check 1, 3 and 5, but they look like brief mentions to me. Number 7 is just a brief mention. 13 and 14 are better but are about her performances. Can you find places where she is discussed at length? Dbfirs 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
References 1, 3 and 5 are all about her performances too. Maybe a somewhere between 7 and 13/14 though. Sorry, Gehenna1510 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The artist is on stage since more than 20 years. Parts of her career don't happen online, but in print media, which I can't access. Interviews are not allowed, reference 11 might therefore be tricky, although it says more. If you could compare my draft with the Wikipedia article about Paula Murrihy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Murrihy), can you please explain me what the difference of references is? Or differently asked, why did the article about Paula Murrihy get approval while my draft isn't? Thanks a lot, really appreciate your help and input! --Fmkaiser (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Fmkaiser The Oper Frankfurt link for example had more about Murrihy than just a critique about her performance. The Scottish Symphony Orchestra article possibly even more (This one is not in the webarchive). You can add offline sources with the {{cite news}} template. It would like this (the parts behind the = is what you provide) <ref>{{cite news|last=last name of the aricles author|first=first name of the articles author|title=title of the article|date=publishing date of the article|newspaper=the newspaper/magazine where the article is found}}</ref> you can add more parameters like volume=, issue= or page= if you know them. Sources needs to be published, but they do not need to be available online, as long as you provide the necessary informations interested people need to get them. Gehenna1510 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Gehenna1510 for your input. I will look further into it on the weekend when I have more time. Will get back once I have found more.

--Fmkaiser (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A cursory Google search showed some coverage by reliable sources so try to find articles like the Telegraph source you used. Also, you can provide a more detailed format for the Reference list. You can do this by clicking the Cite button when you are editing the draft using the Visual Editing interface. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic: ShareChat. Isn't it notable enough to be on Wikipedia?[edit]

I've been trying to publish Wiki page for ShareChat but it's getting rejected. Need some tips: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ShareChat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurshva (talkcontribs) 06:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ankurshva: - there are quite a lot of tips provided in the notices at the top of the draft. Do you feel you have addressed all of these, or is there some aspect of them that you don't understand? Hugsyrup 07:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You have tripled the length of the draft since the last decline. However, much of what has been added - including entire sections - have no references. Either provide citations or deleted unreferenced content before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You disclosed a paid relationship on your Talk page: "I work for ShareChat (company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd), and, as part of my job responsibilities, I am editing this Wikipedia article about ShareChat on behalf of company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd." This information belongs on your User page. Also, you must comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's an app available only in India, and supports several Indian languages, but not English. It might be appropriate for one of those Indian language wikis. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
AlanM1, that makes no sense. Either it's notable or it's not. What has the demographic it services got anything to do with anything? It's borderline inappropriate to suggest such a thing, in my opinion. Usedtobecool   17:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
My concern was the bolded part – it is intentionally not useful to the English-speaking world, for whom it is not developed or targeted, with which I have no problem whatsoever. Is it of interest (notable) to enwiki readers? Doesn't notability have at least some attention to audience? Has it been covered significantly by English-language sources? I understand this is not a requirement, but it is an impediment to verifiability. I apologize if you or anyone else is offended by what I wrote; that is certainly not my intent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to expand a little, I can understand that mention of things not of interest to English-speakers can be useful from the standpoint of complete knowledge. They should certainly find a place in lists, etc. But if English-language sources don't find them notable enough, that seems a good indicator that a separate article may not be appropriate.
Having said all that, unless there is another ShareChat, I believe it is notable based on a quick Google search (the above was based on comments by other reviewers in the existing draft when I wrote the above). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally i think it's notable enough. And notablity has been increased since Twitter has invested 100mn on ShareChat recently 12345 -- CptViraj (📧) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining column width in Tables[edit]

Can you tell me how to maintain or restrict column width in Tables without manual breaks? Thanks.Trouver (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trouver, and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't link to any particular article or table which you want to modify, or were having problems with, so may I just refer you to HELP:TABLES and, in particular, the subsection on setting column widths (see here)? I do hope thie guidance there helps resolve any editing issues you had. If not, come back and let us know exactly what problem you're having difficulty resolving. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you, Nick, I think I've solved the problem. Below is the link in case you'd like to check it out. It's about Ken Kimmelman, a filmmaker and the tables were for his films. But then I got a tag saying the lead section was too long, so I shortened it. According to the guidelines it seems OK to me now. Do you have the authority to remove the tag? Also I'd welcome any comments. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kimmelman&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro
Thanks again.Trouver (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome, Trouver. The table looks ok on my tiny phone screen in desktop view. If an editor thinks they've adressed an issue raise in a template at the top of a page, they're free to remove it tgenselves. (It still looks a bit too long and overly detailed, if I'm frank with you, but others might differ. No need to 'bust a gut' on my sayso - it's just my opinion.) Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New Article - consensus to merge[edit]

I wrote a new article and the consensus is to merge it to another article. Should I do this merge or does it need to be done by a Wikipedia administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeka19 (talkcontribs) 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Article created:Environmental job AfD Decision to merge to: Green job
Hello, Cheeka19 and welcome to the Teahouse. First off, it's a good article - well done. I do agree that the term itself isn't really notable (not that I've ever heard the term "Green job" used either, despite having worked in that field. No, it doesn't require an adminstrator to merge content into another article. In fact, if you don't do it, it's likely to sit there untouched for some time. (I think admins would only be needed if edit histories needed to be merged so as to retain edit attribution. I think you'll need to restructure the Green job article and rewrite the lead. The article you created is very differnet content from that in Green job, so it'll be a fairly easy case of copy/pasting in content into new sections. Once done, your page can be turned into a WP:REDIRECT so that anyone searching on 'Environmental job' can find the main article. (Finally, as a light-hearted aside, I was irked to see you hadn't included my job role in your article. I was a 'Biodiversity Officer' for six years, writing and encouraging the delivery of local Biodiversity Action Plans. From my perspective, that was pretty notable work to help save the planet!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes Thanks for the welcome and feedback and thanks a million for your help. I'm sorry I didn't include Biodiversity Officer ;-) It's such a vast area! I will add to the article as I go and will include this in the future. I agree, Green job isn't a term used widely here in Australia either. I think it is mainly used in the United States. Thanks for letting me know I should do the merger. Do you have any suggestions at all about restructuring and rewriting the lead at all? I am so new here I want to get a good reputation and want to ensure I don't upset anyone with my restructuring and rewriting the lead. Any input from you would be VERY welcome. Regards from Australia Cheeka19
Hey, Cheeka19, sorry for the delay in replying. I'm not able to get to a keyboard very much these days, so have to wait to compose the more complex replies which I can't do on a mobile. First off, please don't add my old job title to your article. You are quite right - there are innumerable variants. Mine (and others) should only be included if there are sufficient reliable sources that talk about them independently.
To answer your question, what I'd do (off-wiki) is look at the Contents section of Green job and pencil where I might create new sections for the contents from Environmental job. (Did you know you can download and print a PDF of any article to work on?ge See link on left side of article page) I would create a new section corresponding to the 'By country' header and insert a 'By function' section (or its equivalent, such as 'By role'). I'd add just the most well-referenced subsections first. Then I'd look at the lead section and decide what needed to be inserted or changed there to better explain the article's expanded contents better. As you're in Australia, you're well positioned to enhanced the 'By country' section, too. I suggest this should be based on national/government/state careers or employment documents if possible. I do feel that your article was a little too much like a careers guide, so I'd not include (at least at this stage) things like Electric Car Engineer. I would also look for corresponding articles which you could wikilink to or add a 'see Main article' link. (See Ecology article for an exmaple of how these links are deployed right under sub-headings.)
I'm really excited to see your particular interests in editing on environmental matters. But can I give you a few 'words of wisdom' that may help you avoid difficulties? First off, please don't draft articles directly within your userpage. That is there for you to say a few words about yourself and your editing interests. (Avoid revealing personal information, however) So, either work on an article in your sandbox (and you can have many of them - such as User:Cheeka19/sandbox, User:Cheeka19/sandbox1, User:Cheeka19/sandbox2 etc.) Or you could create a draft article via the Articles for Creation wizard. I'd suggest you delete what's currently there on your userpage as soon as possible and replace it with a few word out yourself (rough geographic location, job interests or qualifications/educational status, hobbies and interests relevant to editing here).
Secondly, it can be demoralising to charge straight in try creating a new article (( one of the hardest challenges here), only to have some old spoil-sport put it up for deletion, or to drop by your user talk page with some warning or other about what you're doing wrong. I am well aware how discouraging that can be so, like learning to surf, get over the first few waves and falls without giving up, and you'll be well on your way to learning to become a great editor. Don't ever be discouraged by that, though do listen to what other experienced editors suggest. Making smaller edits to existing related topics is a great way to discover things you fancy working on, whilst fixing smaller issues. Did you know that every article should have one of more 'Categories' added at the bottom of the page? These are essential to aggregate related topics, but are also brilliant for finding those related articles. I often use my userpage to list pages I'm interested in working on in the future - almost as a notepad of things to do.
Finally, although my time to give detailed help or appraisals is currently a bit limited (and I'll undoubtedly take ages to respond), do feel free to drop by my talk page if you ever want input on environmental topics you're working on that maybe don't seem quite so appropriate to raise here at the Teahouse. Good luck, and all the very best from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Nick Moyes A BIG thank you - I've done most of the changes advised - just a bit more improving to do so its less like a careers article. Thanks a million from Cheeka19 (talk)

Native American or American Indian[edit]

The Navajo, Apache, Mohican, Dakota, Lakota,Obijwe and all other peoples who were residing on this continent when Europeans arrived refer to themselves as native Americans, except in Canada where they are referred to as First Peoples. Yet I encounter references to them as American Indians, which is incorrect in so many ways, and stems from the mistake of Christoper Columbus in assuming that he had reached islands off the Indian subcontinent. So which is correct the native American self designation (actually Original Peoples would be more accurate) or the misnomer "American Indian". If questions like this should be asked elsewhere's then where should I ask themOldperson (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Oldperson. Your question does not seem to pertain to the purpose of the Teahouse. We are here to discuss making Wikipedia better. Would you like to ask at the WP:Reference desk? It is populated by people who enjoy answering every sort of question.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, "First People" is not really correct either, because the pre-European people of the Americas were not the first people in the world. The first Homo sapiens emerged in Africa, as best we can tell, around two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand years ago. People migrated around the world from there. Slowmusketeer —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Slowmusketeer:Tomato tomahto. I mispoke, I am not Canadian, however checking Isee that they are referred to in Canada as Fist Nation. The designation is Canadian specific and political, so please no dickering about which was the "First Nation" in the world. That is a path we do not need to go down and is unproductive.Oldperson (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: You might want to search for discussions in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace (e.g. here) for previous discussions on the subject. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Size of caption in infobox[edit]

Recently I have seen edits that changed captions in several infoboxes in biographies from "John Smith" to "<span style="font-size:93%">John Smith</span>". Is reducing the size of the caption advantageous? Should I begin applying this technique when I create infoboxes with images of individuals? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. It might have been helpful had you supplied some example links, lest we could see some special need for this. (Very long caption text, or an orphan word) I would advise against trying this. You can find guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, which explicitly advises against using special formatting. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, thanks for your reply. Yes, I should have linked to a specific example. This change was the one that spurred me to post the question. I have noticed several similar changes in other articles in my watchlist in the last couple of weeks. I couldn't see that the reduction helped in any way, but I wanted to check with others who are more experienced. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Such formatting is discouraged, since whatever it is intending to do may only work for the specific screen size and resolution, "skin", custom fonts/padding/bolding, etc. that the editing user employs. It may result in problems for many other users. Best to let the stylesheets and browser do their job. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Should images be moved to avoid breaking section heading lines?[edit]

I've compiled bulleted lists of prehistoric life by US state: example. When an entry in one of these lists has an associated image, the image code is placed between the bullet and the name of the prehistoric life-form, per the manual of style. Unfortunately, if the list entry is late in the alphabet within a section the image spills over into the next section and breaks the horizontal line in the next section's heading. I was wondering if it was more important from a manual of style perspective to keep placement of an image within the associated individual list entry or if these images should be moved to an entry earlier in the list to prevent breaking the subsequent section heading line. Abyssal (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please, do not worry about breaking section lines. Ruslik_Zero 14:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Abyssal: Placing {{clear}} at the end of the section will ensure the next section starts after any content from the previous one. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted articles[edit]

Hello, I recently created Pembroke Aircraft Leasing 4 Ltd and Kieran Corr and they both got deleted for no reason. What happened. ThePacificMan (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You asked, and were answered, at #Hello above. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't. ThePacificMan (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You did, and if you continue to disrupt this forum, you will be blocked.331dot (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok sorry I don't understand what Nick Moyes is saying.ThePacificMan (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, ThePacificMan. I'm sorry if my explanation to your question above wasn't clear. What particular bit would you like me (or others) to try to explain differently? I'm afraid we do expect editors, when pointed to other guidance pages to go off, read and attempt to understand them themselves and then to come back for assistance if they're still confused. Some of those explanations can be quite confusing to begin with, so you will need to commit to trying to understand them. The messages on your talk page really should explain what was the cause of their deletion. I need you to read them carefully and follow the blue hyperlinks to relevant policies and guidance pages. Having done that, if you help me understand what you don't follow, I'll try and help you in return.
In essence, this encyclopaedia will only accept articles on topics that meet our Notability guidelines. Drafts or pages that are considered promotional or non-notable do get put forward for speedy deletion, and those pages are liable to be deleted, well, pretty rapidly. I know it's darned frustrating, but it's nothing personal, and it's happened to many of us (including me). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I have read some stuff on my previous question and my talk page. I still don't understand what reliable and non-reliable sources. To everyone on Wikipedia I'm sorry for my messages on this page yesterday. ThePacificMan (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, ThePacificMan thank you very much for that apology. Let's put it all behind us and move on. If nobody replies to you, I'll try and explain what's meant by it, but I'll have to wait till I can sit down at a keyboard and compose a good reply. That'll be at least sometime around 22:00 UTC tonight, or possibly tomorrow. Sorry about that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That's ok there's days when we're busy just like me today :) ThePacificMan (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@ThePacificMan: Right, I've got 20 minutes before I have to go out for the day. Understanding the difference between reliable and unreliable sources is key too contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm glad you asked. Because we're an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a collection of biased opinions or promotional guff on every single thing under the sun, we have to source everything that we collate here. And those sources have to be reliable. By that we mean the sources we cite have to be independent of the subject and be written by people who can be trusted. These would include newspaper editors, established book authors, news media with good editorial control (i.e. not the biased fake news type websites). We need to provide sources that other users can go off and find, believing them to be reliable. (See [[WP:RS|this guideline on reliable sources). Companies or people usually like to promote themselves in a way that makes them seem better than they are, and to hide all the bad stuff. So we don't regard those companies or people (who we term 'primary sources') as reliable. So if we write about a company, we need to pay little attention to their own website and PR material. Instead we judge whether a company or thing is notable by whether or not other people (authors, journalists, scientists etc) have taken notice and written about them in a format that we would accept as 'reliable'. The opposite of a 'reliable source' is an 'unreliable source'. Here, we'd include company websites and social media accounts, user-edit forums and user-edited websites (such as IMDB for films), Linked-In CVs, and so on. These are primary sources and can't be fully trusted to fairly portray the topic. You can imagine that my own website profile would be unlikely to tell you about my imprisonment for fraud and embezzlement, drug taking and that murder charge. My website would be deemed an 'unreliable source' as a place to go to get true information about me. In contrast, a good quality newspaper that reported on my trial and imprisonment would be regarded as a reliable source to add to an encyclopaedia article about me, provided it was written in a neutral and accurate way. Thankfully I'm not notable enough to have an article here, so none of my personal secrets have yet come out. (only joking!). On the subject of 'truth' - one complication is that what we do cite here doesn't necessarily have to be 'true' - it just needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. Because Wikipedia must be written in a neutral tone, it's quite acceptable to present two sides of a story (indeed, we encourage that) providing that both sides to a topic are not using unreliable sources as evidence.
I realise you've some frustrating experiences trying to write about real subjects which have been rejected because the sources aren't seen (by Wikipedia eyes) as reliable. That's not to say they don't exist, but simply that, for organisations, three reliable sources are our requirement for meeting notability for companies. If we didn't have that, every single company under the sun would be trying to create a page about themselves here, and we'd simply become a business directory. (No time to proof-read - happy for anyone to tweak what I've written if I've included errors) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all that information. So flightaware, flightglobal and bbc news are secondary sources and reliable because they are made by other people other then the company itself. ThePacificMan (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@ThePacificMan: I'm not very familiar with the first two sources you listed. Doesn't Flightaware track airplane movements? The one thing I didn't say is that 'reliability' is dependent upon context. Yes, all are secondary sources (except about themselves, of course), though reliability isn't the only things that's required. Sources are needed that cover a topic 'In Depth' if 'notability' is to be demonstrated. Otherwise, all sources are doing is simply 'verifying' that something exists. This is especially important when it comes to companies and organisations. Many things exist - I exist (you can find me in the phone directory), just as you can find my local widget manufacturer or travel agent company, but that doesn't mean we're all 'notable' in Wikipedia's eyes. I'm not sure if this'll help with the things you're interested in writing. In relation to Draft:Caroline Islands Air, I do appreciate that small nation's topics can be hard to produce good sources for, whereas bigger countries have much less of a problem. Sadly, this is currently something we have to live with on Wikipedia. Sources don't have to be online, however. Have you looked at the content and sources on the German wiki article (see here). There are other (albeit not very strong) sources such as this, this and this. Maybe this'll help; I'm not sure. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes they do help. Thanks ThePacificMan (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing a mobile app[edit]

I have an iOS app published by the Boston Society of Architects/AIA but I'm not sure which template I should use to cite it. Right now I've cited in on the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds article, but would like to use it more. Any suggestions? Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I think {{Citation}} is the generic citation template for citing any and everything, and others are more specific versions of it. So, whenever in doubt, I use that one. I'm also intrigued by the idea of citing a mobile app. Is this a reputed society that's putting their own research on apps; research that's not published any other way? The app might itself be using some other more traditional types of reliable sources, and if that is the case, it would perhaps if better to cite those sources instead. Usedtobecool   03:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Grammar bots[edit]

I see a problem with bots that are programed to go around correcting grammar all across Wikipedia. For example, let's say the bots don't like sentences to end with prepositions, or they don't like the Oxford comma. I've seen changes made that some experts would agree with, and some would not. There are plenty of situations in English usage that are not "settled law", and which the language in it's usual way, may eventually deal with. The English language has evolved naturally over time. That should be allowed. Instead, now machines exist, bots, that can manipulate the language wholesale in a way that can subvert and eliminate the language's ability to evolve naturally. If Wikipedia had existed (with its "Grammar Nazi" bots) in the time of Old English or Middle English, then the rest of the world would be conversing in modern English and Wikipedia would be full of a lot of strange quirks and spellings like "ye" and "thine", etc. My question is that if an editor wanted to discuss this, and object to what's going on -- how or where would that discussion take place? - Quarterpinion (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the first I have heard of such grammar bots. Do you know the names of any of them? A bot should have a Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed; I am not aware of any "grammar bots". As noted by Quisqualis, every bot has a talk page that its operator follows. It sounds to me, though, that your issue seems to be with certain style concerns; probably the talk page of the Manual of Style would be a good place to start. Please note that Wikipedia does not prefer any particular national style of English. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked at some recent pages edited by Quarterpinion, and my best guess is, they were thrown off by the username "Giraffedata". Giraffedata has indeed declared a war on technically incorrect (but fairly common, even accepted if I'm not mistaken) usage/s of the word "comprise", but they are not a bot as far as I know, despite the username. Usedtobecool   02:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all, I appear to be mistaken—the phenomenon, which I do think is troubling and needs to be considered, may be due to actual individual humans operating Wikipedia's search tools in order to have a mass influence on the language all across the encyclopedia. Usedtobecool cites a good example. It's the principle that I wanted to address. I will withdraw this and think about it. Thanks, very much.Quarterpinion (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ll take 331dot’s suggestion and start with the style page that was referred to above. Individuals who manipulate the way English is used on Wikipedia in a wholesale manner, may not be “bots”, but they use Wikipedia’s search engines, and other devices and gadgets of Wikipedia. The “wholesale” manner of editing is “bot-like”, and the things we call a “bots” do have humans pushing their buttons. The result is that Wikipedia can program its engines to control the language with little thought or consideration — robotically. How the language is affected by our devices, as a principle, should be considered. Wikipedia is a thing built out of language (and also engines). Thanks again. - Quarterpinion (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Quarterpinion: Wikipedia has a right to have its articles conform to its house style, which (like everything else here) is the result of consensus; some editors correctly spend their time enforcing that. Take note of MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. Some, including me, will edit to make an article correct and self-consistent, usually in the process of editing it for some other reason in my case; as long as you have it open and are fixing something, it's hard to ignore date format, WP:ENGVAR, comma, MOS:DASH, etc. problems, so we fix them per those policies. Others, as you've said, go around looking for making solely those kinds of edits, sometime unnecessarily, but sometimes technically correctly according to the guidelines. Reverting such edits wholesale without attempting to discuss it first (maybe at WT:MOS) can be seen as just as wrong as the original edits, even if they were wrong to begin with. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@AlanM1:, my concern doesn’t have to do specifically with conforming to the house style, or the MOS, except in the general way. I think its a question of how Wikipedia uses and relates to the English language — whether it’s thoughtfully or not — and do we allow the English language to evolve freely as it has, by consensus actually, for centuries. Can we edit thoughtlessly like robots on an assembly-line? Click, click, click? Yes, we can. Hundreds of edits can be made in a few minutes without much thought — by using devices on Wikipedia that were certainly not intended to contribute thoughtlessness. In this wholesale, robotic way, we can manipulate the language as with a shoe-horn or like “Whack-a-mole”, and we can treat the language in a demeaning way — as something not to exist with its usual freedom, but something to be manipulated grossly. But should we? - Quarterpinion (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discography[edit]

I'm thinking of creating a discography page for Bea Miller because she has two albums, four EPs, and over 10 singles. I would like to know how you move all the discography to a new page. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan that doesn't sound like enough content to merit splitting, especially considering the artist article already looks like a discography page. I advise proposing this at the artists talk page because if you create the discography page anyway, you'll need to make substantial deletions from the artist article to avoid content duplication. As for how to do it, you can simply copy content from the artist page to the new page, provided your edit summary provides attribution with something like "this content was copied from that page, see the history of that page for authorship information". Usedtobecool   18:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Can my biography appear on Wikipedia if I'm a YouTube artist?[edit]

Can my biography appear on Wikipedia if I'm YouTube artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.25.246 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

41.246.25.246 - hello and welcome! Your, or anyone's, biography can appear on YouTubeWikipedia regardless of your profession but provided you meet the guidelines for notability and verification. However, it is generally recommended you do not contribute content in which you have an intimate or pecuniary interest. In your specific case, please review WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Chetsford (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, 41.246.25.246. Writing about yourself is a big mistake. You have a conflict of interest since you want to write about yourself. Also, you may not be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Merely being someone with a channel on YouTube does not merit that person an article. You would need to be extensively written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how you are notable as a person. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

contesting speedy deletion[edit]

how can I contest a sppedy deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brihannalasom (talkcontribs) 17:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Go to the page that is tagged for deletion, and click the button that says “Contest this speedy deletion”. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How can I stop the speedy deletion of my article, and request for reconsidering the matter?[edit]

There was a page by some other person on one of my favourite film activist and poet. May be some of his family members opened this page and when he came to know of this page he himself requested for speedy deletion.

I have no connection with him, but I am become impressed by his biography. So I opened a page in his name with more specific details. But that page has also been speedily deleted. Is it like that, no information on him will be allowed from now on. He is a well known political and film activist, and people should know about the informations I furnished.

Please suggest me what I am to stop the speedy deletion of my article, and request for reconsidering the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brihannalasom (talkcontribs) 17:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Brihannalasom, there is an important question in need of answering. How did you come to know of the "more specific details"? Usedtobecool   18:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You cannot stop the speedy deletion of an article which has not yet been written. There is nothing to "reconsider". You can prevent speedy deletion by demonstrating that the subject of the article deserves an article in Wikipedia by adhering to WP:notability and WP:Reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

Are the photographs copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:30C0:74E0:F892:5875:D81E:678E (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Which photographs? Wikipedia assumes that all photographs are copyright by the photographer unless it can be shown otherwise. The photographer can release copyright when they upload a photo to Wikipedia Commons. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for guidance. If you want to use photographs from Wikipedia Commons, then that is permitted if you acknowledge the source. Photographs hosted on Wikipedia itself might be under "Fair use" so will be copyright and may not be used elsewhere. Dbfirs 20:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

New Living Person Page Created[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Helen_Ramsaran

Hello I just published the following page, when will it be live? Or if there are any additional edits or steps i need to take elsewhere on wiki for this page to be live for other people to offer their edits?

Moshimena (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Moshimena Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "live" you mean it would be formally part of the encyclopedia, you would first need to submit it for review. Currently your article (not just "page") is just a draft. I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Moshimena (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverting a article in a phone[edit]

How can I revert in a phone? Is it possible or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CentralTime301 (talkcontribs)

@CentralTime301: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Reverting on a phone is no different than reverting on a computer- if you are accessing the desktop version on your phone(instead of using the mobile version). There should be a link at the bottom of the mobile version for you to switch to the desktop version. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure reverts can be made on mobile so, like 331dot said, you will have to switch to desktop mode. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about External links in disambiguation pages?[edit]

Is it considered an extrenal link if the link is going to another wikipedia site. For example, if there is a page about a topic that has a broken link on ambiguous is it acceptable to use a es.wikipedia link, if the resluting link is on topic. Seeing if the page does not exist on the originating language version of wikipeda?

I bring up the question because under dos and don'ts, it says not to include extrenal links on this page.

However, is a link considered extrneal when it strictly uses

[http:// a_link]

or only when the page leaves the wikipedia.org domain?

Seamus M. Slack (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Seamus M. Slack, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, External links should not include any links to any language version of Wikipedia. These should always be used within the main article contents. Either use normal wikilinks between two square brackets to link to other pages on English Wikipedia, or use the 'interlanguage link' template to link create a redlink to a non-existent article on English Wikipedia along with a small blue link to a non-English Wikipedia. The template you use is this one: {{ill}}. So, for lovers of alpine flowers, there is currently no article on English Wikipedia about the Pyrenean buttercup (Ranunculus pyrenaeus L.), but there are on both French and German wikis, and seven other wikis. To create a link to it, you'd type ''{{illm|Ranunculus pyrenaeus|de|Pyrenäen-Hahnenfuß}}'' to create this link: Ranunculus pyrenaeus [de] Note the redlink to English Wikipedia, but the small, functional blue link to German wikipedia, which uses the plant's German common name, not its scientific one. Does that answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I do feel welcomed. I didn't know about {{ill}}. Thanks and yes my question is answered. Seamus M. Slack (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How to move a page in the desktop version in Wikipedia on a phone[edit]

How can I move a page in the desktop version of Wikipedia in a phone? Real example: KTSB-CA should be moved to a redirect to KTSB-CD.CentralTime301 (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: Its actually the same as on a desktop computer, see Help:Move. However, I suggest that you use a responsive skin like monobook or timeless, vector (the default) is sometimes a bit buggy. 2001:16B8:50F9:1600:EC2D:6E8D:EED4:E45F (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New Subject Entry[edit]

Hello Editors.

I have been drafting an entry about a fashion designer that is currently not included in Wikipedia.

Where do I post my proposed subject to gain approval and have a review of references and content of an article?

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMETIB MAILLIW (talkcontribs) 05:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, EMETIB MAILLIW! If this is your first article, or you are very new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to start with the Article Wizard. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The red error messages in your references in User:EMETIB MAILLIW/sandbox usually have a "help" link in blue. In each case this will give you a wikilink to specific help on each type of error. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

David- I am such a novice, but under the advisement of Wiki mentors like you and Chetsford are proving handy. I am not sure what you can see in my sandbox, but formatting the references or further advisement would be welcome. Thank you! EM EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners for fixing references. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@EMETIB MAILLIW: Also see Help:Your first article for more general help. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: and @Timtempleton: Really appreciate your guidance and affirmation. If you can see my sandbox- Does it appear as if I am moving in the right direction for a first entry? The citations are there, but realize they require proper fixing! Thanks. EM EMETIB MAILLIW (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs to be shorter, especially mention of info not about her. And learn how to ref. David notMD (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Page not published[edit]

Hello wikites!

I tried to write my first Wikipedia entry about an economist who is in the business since more than 25 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ElZorroK The links I put on the article to show this persons career and standing in the economic community. I want a many aspiring young economist to find him and use his research material in resolving the issues around many economies around the world. I'd very much appreciate if one of you could help me. There is no doubt, he deserves a Wikipedia entry. Many thanks and best wishes. ElZorroK ElZorroK (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello ElZorroK, and welcome to the Teahouse! The relevant "rule" here is WP:NACADEMIC. If you conclude that your guy "has" that and that you can show it with WP:RS, there is some more you need to do. Your article needs inline citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. When you are done with that, see Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Ready!. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Your User page is the wrong place to draft an article (a very common error). Consider moving the content to Article wizard. As GGS mentioned already, needs referencing, and the references need to be to published content about Kevin Fox, not by him. Lastly, a Wikipedia article is not a CV. Listing memberships and the subject's publications do not contribute to the purpose of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Help with using a photo from Hebrew Wiki - to use in English Wiki[edit]

There is a photo in the Hebrew Wikipedia article of Rabbi Yechezkel Sarna whichI'd like to include in the English Wiki article. Various unsaved experiments didn't work. Is it because of the photo not being in a "commons" area but rather in a language-specific .jpg collection?

Photo from Hebrew Wiki: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=iw&sp=nmt4&u=http://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%2591%25D7%25A5:Yechezkel_Sarna.jpg&xid=25657,15700021,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259,15700262,15700265&usg=ALkJrhjpNdBjR9nKDAXAMk3zbkB7QKp0tg Pi314m (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCI 10, that foto should be ok to use. How to technically do that, I don't know. Marchjuly? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but ... it's the "How" that was the basis of my Help request. Sorry to seem like I'm double-dipping or asking for cake at the teahouse: Is this the right place, or should I repost my help request elsewhere Pi314m (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pi314m: I don't know if you can link across the different language Wikipedias. I think if you right click to download it to your computer, and then upload it to commons with the upload wizard, and include in the permissions that it's a photo of a deceased person, you'll get a link that works. You could also include the link to the original file in the notes, and if there are any problems, someone in OTRS will help you straighten it out. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Timtempleton, the linked page states that the image is copyrighted, that makes Commons the wrong place by default, or am I wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I don't think you're wrong per se. When someone uploads a file to Commons under a license such as Creative Commons, they are not really transferring their copyright ownership to Commons or anyone else; they are really just making a version of their work freely available for others to more easily use. Basically, they have created a boilerplate agreement allowing reuse of their work under certain terms for anyone who currently wants to or might someday want to use their work that makes individual agreements with each such person unnecessary. So, Commons does host copyrighted content, but only when it's been released by the copyright holder under a free license that Commons it accepts. The default in cases where a file's licensing cannot be verified is to deleted per c:Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Pi314m. Files like the one uploaded to Hebrew Wikipedia are local files, whereas files uploaded to Commons are global files. So, if you want to use a file uploaded locally to Hebrew Wikipedia on English Wikipedia, you will have to one of two things: upload the file to Commons or upload the file to English Wikipedia. Since Commons does not accept fair use files, you should only upload the file to Commons if your reasonably sure that it meets c:Commons:Licensing. Commons will accept copyrighted files, but only when it can be verified that the copyright holder has agreed to release the file under an acceptable free license; technically, the copyright holder is relinquishing their copyright ownership over the file but rather simply making a version of the file freely available for others to use. If you've got any specific questions about this, you can ask for help at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Now, if you don't think there's a way for the file to be uploaded to Commons, then it might be possible to upload the file locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied, but copyrighted files of deceased individuals are allowed to be uploaded and used per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as their use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Generally, such a file should be OK to use as long as (1) there's no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image (it doesn't have to be the same image; just equivalent enough to serve the same encyclopedic purpose) can either be found or created (WP:NFCC#1), and (2) the image is going to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the person-in-question. Other types of non-free use are not impossible to justify, but they do tend to be much harder to justify. If you've got any more questions about this, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Heard about a company from a friend, found a wiki draft page. Need help from experienced editor friends[edit]

Hi guys,

Need help getting a company draft page to life, its a notable company that has been in business for past 25 years nearly. Its privately held and hence much of its revenue info isnt shared.

Can somebody help me with what all may be required for it ?


-- volcanicsnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcanicsnow (talkcontribs) 10:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned on this user's talk page, they are being asked to violate WP:MEAT, WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO and should not do this. --Yamla (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy: draft in question is Draft:Fiorano Software. David notMD (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not as sure as Yamla is that MEAT, or PAID apply. Perhaps COI if the friend is the person who created the draft article in question. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
What would also apply in the latter situation would be the prohibition of PROXYING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talkcontribs) 11:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Moot, as the major (original?) author of the draft has now requested speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Disassociation with my email[edit]

I would like to remove my email from my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arustiy89 (talkcontribs) 14:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The option to be able to do that is available at Special:Preferences, but please read the warning about the consequences. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Echoing David's comment. You can turn off email alerts, but just keep it for password recovery. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a link to an article in the real world?[edit]

A wikifriend recently sent me link to an article were I (“wikipedia editor Carptrash”) was mentioned and I’d like to put a link to it on my user page. Sounds doable, but here is the rub. The reference, which was not intended to be complimentary, is in Breitbart News and when I attempted to make the link I discovered that Breitbart is on a banned (or something) list and links to it on wikipedia can not be made. SO how can I circumvent this probably good regulation? Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You've to request for the specific link to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am not sure what criteria they use in determining what to whitelist and what not. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

edit a locked Wikipedia page[edit]

How to edit a locked Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashmiri Munda (talkcontribs) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I can give you more details if you tell me what color the lock is, but generally, locked pages can only be edited by editors that meet certain criterias. Please take a look at WP:Protection policy. Thank you. William2001(talk) 16:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the block (or whatever) is pink, but on a more careful look (my forst response was WTF?) I discovered:
Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). Which I do not want to do
Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page. Which is what I plan on doing, thanks, Carptrash (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Upload an article[edit]

Hi I want to ask about how to make an article about person and make it visible/noticable(found)when search about it on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obada Katatbeh (talkcontribs) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • (FYI the editor wants to create an article on himself and presumably wants everyone to see it. –Davey2010Talk 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC))
@Obada Katatbeh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Per our policy on autobiographies written at WP:AUTO, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. While they are not forbidden, in order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not press releases, interviews, or brief mentions) write about you. The vast majority of people cannot do this, as we all naturally write favorably about ourselves. If you have reviewed Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person(or the more specific criteria for certain careers) and truly feel that you meet the criteria, you should allow others to write about you.
Wikipedia has no control over Google search results, but generally articles are searchable once formally marked as reviewed; it then takes Google and other search engines time to index pages. Wikipedia also has no interest in helping your career or enhancing search results for you. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Coloured[edit]

Hi there,how do you have a coloured background user page? And also how do you make an online bot? Thanks--RazorTheDJ (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Colored background: <div style="background-color:#abcdef"> my Content </div> renders as
my Content
For help see CSS. 2001:16B8:50F9:1600:ACAB:61DB:EF2C:A728 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
As for bots, see Help:Bots. Eman235/talk 20:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

PHP7[edit]

Editors are making changes all over the place with nothing in the Edit summary except the preceding mysterious word, or phrase, or something. When I click on it, I am taken to an equally mysterious page. What does it mean, and why don't editors explain exactly what they are doing? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the new software which is gradually being brought on-line (and should be fully rolled out by the end of the year). The software runs only at the WMF end and you shouldn't notice any difference; at the moment edits on the new interface are being tagged so if there's any bug, the developers can see if they're connected to the switch from HHVM to PHP7 or not. Once the rollout is complete and HHVM is no longer being used anywhere I assume the tag will be switched off. TL;DR version; this tag is only for the developers to keep note and you can completely ignore it. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Some editors don't bother with an edit summary, and they can be reminded, such as with {{Uw-editsummary}}. Separately, the automatic PHP7 tag flagged by the Wikimedia software is explained at mw:Beta_Features/PHP7 (and the links from it), but can be ignored except by the software developers. Note that the PHP7 tag can apply to edits either with or without an edit summary. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't explain why editors don't say in an Edit summary exactly what they are doing with this new software. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not something that the user is doing. You'll see that mw:Talk:Beta Features/PHP7 says that "10% of all traffic is currently being randomly assigned to the PHP7 testing servers. The tag will show up on any edits made from servers running php7 to help us track issues that may ultimately be related to the php7 software. This isn't anything that a particular editor should be concerned about." As I explained (and I trust that someone will correct me if I'm wrong), what a user puts (or doesn't put) in an edit summary is entirely independent of whether the server uses PHP7 and adds the PHP7 flag to help the software developers in their performance studies. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Benti addition to Studio City page removed[edit]

My question is concerning an addition of a notable person 'Joseph Benti' which I added to this page, that was immediately removed by BeenAroundAwhile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#Notable_people


Here is the following cite that I wrote which was removed:

Prior to joining CBS network news in NYC, Mr. Benti started his career in Los Angeles working for KTLA which was owned by Gene Autry. I have included a Radaris link, which shows the Dona Dorotea address: http://radaris.com/~Emanuel-Benti/1061252293

The Wiki Studio City article does not specify that the reference of notable people must show their Studio City address in the article. Also, Mr. Benti does not use his first name, which is Emanuel. It was my opinion that the links to his work covering the assassination of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were vastly more important than a reference to his home address.

However I will add a third reference from Los Angeles Magazine, June 1983 called "Second Chance Daddies" which references Mr. Benti's Laurel Canyon home. Included in the article are Harvey Cantor, the great civil rights photographer Steve Schapiro, Roger Gimbel, Al Campbell, and Harvey Korman. Five of Mr. Benti's children all attended and graduated from schools in Studio City that include: Carpenter Avenue Elementary, Walter Reed, Campbell Hall, and Corvallis High School (now Bridges Academy).

I have rewritten the article to include a third source from Los Angeles Magazine.

References

  1. ^ "Reliving the RFK Assassination with CBS Newsman Joseph Benti". It's About TV. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  2. ^ "CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: The Death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.(TV)". The Paley Center for Media. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  3. ^ "Reliving the RFK Assassination with CBS Newsman Joseph Benti". It's About TV. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  4. ^ "CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: The Death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.(TV)". The Paley Center for Media. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  5. ^ Morrison, Mark (June 1, 1983). "Second Chance Daddies". Los Angeles Magazine. Volume 28, Number 6 (June): 218-223.
The advice in such cases is at WP:Write the article first. If you draft an article with appropriate sourcing, & get it approved through the Articles for creation process, you could then link to the new article from the list of notable people. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

User:David Biddulph: This is not an article. It is an edit to an existing page. Yosemite4 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Yosemite4 what do you specially need help with. It looks like you have had help on your talk page previously about this topic. ThePacificMan (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Also some of those references don't make sense to the topic..ThePacificMan (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Yosemite4. As I told you on my talk page, there is widespread general consensus among experienced editors that lists of "notable people" on Wikipedia be limited to those people who are already the subjects of existing Wikipedia biographies. Those lists should consist of blue links, not red links or unlinked names. So, the first step is to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography of Benti. You can find advice at Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there ThePacificMan Here is another reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Show

He was anchorperson of the first hour-long network news program in history.

Now, as a point of discussion. William Shatner, who we all know as Captain Kirk, or the spokesman for Priceline.com, has one reference to a wikipedia page that says nothing about William Shatner. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#cite_note-72 Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FYI_(American_TV_channel)#The_Biography_Channel

Yosemite4 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a place to discuss this matter at Talk:Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#Joseph_Benti BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
William Shatner is a very famous actor and his Wikipedia biography has 108 references. Joseph Benti is the subject of a completely unreferenced Wikipedia article that was deleted in 2007. There is a very big difference. If you want to add Joseph Benti to lists of notable people, then write an acceptable, well referenced draft article for him through the Articles for creation process. Please be sure to let people know that you have a conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Benti addition to Studio City[edit]

I have asked that all discussion be submitted to the TEAHOUSE page article and not a relentless surge of private emails. The following editors have removed my submission without checking the edit. [User: David Biddulph] who lives in Britain and has no knowledge of Studio City.

Here is my edit:

I don't think it is fair to threaten me which is what this fellow did via my talk page. Please comment on the submission which now links to a Wikipedia page.

<excerpt from user's talk page redacted, as it isn't needed here>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemite4 (talkcontribs) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Early Show". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 17 August 2019.
  2. ^ "Reliving the RFK Assassination with CBS Newsman Joseph Benti". It's About TV. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  3. ^ "CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: The Death of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.(TV)". The Paley Center for Media. Retrieved 2019-08-15.
  4. ^ Morrison, Mark (June 1, 1983). "Second Chance Daddies". Los Angeles Magazine. Volume 28, Number 6 (June): 218-223.
This isn't needed and just because someone is from a different country doesn't mean they don't know about that article. Please stop resubmitting. ThePacificMan (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yosemite4, Teahouse isn't the place to discuss content. Please take it to the talk page of relevant article/s. And please refrain from making ad-hominem comments on fellow editors. Where an editor is from, has nothing to do with what they could know of, nor does what an editor knows have anything to do with editing an encyclopedia. See WP:Verifiability.
As to what you characterise as threatening, those are automated messages generated to alert users who repeat unconstructive actions. The messages get more terse every iteration. This is done to impart upon users the seriousness of their actions when the first messages which are friendly reminders don't seem to work. Please note that, eventually, those messages will run out and when that happens, an admin action may be sought. Some people have a particular distaste of automated messages and will leave a personal message like Cullen328 did. But, leaving an automated message is not a threat, even if it appears offensive to you. If you find it offensive, reply to them there and say so. The trick is to address the relevant conduct before it has to get to the level of needing harsher warnings. And David Biddulph's message was polite in any case, you may be thinking of someone else.Usedtobecool   07:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove all conversation pertaining to Joseph Benti[edit]

You Wikipedia editors won. You actually have made it so I can't remove it. Clearly intended to destroy.

I want the personal material that I placed, removed from the TEAHOUSE. It is clear I have violated your standards and did without any direction. Remove the material.

My deletion is my edit. I came there for help and was debauched by a bunch of editors more concerned about being right than helping. It is clear that noon is interested in helping. No one even bothered to read my four submissions to the Studio City page. This is a bunch of men complicit in destroying a woman and hiding behind their screen names to do it.

Yosemite4 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to direct me to this incodent/edit in question? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I can see the discussion, but I’m not sure what part you’re referring to. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234 It no longer matters.Yosemite4 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yosemite4, your attacks are out of line. I'd redact them before more people see them. Please see WP:AGF. You are sorely mistaken if you think that that kind of attack will distract/deter people from acting to protect the encyclopedia and the community from disruptive behaviour such as yours. Usedtobecool   09:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove all my sections referring to Joseph Benti - you won[edit]

Please remove all of my input concerning Joseph Benti. I submitted four revised entires based on input I received in private messages. And not one of them was answered.

What a swamp. Everyone hiding behind their screen names.

Yosemite4 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All sections are automatically archived by a bot, at the appropriate time. Usedtobecool   09:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
As noted at the top of every edit window, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Posts will not be removed just because you want them to be, sorry. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

NPP vs AfC[edit]

What is the difference between Wikipedia:New pages patrol and being a new page reviewer, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation and being an AfC reviewer. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Waddie96, New Page Patrol is a patrol of articles in mainspace, AfC reviewing is checking articles in draftspace. NPP generally involves tagging pages for speedy deletion, PRODing, and draftifying. AfC spots articles ready for mainspace, and promotes them (it rarely involves deletion). The skill sets do overlap quite significantly, though. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Erm, dont forget that New Page Patrol also involves approving many reasonable articles added directly to mainspace - not just deleting them! Note that once a draft article has gone thru the Articles for Creation review process and moved to mainspace, it still has to be NPP patrolled before we allow Google to index that new page. Both processes allow the respective reviewer to leave feedback for the creating editor. Its wrong to suggest that AfC reviewers spot draft articles that are ready for mainspace. Nothing happens until the creating editor is happy with their draft and actively submits it for review. Thats quite an important point worth clarifying. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Bellezzasolo and Nick Moyes!{{u|waddie96}} {talk} 06:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

About the Wikipedia:WikiProject Requested articles[edit]

Dear Fellow wikipedians, I wanted to be a member of this wikiproject, when i realized that it was inactive and tagged it as such. I saw that i can revive it. I have read the instructions to do that, but i have became a little puzzled. I would kindly ask someone to explain it with a little simpler words, and to ask my basic question: If i must, how can i become the <<leader>> of the wikiproject to revive it? (the policy didn't said something about that, i generally ask) I await your reply, Eni vak (speak) 21:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How to Delay Publication?[edit]

Is there a way to have a draft article "pre-reviewed" but delay the publication until later?.

The reason I ask is Iʻm working on a new article on a well-known historical site based on many years of primary source research that is about to be made public. I want the Wiki article to come out after the new info comes out... but I donʻt want to wait for months for review or debates with editors (which I have heard do occur).

Suggestions welcome! - Dean Hamer, PhD

PS- It would help to know the typical wait time for an article to be reviewed. If itʻs super-long, I could just submit right now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Hamer PhD (talkcontribs) 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dean Hamer PhD. I can't quite work out what you're trying to do, but I cannot think of any rationale for this request that is consistent with what Wikipedia is. If you want to submit a draft for review, submit it; if you don't, don't. If you care about when an article is published, you are almost certainly working on it for the benefit of somebody or something other than Wikipedia: please don't do that. I cannot see how "a new article based on many years of primary source research" can have any relevance to a Wikipedia article you are writing: citing your own articles is regarded as editing with a conflict of interest; and putting anything in it which has been published only in your own article would be original research and not acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
To Colin's reply I would add the reminder that a Wikipedia article needs to be based on secondary sources, rather than the primary sources which you mention in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dean Hamer PhD: If many years of primary source research that is about to be made public means that you will be referencing those unpublished (yet) sources in your article, that will be a problem, since it will not be verifiable yet. The Wikipedia article needs to be reviewed after any sources it references are available for verification. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

what does it mean when in someones user Box it has the green dot in it and says helped promote the article to good status?[edit]

Just was wondering in the process of contributing to a page to make it one. Just did not get the wording for that still a bit new Jack90s15 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure exactly which userbox you have in mind, but quite a number of those listed at WP:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Personal statistics refer to promoting to good article status. At least some of those link to WP:Good articles which explains the process. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Jack90s15. Certain Wikipedia articles have underdone a kind of optional formal peer review which has resulted in them being assessed as Wikipedia:Good articles or Wikipedia:Featured articles; so, the userbox you saw belongs to someone who either created such an article or who worked on improving it to help it become such an article. GA's and FA's are normally considered to be good examples of what every Wikipedia article should strive to be, but there are still quite a number of articles which are quite good which haven't undergone such a review process; in fact, most articles tend to be more informally reviewed as explained in Wikipedia:Content assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok I get it now thanks!!! @David Biddulph: @Marchjuly: Jack90s15 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Freud-Hitler[edit]

Hi! I read an old news that Sigmund Freud suggested in 1895 that Adolf Hitler be committed to a mental institution and that's not mentioned in "Early years" of the Hitler's article. Should it be included? I don't want to edit an already Good Article. Thanks. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the news source that says that? That is the first step in determining if it is something that is worthy of inclusion into the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Where is your reference to a published reliable source for this? - David Biddulph (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @David Biddulph: and @Sir Joseph:, I was reading this This and sources in Spanish such as this La Nación. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, your first piece doesn't make the connection, just suggests it, so that would not be able to be used. The second piece, is an opinion piece, so I'm not sure, considering that I am reading a machine translation, and it's an opinion piece. But we would usually require more scholarly sources, especially for something like this. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In 1895 Hitler was only 6 years old. So, this is unlikely that anybody would consider committing him at such a young age. This looks like just a piece of fake news. Ruslik_Zero 10:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Canadian TV talent show "Take a Bow"[edit]

Wanting info on a Canadian TV show called "Take a Bow" I believe it was in 1965 or 1966. Looking for info on winners, and if video exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.217.29 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We help with how to questions on editing Wikipedia here. You probably should take this to the reference desk. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Dutch 20th century musicians[edit]

This page includes politicians, and does NOT include thousands of professional Dutch musicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:20th-century_Dutch_musicians

But, go ahead, like the rest of my wiki work, delete it all. have fun spreading mis-information! Basvossen (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Bas

The article Hans Dijkstal, about a Dutch politician, somehow was placed in two musician categories. I removed those two categories from the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hello everybody, i am seeking help writing a Wikipedia article for a person that i believe should have recognition here for the work that he has done and continues to do in Africa. How do i go about writing this biography in a manner that does not seem to be promoting him. I have a draft that has already been deleted previously.

--OLIVIAHNOAH (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that you believe he should have recognition here, you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about at length, and the article should summarise these sources in your own words. Using such references is the only way that you can establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 07:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

want to create a page for actor Rhian Rees[edit]

How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallowean (talkcontribs) 03:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You can use the article wizard to create the page. However, the person must be notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. LPS and MLP Fan (LittlestPetShop) (MyLittlePony) 03:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding 3RR for LuLaRoe page[edit]

Hi Tea friends,

I hope you're well. I have just done two reverts on LuLaRoe as an IP user has been changing the company's listing from Multi-level Marketing to Pyramid scheme without additional citations. Many of the other companies on the List of multi-level marketing companies are described as MLM or Direct-selling, it is rare for "Pyramid" to be in the lede even though there is a Ponzi/Pyramid category heading. I remember the difference between these terms being extensively discussed somewhere, but my concern at the moment is also that I don't want to engage in an edit war. As they are unregistered, would we still progress to a discussion on the talkpage? What is the best way to proceed?

Thank you for your advice and time! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi SunnyBoi IP's are just like any other editor and they are going to be expected to engage in WP:DR when there are disagreements over article content. At the same time, you wouldn't be considered exempt from WP:3RR just because the other person is an IP, unless one of these applies. So, you should try and engage the IP in article talk page discussion and see if some sort of consensus can be established. Even if the IP elects not to participate in the discussion, other editors interested in the subject matter might. If through article talk page discussion, a consensus is established to in support of "multi-level marketing", then the IP will be obligated to adhere to it even if they don't agree; if it's established in favor of "pyramid scheme", then the same will apply to you. Ignoring such a consensus is going to be considered WP:DE (absent any serious policy/guideline violations which would happen by implementing the consensus) even for an IP account.
Now, in this particular case, it might depend on who reverted whom first; if the IP was WP:BOLD and made their edit to change things to "pyramid scheme", then you would be perfectly OK in trying to apply WP:BRD if you disagree; it would then be up to the IP to establish a consensus for the change. If it was the other way around, the burden would fall upon you to establish the consensus. It looks like the IP has been reverted by another editor; so, this version should probably be considered the WP:STATUSQUO. The IP should now try and establish a consensus for their preferred version, which is probably going to require some pretty good sources cited in support since the claim seems quite contentious. If the IP continues to revert as before, then that would be WP:EW; you can warn them about this on their user talk page, but if the reverting still continues you can either seek help at (1) WP:RPP or (2) WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking a bit closer at this, it seems similar edits were previously made by different IPs; so, perhaps trying to discuss things with the IP is not going to go very well. The previous edits were reverted by an administrator named C.Fred so maybe he'll watch the article in case the IP comes back again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Using either of the terms Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme is effectively an accusation of criminal behaviour, whereas the term MLM does not have that implication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Page "Gramophone" is badly needed[edit]

Two data items (one is subclass of the other) point to same page at EN pedia. And EN pedia is the only one lacking a usable page "Gramophone". This is not great. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! You can Be Bold and improve the articles yourself. Other than that, I don’t really understand what you are saying. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Gramophone is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. If you are suggesting that there is a primary topic, the place to discuss that would be the talk page of the disambiguation page. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Cugnot's 1771 fardier à vapeur
Taylor 49 has a good point. The relevant link on the Gramophone disambiguation page is to Phonograph, which covers what used to be called gramophones and are now called record players. I have to click "page down" eight times before I find a picture of anything resembling a modern record player. Using the title "phonograph" when it hasn't been current for sixty years is absurd. And the image at the top of the article should be of a modern device, not one made in 1878. Sensibly, automobile redirects to car, which has an image of modern cars at the top. If it were titled "road locomotive" and had this image at the top, it would be laughable. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Apparently this has been discussed several times with contradicting results: [1] the "approximate consensus" is very weak [2]. I am saying that a consensus about terminology (what "phonograph" and gramophone" are supposed to be) is needed and should be followed for all affected pages on all wikies (EN wikipedia, wikidata, commons). The existing situation is desperate (EN wiki the only one lacking a page about "gramophone", messy terminology with "gramophone" ?? "phonograph" ?? "turntable" ?? "record player". How are "phonogaph" and "gramophone" supposed to relate to each other?
  • perfect synonyms ?
  • "gramophone" is a hyponym of "phonograph" ?
  • "phonograph" and "gramophone" are hyponyms of "device recording or playing sound stored as physical deviations of a groove located on a cylinder or disc"
I am proposing following solution:
Arguments:
  • all other languages distinguish between "phonograph" and "gramophone"
  • there are 2 separate items on wikidata (and I would oppose an idea to merge them)
  • the term "gramophone" is most precise (as opposed to "phonograph" that is the original invention, "turntable" that can be a Railway turntable, "record player" is confusing and can play pretty anything (sound __record__ed on magnetic tape, etc)
  • the disc with the sound stored should have same name as the device playig it ie "gramophone"
  • "vinyl" is a bad name since early gramophone records vere not made of Polyvinyl chloride and even worse, vinyl is NOT the same as PVC, thus saying "vinyl" instead of "Polyvinyl chloride" is slang
  • Deciding_on_an_article_title: Precision Conciseness Consistency - "gramophone" is the best word
see also Talk:Phonograph_record#Requested_move_17_August_2019 -- Taylor 49 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's a UK/US thing. Almost everyone here in the UK calls the things with turntables that you play records on "record players", and has done so for at least 50 years. The word "gramophone" is still understood, particularly in the context "wind-up gramophone". I suspect few of my fellow Brits even know what a phonograph is. So it's weird that en:WP's article on these devices is titled "phonograph". It even has a section Phonograph#Phonographs in the 21st century, which makes me wonder if it's a joke. Maproom (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing foreign references/sources[edit]

Hi,

I'm working on writing a Wikipedia page, I've started to collect all of my sources (according to the notability, etc.), and I was wondering if I can use notable sources of articles that are NOT in English. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merelmar (talkcontribs) 09:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing An Article On Pawan Singh National Rifle Assciation[edit]

Hi, I am writing an article on pawan Singh. Kindly,can anyone guide me that the coverage links which i have with me do they match the notability criteria. As i have gone through the coverage links, and they are appropriate. Mentioning below the coverage links:

Kindly someone have a look, and let me know. Regarding this.--Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. I, at least, have better uses for my time than to go through all 16 links above and check which of them help to establish that Singh is notable. I suggest that you choose the four best of the links, and just post those for someone to check. Prefer sources with in-depth discussion of him, not just generated from a press release, and covering more than his appointment to one particular rȏle. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

how to add a reference[edit]

Greetings!

I tried to search for that help topic but found none. I need to put a ref link (the list at the bottom of the page) to the EDIT I put in. I can't seem to edit the reference list. Can anyone help me out on this?

Thank you!

Ray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagganath69 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Eno the Emu notable?[edit]

I was thinking of writing an article about Eno the Emu but found it hard to tell if he was notable. There seem to be a good number of sources, including some non-local ones: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/07/eno-the-emu-north-carolina-wanted http://www.travelandleisure.com/animals/eno-emu-loose-in-north-carolina http://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/us/emu-north-carolina-trnd/index.html And some more detailed local ones: http://chapelboro.com/town-square/eno-the-emu-eludes-authorities-draws-national-headlines http://www.cbs17.com/news/eno-the-emu-spotted-in-hillsborough-still-on-the-run/ There doesn't seem to be very clear notability guidelines for Eno the Emu and other people or animals who are known, but not for doing much except existing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_Notability#Don't_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers also seems like it might affect it. Mcavoybickford (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure Eno would be notable. If we were to treat them as if they were a human, WP:BLP1E would apply - Eno's only notable for a single event, i.e. escaping. So, probably not (sorry Eno!). Others may have other views. GirthSummit (blether) 14:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
As a suggestion, perhaps if Eno himself is not notable, his escape and the subsequent efforts to catch him might be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I do think that WP:BLP1E does indicate that it would be a close call on notability, but the fact that it is now in a marketing campaign means that it might not meet criteria 2, and so be notable enough. I'm also not sure if the fact that it has been locally reported on for more than a month affects it. It would probably have sections about identity, escape, sightings, capture attempts, marketing campaign. If not, should it be a section of the Chapel Hill article? Mcavoybickford (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about this a bit more, in terms of other notable famous animals. Knut (polar bear) was notable, and he didn't even escape, but he was in the public eye for quite a while. The Tamworth Two are probably closer the mark - I remember that being in the news for quite a while though, and their deaths were also reported nationally because they'd become so famous. If this story maintains the public eye for a while and Eno continues to receive attention, perhaps they will become notable. GirthSummit (blether) 16:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I see from the new pages feed that you've gone for it. I'm in two minds about this - I'll wait to see what others think. GirthSummit (blether) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cursor jumping when copying or cutting text[edit]

Hi - I realise I'm kind of forum shopping here, but if anyone has any insight into the issue discussed here it might save me a chunk of time experimenting with uninstalling and reinstalling a bunch of scripts. Basically, whenever I copy or cut text when editing anything on EnWiki, my cursor jumps to the top of the page, forcing me to scroll down to find where I was again. It only happens on EnWiki, not on (for example) meta, or in other applications, and Schazjmd has said they've got the same problem. I suspect it's something to do with a script I've got installed, but I've no idea which one, so unless anyone has any tips I'm going to spend a bit of time uninstalling all my scripts and then reinstalling them one by one to see if I can get to the root of it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just an update on this, in case it rings a bell with anyone. Through some experimenting, Schazjmd and I have determined that it's something in preferences that seems to be causing it, rather than a script - he was able to stop it happening by disabling the 'Syntax highlighter', which is odd because it happens to me and I don't use that. The only way I've been able to stop it happening is to switch off the 2010 editing toolbar, which is probably too big a sacrifice. If anyone has any suggestions... GirthSummit (blether) 14:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Its not really forum shopping, but it can dilute discussions if you raise an issue in more than one place without linking to the main location for that discussion. I hope anyone contributing will do so at your original post. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Is the link in my first sentence above not sufficient? Sorry if I've misunderstood you, are you saying I should have displayed the actual location rather than using a pipe? GirthSummit (blether) 15:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Doh - completely missed that! Take your pick of excuses from a) my tiny phone screen, b) bright sunlight, c) my declining eyesight d) my inability to read tiny links properly e) my stupidity. (or all of them!) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: No worries - it's an interesting point though, using small words in lower case to represent important links in a discussion perhaps isn't the wisest idea, I'll think about that in future. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nesting Infobox Academic in Infobox Officeholder.[edit]

The article I am having trouble with is Marie Smallface Marule. I was trying to produce a infobox similar to those on Francis Collins (scientist) and Robert C. Robbins (medical). When I try to nest/embed the academic infobox, I run into issues. Thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thsmi002 there doesn't appear to be a set standard in implementing that. I tried the other parameter I knew and it worked. There may be templates in which neither of these work, who knows? Usedtobecool   14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool:, thank you! I forgot about the "child" parameter. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to Teahouse[edit]

How can i send new users invitation of teahouse when they creat an account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayson78740732156 (talkcontribs)

If you use Twinkle, you can use that to leave a welcome template on their talk page - they include an invitation to the Teahouse, as well as other useful links to help get them started. GirthSummit (blether) 15:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Mount Major, Victoria, Australia notable?[edit]

I recently visited Mount Major, Victoria, Australia, which is near Dookie, Victoria. I was surprised to find there was no article about it on wikipedia (there is an article on a different Mount Major in the U.S.A.)

I would like to write a short article about it, but I'm not sure whether it's notable enough. I can't find much information about it, apart from brief mentions of the geology and location. e.g. http://greatershepparton.com.au/assets/files/documents/community/recreation/Walk_in_Greater_Shepparton_guide_-_final_version_May_2013.PDF

What's the verdict? Is it worth an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingbrain (talkcontribs) 15:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Explodingbrain WP:GEOLAND says that named geographical features are often notable, provided that information beyond simple statistics can be found. In practice, pretty much any article about a named geographic feature is retained, per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. The source you link isn't quite a solid-gold RS, but I can't see anyone quibbling about that if you want to write the article. Quick check on Google also threw up this which should give you a bit of info about it's geology to work with, looks like there's more out there. I think you're good to go. GirthSummit (blether) 15:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Explodingbrain. Welcome. Yes, I would say that it definitely is, as it appears to be a genuine geographic feature. Providing you can prove that it actually exists (and your one source does do that), you're good to go. You'll need to distinguish it from other Mount Majors, if these exist (I've not checked), and add some coordinates via an Infobox if you can. Let us know if you need further help. Working on a draft is the best way, via Articles for Creation. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Move Burn (Hamilton song)[edit]

Is this copyvio? -- CptViraj (📧) 15:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

They're attributed direct quotations, with links to their sources, so I don't think they're COPYVIO. GirthSummit (blether) 15:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, i've confirmed other sources, i think article is ready, accepted. Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 15:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Q[edit]

I haven't been here in a few years and I want to know what policy changes have been made since then. I also want to know if Arbcom is nicer than it was in 2016? Thanks. 1YoudKnowIfUNEW (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: This user has been indefinitely blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Dose anyone want to help make Draft:List of animated shows by episode count Fanoflionking 18:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

add reference to another Wikipedia article[edit]

This is harder than I can manage for now.

What I would like to do:

Under the Wikipedia entry "Pollution" there is a subheading "Cost of Pollution" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

I would like to add at the end of "Cost of Pollution" this reference: "See also under Wikipedia "Energy subsidies." "Energy subsidies" is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Thanks for any help.Ed2291 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ed2291 and welcome to the Teahouse. We never use Wikipedia links as references, nor as something to link to at the end of an individual section. So, if you can't WP:WIKILINK the page within the text, the only way is to insert it at the end of the page within the 'See also' section. This section is for related topics that haven't yet been linked within the article, but which we think users might find of relevance. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that what Ed2291 wants to do is not to add a reference (though they call it that) but to put a link in a "See Also" section. That's easy, you could just do
== See also ==
Energy subsidies
but I don't know if it's acceptable to have a "See also" subsection for a section rather than for a whole article. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Maproom: Yep, that was what I assumed Ed2291 wanted to do. Thanks for adding the demo. I do not feel it would ever be appropriate to create multiple 'See also' sections. Distantly related topics should all be collated together into one 'See also' section, just above the 'References' section. More guidance at WP:MOSLAYOUT and WP:SEEALSO. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ed2291: Let us know if you would like one if us to add it for you; editors learn more if they try doing things themselves. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

are category sections not allowed in sandboxes, and if not, why not?[edit]

Header pretty much sums it up. cheers Tarkiwi25 (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Categorization#User pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tarkiwi25: In a word, no. I'm assuming you're drafting an article in your sandbox and want to be ready wuth the right categories for when it goes into mainspace? The last thing we want is for multiple, half-finished drafts appearing in Category listings (I've made that mistakes in the past). But you can inactivate the categorisation by adding a colon immediately after the opening pair of square brackets [[:Category:New Zealand]]. This keeps the link working, but doesnt include your page. Once live, just delete the colons. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieving a draft paga[edit]

How can I retrieve my page draft? I just submitted it a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talkcontribs) 01:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte If you are referring to Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer), it is still there. It does not go anywhere when you submit it. It appears that you have not yet submitted it, though. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy; it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself(though not forbidden). 331dot (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

How to create a wiki page without an error?[edit]

How to create a wiki page without an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthayakaren (talkcontribs) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Error" is a relative term. The best articles result from following the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia. In addition to the useful links posted on your Talk page, also please read WP:Citing sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for editing[edit]

I was hoping someone could edit a draft of my article. I am looking for advice about meeting requirements for notability. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony

-- Albus89 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Albus89: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability guidelines for musicians are written at WP:BAND. Anthony would need to meet at least one of the listed criteria to merit an article. As the draft is now, I'm not really seeing which one of the criteria he might meet based on the sources that are there at the moment. I'm afraid no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, unless there are other appropriate sources out there. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

How may I add a new page ?[edit]

With thanks Dr.S.M.Rasel Faruk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasel Faruk (talkcontribs) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Help:Contents. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Has my page been submitted for review?[edit]

Hello,

I submitted my page for review yesterday. I see now a grayed rectangle on top of which is written "draft article not currently submitted for review". Does that mean that I did not submitted the article correctly? Also, I am trying to edit the draft. Where is the "edit this page" tab? It says that it is on top of the page...

Regards,

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talkcontribs) 10:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte: I assume this is about Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer). It seems that you have not submitted it for review. You can edit it by clicking on the tab labelled "Edit" at the top of the draft.
I have several comments on its content:
  • You appear to be trying to create an autobiography. This is strongly discouraged.
  • There is no need for the disambiguation "(Sound Engineer/Producer)" in the title. en:Wikipedia has no other article about a Thierry Migeotte.
  • There are numerous direct external links. These are against Wikipedia policy, and should all be removed.
  • The references are all clustered together at the ends of the paragraphs. Each reference should be immediately after the statement which it supports.
Maproom (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will definitely make the appropriate changes. The external links were to support facts. How else should I do to confirm facts?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talkcontribs) 12:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The way to confirm facts is with reference citations, not with misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
And when adding citations, make sure you give full citation details, not WP:bare URLs as you have provided in your existing references in the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Does every species need a page?[edit]

Sometimes when I read about a particular genus, it'll have a list species in the genus - and often almost all of those species will be a red link. So I assume that means they need an article, right?

But the thing is, there are so many species, and often so many of them are so similar that writing separate articles about them would almost be like copying and pasting. Or sometimes, the article can't grow beyond start-class because the species has been very recently discovered, or is quite obscure or hasn't been researched much.

Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermelon-lemon (talkcontribs) 12:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am truly confused[edit]

I am told that my page looks like an autobiography. Well, written by someone else it would certainly have the exact same content that the content I just put in. Also, I am very confused to see many other pages from people in my field looking exactly like mine. They sure asked someone to write it for them. Now what difference does this make? This is truly confusing, discouraging and disappointing.

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talkcontribs) 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An example of a similar page on Wikipedia[edit]

Ryan Hewitt (record producer) If this is not exactly the same type of page as the one I am trying to create... I am truly confused

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talkcontribs) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Th.Migeotte Please see other stuff exists. The article Ryan Hewitt (record producer) is also poorly sourced, however he is a Grammy award winner so notability has been established. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. Could you please remove me entirely from Wikipedia. My disappointment goes beyond the impossibility to write an informative page. SO many questions that will never be answered... SO many music albums on this site (for I suppose non promotional purpose). Anyway, No more for me even if I had the possibility to.

Regards,

Th. Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talkcontribs) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose[edit]

Wikipedia shows the death day of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on 18 August, 1945. But his death is still mysterious. There is no conclusive evidence that 18th Aug is Netaji’s death anniversary. How can Wikipedia provide such controversial information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhayan Mukherjee Tito (talkcontribs) 12:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on that topic is at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose#Wrong information about death. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

where to put scanned documents to cite as references[edit]

For an article I created Suzy Williams I had several documents in hard-copy (paper) form only, not available on The Web to my knowledge, that I wish to cite as references. Most of them are clippings from reputable newspapers that would normally be considered to be good secondary sources under other circumstances. I electronically scanned all these documents and had them archived in a photo album for the FaceBook page of the article's subject, so that I could cite them in the article. An editor labeled all these citations (and no others) as "[non-primary source needed]". Apparently, the scanned documents were not put into an appropriate place. Where IS an appropriate place? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

To publish newspaper clippings here on Wikipedia would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you have sufficient details to satisfy verification (such as newspaper name and date) you can cite them using {{cite news}}; they don't need to be available on the web. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)