Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 521

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

Archive 515

←

Archive 519

→

Correcting the Date Someone Was Born

Hi, I'm the author of MAMA ROSE'S TURN about Gypsy Rose Lee's infamous mother, Rose Thompson Hovick. She's listed on here as having been born in 1890, but she was born in 1891. I corrected that, but still she's turning up under "People Born During 1890." How can I get that fixed?

Kind regards,

Carolyn Quinn www.carolynquinn.net Sequinrosette (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sequinrosette, you need to change the category the article has been assigned to. When in edit mode, at the bottom of the article you will see a line that says [[Category:1890 births]]. Change that to 1891. BTW you also need to change the date in the first sentence of the lead. Rojomoke (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

COI and New User ignorance

Hi everyone, It is great to finally be able to contribute to a body of knowledge like wikipedia but the challenge now is that every article written comes with several warnings like i shouldnt make changes again and many others. It made me feel like am doing the wrong thing. i created a page "CFi - Christian Fellowship International" and it seems to have been deleted.

Please i need advice on what to do Cfireal (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Cfireal. I'm sorry you're having a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, this is quite a common experience of new users because so often they plunge straight into the rather difficult job of creating a new article. I would always advise a new user to spend some weeks improving existing articles first, to get the hang of how Wikipedia works. They also need to read Your first article carefully.

The message that Melcous has put on your talk page is based on the assumption (probably from your user name) that you have some connection with CFI. If that is the case, you are strongly discouraged from writing about it in Wikipedia, because it is likely to be difficult for you to write neutrally about it. Please look at the links Melcous put on your talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Cfireal, I suggest you change your username because we don't allow usernames to represent businesses. For example, Cfiinc or something similar would likely get blocked, but Cfirick might be acceptable. See this page for more info on usernames with business names in them. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the candid responses. Its quite frustrating you know...Want to be part of this big family. I love to write. I will take it one step at a time.

Once again, Thanks. Cfireal (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

How to view history of article's title

How is it possible to easily see the evolution of an article's title, starting with the article's original creation. When I look at an article's history, it shows edits, but does not show (as far as I know) exactly what the article's title was at the time of the edit. Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kamel Tebaast. I often miss such a feature. Instead I click "500" in the page history to see more revisions, and then make a browser search of the string "moved page" with Ctrl+F. Repeat after clicking "older 500" or manually editing the url to say a number up to 5000. There will often be a talk page with fewer edits but the same moves. "View logs for this page" at top of the page history will show moves away from the current name but not moves to it, so it's often useless for this purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikitables

So I've been told that the tables on List of parrots do not fit onto the screen. The only solution I can see is shrinking the table, but that'll only fix the problem for certain size screens. Are there any parameters or templates that can be used so it will auto-fit onto any sized screen? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dunkleosteus77. Tables work best in Wikipedia if you don't try to specify size of the cells and just let the cells adjust to the content. Leave out all the cell formatting stuff. Don't try to specify the size of the text. See Help:Table and keep it as simple as possible. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, the tables wouldn't all be the same size (wide), they'd look all wonky. These are all separate tables, so the cells won't be the same size for each table (as far as I know) User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, see this diff in my sandbox where I put a copy of your first table. I took out only two lines. I removed some formatting and the table declared inside the table. (Why is there a table inside the table?) The table sizes to the size of the screen. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Additionally you will have to control the size of the pictures in the table. See List of the 72 names on the Eiffel Tower. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The tables do not have to be all the same size, but it's good if they are readable. And when they are that wide they are un-readale – one must scroll fore and back to see the whole row, one can't catch the whole row with a single glance. Think also about those who read Wikipedia with their tablets or smartphones...
Additionaly, when you force big cell widths you waste the screen space: images are quite tall, so the text can pretty well be split into several shorter lines instead of extending 'forever' in a single line. And that also improves readability, because the whole piece of information is in a small, compact area, available for reading 'at once'. --CiaPan (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed unnecessary and very annoying width:1690px from many tables. It looked abysmal on my and a huge number of other screens. Never demand a large table width in pixels. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

orange for DAB links?

All of a sudden I'm seeing links to disambiguation pages showing up in orange, which I don't recall ever seeing before. Am I going amnesic, or is this something new? Not that there's anything wrong with it; good idea. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thnidu, I think it's a new feature. A while back I saw a discussion at the Village pump about making links to drafts and dabs show up in different colors, so I guess it was instituted. It's a good thing, though, and helpful. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". It's off by default. User:Anomie/linkclassifier can add various colors for differnt types of links. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly and PrimeHunter: Thanks, both of you. I must've turned it on at some point and clean forgotten about it. --Thnidu (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Updating Subash Chandra Bose

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

The above mentioned weblink is the wiki page of Subash Chandra Bose. However for a long time, there has been number of files that has been dis-classified by the Government of India.

I wish to add those details for providing authentic details of Mr Bose. The details available is not authentic after files were dis-classified. Amit Mishra 07:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriamiy (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sriamiy. Declassified government documents are primary sources and we should rely mostly on secondary sources, especially for historical topics. If these documents are significant to understanding this person's life, then historians will discuss them in secondary sources, and we should summarize what those historians have written rather than trying to interpret those documents ourselves as Wikipedia editors. The relevant policy is No original research, which says, in part: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing Multiple Issues Template

Hello, I am new to Wiki and after my first article I received a template listing several issues with my page. I have fixed the mentioned issues, but now cannot remove the template box. How can I do this? (Anniegotterson (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Anniegotterson: and welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you have already removed these tags in Wageble in the meantime. However, "no footnotes" remains an open issue. When you add references (or footnotes), you should put a reference directly behind the sentence(s) it verifies (not in the "References" section, where it will be added automatically with the "reflist" template). It should look like this in the article's source text: Content.<ref>reference details to verify content</ref>, resulting in a small numbered box behind the sentence. Help:Referencing for beginners contains a lot more detailed (and better) description of Wikipedia's referencing for new editors. Please note, that all non-trivial information in the article should ideally have such a reference. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I get rid of unwanted bullets?

I have edited an article that includes several bulletted lists under separate headings. (These are lists of books and other publications written by the subject of the article.)Directly under each heading an unwanted bullet appears. I can't get rid of them. They do not show while I am in the editing page, only when I am looking at the published page. I have looked in the source editing page and cannot see anything there that looks like it could be causing the trouble. Any tips would be appreciated. (The article is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Leslie_Gold )AuroraMax109 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that you're using two stars in front of each entry, so they're sub-lists. Either reduce them to one or, if you still want the double indent, use a prefix of :*. The leading colon specifies an indent without a bullet.

Example with *:

One
Two
Three

Example with :*:

One
Two
Three

Example with ** (unwanted):

- One
- Two
- Three

71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! The problem is fixed now.AuroraMax109 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Need Help Again

Hello, probably Gestrid. I am severely sorry. I really am. But I need help again. I am truly sorry. I messed up anouther reference, but I know where I messed up, so can you tell me how to edit them? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut. You left the http:// off the web page address. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

But the URL didn't have that. Also, I just need to know what all I need to fill in. GrecoRomanNut (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The url= field of citations would prefer to see https:// prefixes, if they work, but needs http:// otherwise. Browsers are pretty flexible about accepting strings without the prefix, and can even test the destination to see what variants might work, but here on Wikipedia, the prefix has to be included. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

To amplify User:jmcgnh's comment, the URL does have that prefix. All URLs have a protocol: prefix, it's a required part of the Uniform Resource Locator#Syntax. Many browsers have taken to hiding http: and https: because they're almost always the same (a feature I keep turning off on my browsers), but it's formally a required part of all URLs. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong communication

Hi! I got an email from White Arabian Filly‬ about a page I created. I was redirected to User_talk:Silvano.martello

where I read:

A tag has been placed on French operations research society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. ... If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion".

However, the page, Société française de Recherche Opérationnelle et Aide à la Décision has no deletion tag and no button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion".

Best regards, Silvano Martello Silvano.martello (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Silvano.martello: the tag was placed in February this year shortly after you created the articleFrench operations research society. However in the intervening period the nomination to delete the article was declined and it was moved to the new title using the French title of the organisation rather than the English version. Nthep (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Do I understand correctly that everything is now fine and there is nothing I have to do?

(Strange however that a communication releted to something settled in february was just sent yesterday.)

Best regards, Silvano Silvano.martello (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Silvano.martello. The message was left on your user talk page on 21 February. Another post was left there yesterday, so perhaps you only then noticed the first one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, @Silvano.martello: - yes, everything is now fine and no further action is required.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As a new user, if I want to go about making a change to a template, what is the right etiquette?

Hello everyone,

I may want to make a small change to the following template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_India_district.

Looking at the Talk page of this template, it was last edited several years ago. I am not sure whether it is okay for me to make a small change to it. Also, it seems to be a well-used template and thus will impact a lot of pages, and therefore I am even less sure about changing it.

Any input will be helpful.

Thanks. Amiwikieditor (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Amiwikieditor!

I would like to suggest you that Yes!, you can do change the contents in the Article as you said that it has not been changed so it might be a very good thought to edit it so that it is updated. If you have ample knowledge about it then go ahead!

Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003 (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Careful, Akshitkumarbarnwal31102003. While in general your advice is good, for a template that is used in 378 pages a little more caution might be required. Amiwikieditor, it depends a bit on what is the nature of the change you want to make: does it have the possibility of breaking any pages? Is it likely to be at all controversial? Unless it really is minor, I suggest that you make your suggestion on the talk page, and also notify WT:WikiProject India. If there has been no comment after a few days, then go ahead and make your change. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Amiwikieditor, it would help us answer your question if you described the change you want to make. Joe Roe (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses folks. Joe_Roe, the change is minor - but it sprouts from my OCD about certain things. The template has some logic which links to the list of districts in which the current district resides. That linkage is serving two purposes - it acts as a label to describe that the current district (the one on which the template is) is a district of a given state. And it links to the list of all the districts of the said state. My problem lies in the fact that the label is singular - for instance, on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurgaon_district, it says District of Haryana - while the page it links to is a List - thus implying a plural target. So, ideally it should say "Districts of Haryana" - but then it doesn't serve the purpose of adding information to the page where it is shown (where it wants to say that "Gurgaon District" is a "District of Haryana").

Not sure if you are with me so far or I made a hash of trying to explain this. The change I want to make is that the place where it says "District of state name", it follows it by text which says something like "list of all districts of this state" with the link to the list of districts.

Makes sense?

Amiwikieditor (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the link is correct: Gurgaon district is a single entity which belongs to a superior single entity – the Haryana state, and that is what the label says: a district of Haryana. Of course, it links to a list of all districts of Haryana, because there is no 'a list of a single district', and a description of a single district is just a page we're reading (the one containing the template). That's quite obvious to me, and I do not agree with your point of view that the singular/plural need unification here. --CiaPan (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks CiaPan - The label in its display context on that single district page (and others like it) is correct, of course. But imagine a hyperlink on the internet which says "District of X" and it points to a page which contains "Districts of X". That's my only concern. I made a suggestion on the talk page on what it could be instead to see if I get a response from those who originally worked on the template. My suggestion will result in the following being displayed instead: "District of X (all districts of X)" wherein, the "all districts of X" part will be the link. Is that not better? Amiwikieditor (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Much too cluttered. It's fine as it is. David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you had put your message at the top of the template talk page. It will often not be noticed there, because the general practice on Wikipedia talk pages is that new topics go at the foot of the page (so I have moved it). You may have been confused because new topics on this Teahouse Questions page go at the top; experienced editors have frequently pointed out that new editors will get confused by this non-standard practice, but the bright sparks who dreamt up this page wouldn't listen. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha David_Biddulph on the Talk Page comment placement. And I guess I accept both yours and CiaPan's input on this. Even though it will bother me personally :) - thanks for taking the time. Amiwikieditor (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Is article abstract acceptable source?

Is an abstract of an article an acceptable source to cite? Gordon410 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gordon410 and welcome to Teahouse! Could you provide us with more information about what you want to refer to? Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 01:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what an article abstract is? It gives a summary of the article. Gordon410 (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gordon410. It is always helpful to provide more information when asking such a question, such as a link to the abstract in question, and the assertion that you want to reference to that abstract. A few generalities: An abstract of an unreliable source is also unreliable. Do not cite such a source. An abstract of an indisputably reliable source may be of some use for referencing something stated clearly in the abstract. If you have access to the full source, then cite the full source. There is no requirement that sources be readily available to all readers online. If that full source is hidden behind a paywall, providing a link to the abstract in the reference may well be useful to readers. In conclusion, citing the full source is always preferable to citing an abstract, but if the abstract is all that you can read, and the factual assertion is clear, then cite abstracts sparingly and cautiously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Ilyushka88 and Cullen328. I was in a hurry.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/174581711X13103897378311

This is the abstract. I am able to access the full text. Gordon410 (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410, go ahead, and reference the complete article then. If that is behind a paywall, you might provide a link to the abstract in the reference. A source does not have to be freely available on the net to be used as a reference, and linking to the abstract is the next best thing. This is commonly done.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A little miscommunication so I will rephrase. The Wikipedia article paraphrases the abstract directly from the words of the abstract. Is this acceptable? Gordon410 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410: seeing as the abstract is expected to constitute a truthful summary of the article, that should not be a problem. I would still suggest that you make out the reference itself to the paper rather than the abstract (if that was your intention), to guide the reader directly to the more in-depth source.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Help wanted

Who can help me with a new publication?

Macha van Beusekom (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Macha van Beusekom. Judging from your question in Dutch, (which you have now removed, together with my answer), you are wanting to create a new article. I think it is unfortunate that so many new editors are determined to plunge straight in and try one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, which is creating a new article; so I always suggest that they spend a few weeks working on improving existing article, and learning how Wikipedia works. But I also suggest that you study Your first article carefully, and come back here if you have specific questions or problems. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Being attacked

I am being attacked on the Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport page. I was correcting USer: 213.114.171.165 and he/she said by saying let's not vandalise and this was his responce; "well then you've been doing a wrong thing for years which is potentially a sign of mild retardation. And vandal is your dad who destroyed some whore's pussy to conceive you" Please block the user and undo his vandalism.86.190.240.190 (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP user. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, but not really the right place to report another editor for bad conduct. The place for that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have just filed an ANI complaint against the rude IP. Their behavior isn't right, and their latest edit summary seems like a veiled threat ("don't walk down this alley"). Update: the profanity has been deleted by an admin. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How do i find info

Hell, editors, I have a wee problem. I have been looking for things about "Euphrosyne", so I went to the Wiki page about editing articles. They said I should try NexisLexis and programs like that. But I don't know how to do that. Can someone please help me? Thanks GrecoRomanNut (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you are looking for? Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Velella, haha, that is the page I am editing. And I have found out how to work those programs. I am now editing smoothly, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrecoRomanNut (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

How to explain not to delete article in talk page

We want the Clay Blaker notice of deletion to be removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Blaker

It not looks like its up to date with sources, etc.

What would be our next step? I understand that we have to explain why it shouldnt be deleted on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Blaker but I am not sure how to do this. Please advise. AngieBocas (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I looks like the article is going to be kept anyway, but it may take a few days for the discussion to wrap up. TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Ping @AngieBocas: TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AngieBocas. The place to contest the deletion would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Blaker (which is linked from the message at the top of Clay Blaker). But as Timothyjosephwood says, after the improvements that ubiquity has made to the article, there is nobody arguing for deletion, and it is almost certainly going to be kept.

What concerns me in your posting is your use of the word "we". Usually, Wikipedia editors work alone, and the fact that you talk about what "we want" makes me think that you may be working for Blaker in some capacity. If you are not connected with him, then I apologise for my suspicion; but if you are, then you must read Conflict of interest carefully, and you should declare your connection with him - if you are in any way paid for working on this, you must declare this (see WP:PAID). --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the deletion debate is going to end with an uncontested "do not delete". If the deletion notice gets removed before the the debate has closed, it may have to be rerun, and the premature end of the first debate will count against it. If you want the article to be kept, I recommend that you do nothing. Maproom (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

How do I add a picture to a Wiki page? GrecoRomanNut (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Where is the picture now? Maproom (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have successfully added a picture to Euphrosyne (mythology). As far as I can tell, you have done it correctly. It might be good if you could explain in the caption which of them is Euphrosyne – but as they're all fictitious, I doubt it matters. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello, Editors. I am doing fairly well at editing, and have been working on a specific page, titled "Euphrosyne". When I started edited, it was considered a "stub". I just want to know how much more I need to add to it for it to become a regular page. Thank You GrecoRomanNutGrecoRomanNut (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The page is in fact titled Euphrosyne (mythology). Maproom (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome again to the Teahouse GrecoRomanNut. As for when an article can be moved from stub class to start class, that's a matter of judgment and comparison with other similar articles. Once an article has 3 or more sections, contains a good half dozen sentences and references, is not orphaned, has some categories applied, and has suitable outbound wikilinks, I think most editors would agree that it is no longer a stub. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Question about a page which was moved and blanked

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I have a question about a page which I just came across named Ganeriwala's. It was moved by its author to Ganeriwala family and blanked. Should it be turned into a redirect, deleted, or left alone? Thank you. Peterye2005 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this to our attention, Peterye2005. I have tagged the blanked redirect for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 00:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello, I am new user in wikipedia and I want to Join CVUA. So, Please help me to join CVUA ? SRZA002 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Editors who use deceptive edit summaries would not be welcome at CVUA. Also please read the statement near the top of WP:CVUA which says "Check that you have already made sufficient mainspace edits (generally around 200) and that you have addressed any previous advice or warnings about your editing." --David Biddulph (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Maryam Elisha

I reviewed Draft:Maryam Elisha and declined it as reading promotionally. In my opinion, it passed notability but had tone issues. It was then declined by another reviewer on notability grounds. I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors as to whether it satisfies notability. I will also ask the author whether they have an association with the subject of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Rejection

Hi, I published my first article and it got rejected and it says that the language is not neutral. What could be the next step?Itidubey (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Itidubey and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, one of the items in the rejection notice was that the language was not neutral, that it read more like an advertisement. But that's not the only problem. You also have to consider why the company meets Wikipedia standards for "notability".

What you've attempted to do, as many new editors do, as your very first activity on Wikipedia, is to try something quite difficult. Please see Your first article for some advice.

Many of the Teahouse hosts will advise you that you should spend some time on Wikipedia learning the ropes and attempting small edits until you see how things work. Only then, are you likely to succeed at getting a new article accepted.

The other comment in the rejection notice was about the referencing style. If you look at your rendered page, you'll see a bunch of numbered weblink icons scattered around with no text attached. That just doesn't look right.

As much as possible, you want to place the references next to the sentences they verify. The Wikipedia software will collect and display the reference information under the {{reflist}} template. Your current reference style is at or below the lowest acceptable standard. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for more detailed information about how to create references. I advocate using the {{cite web}} template and its siblings whenever possible.

Good luck and I hope this rejection does not leave you dejected. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

How do new companies get added to Wikipedia? Is there some criteria?

Hi,

I'm the Content Marketing Specialist at Avaza, a business management software. It's been around for just 2 years, and we're now looking at improving our web presence, and were wondering if there was criteria to add a company page.

Obviously, I wouldn't be adding this myself as I work there and it would be hard to ensure it's an unbiased page. But I also get the feeling that there are other requirements. Could someone share these with me?

Thanks, Nida Nidarasheed (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for recognising your conflict of interest. You'll see some guidance regarding companies at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question: companies get added on Wikipedia when there are enough independent reliable sources (such as newspaper stories, television programs, even books) about them. That usually catches the attention of someone who has no personal affiliation with the company, who will in turn write a Wikipedia article based on those sources. Sometimes this happens with new companies, if their inception has been interesting enough for many journalists and authors to write sources about them. Sometimes the company can be considerably old by the time an article is created. Sometimes an article is created only after the company has been involved in a scandal, because such events tend to generate a lot of news reports. And that touches upon the very essence of what encyclopedia articles are: they are not free PR for companies. They summarize all things (positive, negative and neutral) that have been written about the company in reliable sources. Against this definition, it's a bit surprising how eager companies are to "get on Wikipedia". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Making A Page

Hello there, my name is Axcii. Just call me TheInnocentFox. (that's my nickname). I just joined yesterday because I wanted to help out the community that helped make Wikipedia relevant but I have one issue.

I don't know how to make a page.

Now, don't get me wrong; I've read some help articles but they just are irrelevant and they don't help me. So I'm asking you. The community of Wikipedia. Yes, you reading this. Help me out by replying to this. I'll be greatful. Now, if you'd excuse me, I need to take a break. I've replied to a lot of stuff on Google+ today.

From TheInnocentFox (Axcii) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcii (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The page you need to read is WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that, but I am still stumped. It's very lengthy and the language is in a format that I personally am not a fan of.

From TheInnocentFox (Axcii) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcii (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If you tell us which part you don't understand, someone can explain it to you. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Axcii, welcome to Wikipedia. The reason that Your First Article is quite long is not because it's difficult, technically, to create a page (it's super simple, in fact), it's because it's difficult to write an article. We don't have articles on anything and everything here, so in order to understand what is and isn't an appropriate topic to write about you need to read our guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia articles are also written and formatted in a particular way, so you need to learn how to use wiki markup, how to write in an encyclopedic tone, how to reference, and be familiar with Wikipedia's style and conventions. As you can see that's quite a lot to get your head around, so usually we advise new editors not to leap straight into writing a new article from scratch, but to take some time to practice editing other articles first. However, if you're ready to learn and up for a bit of a challenge, you are certainly welcome to create an article.

As a new editor, the best way to do that is the Article wizard. It takes you through the all the steps and submits your article as a draft for a more experienced editor to review. They will help you get the article into shape before it is published. Joe Roe (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yo, Axcii, one more thing you should know, not related to your question. Sign your name with four tildes — ~~~~ — and the software will automatically convert it to your name, linked to your userpage, + a link to your talk page, + a UTC timestamp. That's what Joe Roe and David Biddulph have done above, and what I'm doing right here. --Thnidu (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Like this? --Axcii (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2016 (BST)

Yes Axcii, just like that - Arjayay (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Review of translation from French

Hi, I translated another French article fr:Ligne de flanc into Draft:Flanking line (meteorology). This time, I specified in the comments the origin of the translation (I hope that it should be OK this time). Could someone review this article and ensure that it is OK. Also, I did not hear anything more about the article Draft:Castellanus. Does it mean that I should move this article into the main space? Thank you for your help. Malosse (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to place {{subst:submit}} on your drafts to have them reviewed. However, you seem to know what you're doing and both drafts look in very nice shape, so I would simply move them to mainspace yourself. The AfC process is really just for very new and inexperienced editors. Joe Roe (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have two minor comments. First, the legends in Figure 2 are in French. That is, they haven't been translated. (The caption is in English.) Second, there is a heading to the draft that says that it is a science stub. That isn't accurate, because it is more than a stub. I will remove the stub notation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you change a name of article after creation?

Hello, I have recently had an article accepted after an initial rejection. However, I just realized that the first reviewer who rejected it, when they moved my article from my personal draft space to the draft space for the article itself, also changed the title of the article. The page is Or Haneshamah, but the title should be "Or Haneshamah - Ottawa's Reconstructionist Community". That is the full name of the organization.Dmendel (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that your article has already been moved (renamed). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, Dmendel, you can move a page using the "Move page" option on the "Page" drop-down menu in the top right. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for advice on this and some things that you should consider before moving an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It should, I believe, not have been moved. Wikipedia's policy for article titles is to use the name the subject usually known by, rather than its official name; see for example Newt Gingrich, United States. The independent sources cited in the article show that this congregation is usually referred to as "Or Haneshamah". I have moved it back to that name. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Does it count as Content removal?

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I have a question about content removal. Does removing text which was commented out like the link below count? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_airports_by_IATA_code:_A&curid=37063427&diff=737284357&oldid=737183835 Thank you.Peterye2005 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as content removal. But it still looks like a mistake. Those comments were put there for a good reason, which I assume is to inform potential future editors, so that they do not, in good faith, add errors to the list. I would strongly discourage such deletions. Maproom (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The link to WP:REMOVE you provided goes to the guideline for user and user talk pages, Peterye2005, so it doesn't seem relevant to this situation, but I agree with Maproom that the removals nonetheless seem inappropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

To be fair Hhswp who removed the comments has given a justification at Talk:List of airports by IATA code: A#"comments added to prevent addition of incorrect IATA codes" was wrong. This probably needs discussion by people with interest and/or subject knowledge. Nthep (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm newer at wikipedia. I wrote my intent to Talk:List_of_airports_by_IATA_code:_A#.22comments_added_to_prevent_addition_of_incorrect_IATA_codes.22_was_wrong. - Hhswp (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Concern about Mary Howard de Liagre

I did some editing on Mary Howard de Liagre, adding section headings and changing some type to bold or italic. Then I looked for a reference that I could use to replace an IMDB citation in the lead.

The first resource I found online was her obituary in The Telegraph After replacing the IMDB citation, I read more of the obituary, and I realized that it sounded strangely familiar. In fact, the material after the first paragraph in The Telegraph appears to be identical to that in the WP article.

I am not good at interpreting the history of an article, but as I read the history of the WP article on Mary Howard de Liagre, it was started before the obituary in The Telegraph was published, but the bulk of the article was added after the obituary's publication.

This is unfamiliar territory to me, so I'm turning to those of you who are more experienced than I am. Should something be done about the existing WP article? Eddie Blick (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eddie Blick. She died June 6, 2009, the article was created June 9, 2009, and the Telegraph obituary was published June 12, 2009. The article has evolved over time based on input from several editors. It is possible that some of those editors relied on the obituary but did not bother to reference it. Of course, those biographical facts may also have come from other sources, such as the Playbill dead link.. It seems that you are working to improve the article, and I commend you for that. Please keep doing so. One problem is that reliable sources from the height of her career are likely to be under the name "Mary Howard" which is such a common name that you are likely to run across many false positives. Add the names of her most popular films to your searches to zero in on applicable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a fairly clear copyright violation here. See this for evidence. Some or all of the material seems to have been added in this edit from June. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I've flagged the article, Teblick, following the guidance at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Thanks for bringing this to attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Poetry and formatting it.

So I love to write poetry, but I'd like to know if I can right it on my talk page. Also, if given the ability to, I'd like to know as well how to get more people to notice it (kinda like how the unblock command alerts admins). Thanks to anyone that answers my question. :) ASimpleCompanion (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Your User Talk page is for Wikipedia editors to communicate with you, ASimpleCompanion, so no, it would not be appropriate to write poetry on it. You perhaps mean your User page: This is for you to share whatever information you wish to share about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. There is a certain amount of latitude allowed: I don't think anybody would object to you sharing a few lines of your poetry there as part of a "this is who I am". But Wikipedia is not a webhost, and trying to use Wikipedia to "get people to notice" anything is called Promotion, and is a complete no-no anywhere on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok ColinFine (talk). I did mean my talk page. But I was more or less wanting people to know who I am. But Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest so I'll keep it to a minimum. ASimpleCompanion (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposed article was declined bc it needed footnotes, what sentences should I footnote?

Hello there, nice Wikipedia editors. My recent article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_Lambert was declined for needing footnotes. I have looked it over, but without specific citation needed notes I don't know what parts or claims require these footnotes. Could one of you kind Wikipedia editors please let me know where footnotes are needed? I will gladly insert them. I have researched how to do so. The helpful Robert Mcclendon was the editor who cited this requirement.

Also cited was the Wikipedia discouragement towards creating an article for oneself which I am aware of. I apologize. It has been 8 years since my 2008 Wikigrain was created and no one else other then me seemed willing to do the work required to update it to 2016. My intention in doing so was to enrich Wikipedia, not promote myself. In 8 years I have published a lot of things and built notability. I have researched the Wikipedia pages of my contemporaries Myriam Gurba and Wendy Ortiz who are at the same level as I am and have Wikipedia pages. I have also been published several times internationally which they have not.

Thank you for humoring my efforts and providing further instruction towards perfecting this article. I am ready and willing to do the work. - Andrea Lambert (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Andrea Lambert. Please be aware that many experienced editors disapprove quite strongly of autobiographies and you can expect intense scrutiny of your efforts. But such articles are not forbidden, so you are entitled to try, and Articles for Creation is the right process. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for authors and artists. In order to be accepted, your draft article must demonstrate that you meet our notability guidelines. A major problem with your draft is that it lacks inline references. Instead, your references are clumped at the end of the draft article, making it difficult for a reviewer to know which claim is supported by which reference. Read Referencing for beginners to learn how to properly format inline references. As for what requires a reference (or footnote), that is anything likely to be questioned. You do not need to reference that the sky is blue or that the sun rises in the east or that London is the capital of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, any factual or evaluative claim about you as a person must be properly referenced. Please also read and study Your first article and Conflict of interest. Read these over and over again, and comply in every way. As I said before, your efforts will be scrutinized, and your best course of action is scrupulous compliance with all of our policies and guidelines. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As for Myriam Gurba and Wendy C. Ortiz, the first article is unassessed, and though it is better developed than your draft, it has some problems at first glance. The second is already tagged for various problems, and though it has a large number of references, most of those seem to be primary and not independent. Do not model your article on those with problems but rather strive to approximate the quality standards of peer-reviewed Good articles and Featured articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Original Poster referred both on my talk page and above to Wikigrain. What I do see is that the subject had a biography in Wikipedia in 2008, but that it was then deleted following a deletion discussion. What is Wikigrain? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Deletionpedia and Wiki-Bin, Wikigrain is a store of articles nominated for deletion specializing in Russian and English articles. I am not sure if it is still being updated, as the copyright notice (which it shouldn't have if it is storing Wikipedia articles) states 2008-2014 - I assume that the reference "It has been 8 years since my 2008 Wikigrain was created" relates to the Andrea Lambert Wikigrain entry (which I can't link to because Wikigrain is a Blacklisted site) - of course, it has not been "updated", because Wikigrain is a repository of deleted articles, not live ones. - Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clearing up what Wikigrain was because I was terribly curious about it too! I have revised https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_Lambert with footnotes and am waiting to submit it until two more forthcoming publications come out as i am aware that further COI editing is discouraged. Another question: how many footnotes per claim are needed? I cut every incidence where I had three, but in some cases I have two footnotes backing up a point. Is that superfluous and/or excessive or good? Please let me know and I can cut the weaker footnotes if necessary. Thanks again! Andrea Lambert (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Notability for Television series

I know that film articles are created only when principal shooting has started. What is the criteria for television series? Marvellous Spider-Man 04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marvellous Spider-Man. According to our notability guideline for TV shows, "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network". I think that much the same would allow to a one time "special" show. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Article rejected to lack of information

I tried to put up a biography of a woman scientist. She got her Ph.D. in Physics in 1919. I did not have very much information, and this was the reason the article was rejected. I had hoped that if I put up the information I did have, others with more information could add to the biography. I have birth, death, universities attended, name of dissertation, and private collage she taught at. Does anyone have any idea how I can get more information on her to bring the article up to standards?173.242.240.35 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello 173.242.240.35 and welcome to the Teahouse.

What you've attempted to do, as many new editors do, as your very first activity on Wikipedia, is to try something quite difficult. Please see Your first article for some advice.

Many of the Teahouse hosts will advise you that you should spend some time on Wikipedia learning the ropes and attempting small edits until you see how things work. Only then, are you likely to succeed at getting a new article accepted.

Wikipedia's notability standards have a special case for professors at major universities, but you may have to do more work for Prof. Frehafer.

What I suggest is that you go to WP:WikiProject Women scientists and ask them to help you on the Talk page there. You can work with one or more experienced editors who are particularly interested in bringing articles like yours up to Wikipedia standards.

Meanwhile, work on your references. As much as possible, you want to place the references next to the sentences they verify. The Wikipedia software will collect and display the reference information under the {{reflist}} template. Your current reference style is below the lowest acceptable standard. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for more detailed information about how to create references. I advocate using the {{cite web}} template and its siblings whenever possible.

Good luck and I hope this rejection does not leave you dejected. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't fix a damaged article, need help

Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCard is damaged. User 197.76.130.126 twice added text that replace the original version 4.0 Vcard example with a corrupt version 2.1 example containing presumably the user email address. The BOT detected it the first time and automatically reverted it. The second time the BOT missed it. I registered to try to fix the page myself and tried, but undo failed. Then I tried manual edit, simply copying and pasting the original text over the corrupted text. The preview worked perfectly, but on save I got an abuse filter message about an image file. What else can I do to get the page fixed?distinqt (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi distinqt, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears you have worked it out. Thanks for helping. When your account becomes four days old and has made at least ten edits (the latter is already satisfied) you will have fewer restrictions. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Format for Wikipedia footnote or Bibliography

I am writing an article and have used many sources of information, books,the Internet, and Wikipedia. How should I write a footnote or bibliography reference taken from an article in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia? Loren Stone Loren stone (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Loren stone, and welcome to the Teahouse! See Help:Referencing for beginners – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your question wasn't entirely clear. You cannot use another Wikipedia article as a reference (see WP:CIRCULAR), but you can use a relevant reference which was used in the other Wikipedia article (in which case see Help:Referencing for beginners as mentioned in Finnusertop's answer). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Loren stone, I want to add that you are welcome to reuse references that you find in other Wikipedia articles, but you must actually read the source material yourself, and personally confirm that the source is reliable and verifies the content. I am not saying that you need to read a book from cover to cover. But you need to read enough of the relevant pages to understand the context. Do not trust another Wikipedia editor to have done so. The obligation is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Loren Stone is writing an article, not for Wikipedia, but for some other publication, and is asking how to cite Wikipedia as a source. Nothing in their post specifies or even implies that Wikipedia is the intended place of publication, and their form of signature without having an account is consistent with the hypothesis.Of course the format would largely depend on the requirements of that publication, but the basic metadata are pretty standard. --Thnidu (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The place to look for information regarding that would be Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Where and how to find information about another user's blocks and report them for violations

Longtime lurker, still figuring out this end of things.

Boosie Badazz has had recent problems with an IP user making bad changes and adding unsourced information. I saw some of it at the time but it was late and I didn't know where to act, so I let it be; it was dealt with in a couple hours and it's fine now.

It's a bit weird because only one of the three IPs clearly involved was blocked, and that one was apparently blocked for evading a previous block. Where can I find more information about this (say, previous reports about this user)? Where should I have reported the last IP -- WP:AIV, WP:ANI, somewhere else, or not at all? It didn't seem to be overt vandalism, see.

If there is a better place for this question, please tell me. Thank you, Baslsk ^hiss~track 09:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that guy. They've been making similar disruptive edits (under different IPs) to a number of other articles about rappers (e.g. [1][2][3]). The weird edit summaries ("View source", "Protect the page") makes me think they're doing it deliberately in order to get the pages protected, for some bizarre reason. I'm not quite sure what to do about it myself – maybe WP:SPI or WP:ANI? Or someone could just try to engage them in conversation and explain that there are better ways to request page protection (difficult since they keep jumping between IPs, though)? Joe Roe (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Questions about "this edit needs review"

Dear hosts,

I keep seeing that almost randomly, some of my edits get marked as "this edit needs review" and show up highlighted in my list of contributions.

Q1 - is there a logic when it happens that can be predicted? If yes, what can I do better to avoid this?

Q2 - if it is marked this way, do I need to do anything to get it reviewed? Do I need to fix it? How long will it stay this way?

Thanks, Amiwikieditor (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amiwikieditor. When you see that sort of message, it means that the article is under "Pending changes" protection. This is applied to certain articles that have had chronic problems with disruption and vandalism. When an edit to such an article is made, it remains invisible to readers until another editor who has the reviewer userright looks over the edit and verifies that it is not disruptive. Please read Wikipedia:Pending changes for complete details. You cannot avoid this except by avoiding articles with this protection. The time to review depends on how quickly a reviewer notices it and takes a look. I am a reviewer and have thousands of articles on my watchlist. When I look at my watchlist, I get an alert if there is a pending change on one of those articles. I will then take a look if I have time. Some reviewers work more systematically, approving large numbers of such edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. It is quite cool how friendly and patient this Teahouse page is. Heading over to your talk page now.

It is bed time now for me here in California so you may not hear from me for eight hours or so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Amiwikieditor: there is another possibility. There is a new tool been deployed called Objective Revision Evaluation Service (ORES) which highlights possibly damaging edits and marks them as requiring review. It's all experimental (see the thread Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deployment of ORES review tool in English Wikipedia as a beta feature) and if I were you I wouldn't be concerned at all if some of your edits are showing as requiring review. Nthep (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Nthep:. I did a lot more typo-type edits subsequently and none got flagged for review. The difference was that I had a template in my comments in each of those cases. In the meantime, I got a bit cavalier and applied to be become a reviewer. Let's see what happens. Anyway, a long way to go before I understand the culture and landscape of being a wikipedia editor. But, I must say, I am amazed at the depth and breadth both. I was so happy to read about Wikipedia:WikiFauna. Amiwikieditor (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)