Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 534

Archive 530

←

Archive 532

Archive 533

Archive 534

Archive 535

Archive 536

→

Archive 540

How to have Google search results removed

Hello, When I did a Google search on my name, I noticed that there is an item that shows a recent decline of a submission of my Wikipedia entry. I no longer wish to pursue having my entry published, and I would greatly like to have this Google item erased from any Google searches. Is there anything that can be done?

Thank you for your time and attention. Patrizia DeCarmine Conte Njmezzo (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Njmezzo. Wikipedia has no control over Google’s search results, but your draft article Draft:Patrizia DeCarmine Conte can be deleted and would then eventually vanish from google, I suggest you blank the content and then it can be speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Njmezzo, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want, you can configure the page to tell search engines not to index the page. This can be done by editing the page in question, starting a new line, and then adding the following text to the page:

__NOINDEX__

This tells search engines not to index the page. Note that not all search engines may obey this; Google will obey it, but some others may not.

If you no longer want to keep your submission on Wikipedia and would like to have it deleted, you can request that it be speedily deleted by adding the following text to the top of the page:

{{Db-g7}}

Generally it may take several hours to a few days for Google search results to update. Wikipedia does not have control over this process, unfortunately.

I hope this helps. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#Namespace and robots.txt says that the Draft: namespace is automatically noindexed in English Wikipedia, & that the __NOINDEX__ magic word is ignored in that namespace. Similarly the decline messages are on the OP's user talk page, but the User talk: namespace is automatically noindexed. One place where Google does find a mention of a decline of an earlier draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Excirial. I would guess that the latter page is obsolete and could probably be deleted, but I have added the NOINDEX magic word to the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that deleting the draft will make any difference. This google search for "Patrizia DeCarmine Conte" and "wikipedia", shows 44 matches, none of which are to Draft:Patrizia DeCarmine Conte as drafts (along with user pages and user talk pages) are automatically no-indexed without the need to add __NOINDEX__
What Google appears to be picking up are pages like Category:AfC submissions by date/14 January 2013 which will remain unaltered by deleting the draft. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The version of the draft which may have been in Category:AfC submissions by date/14 January 2013 was deleted, so I believe that the only remaining place within Wikipedia was Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/January 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Excirial to which I referred in my reply. There are some Wikipedia mirrors such as http://wikivisually.com/ which apparently don't noindex the draft pages; at first glance I can't see any attribution to Wikipedia, so is wikivisually.com an illegal mirror? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

delete my own page

how to delete my self a page that I created my self ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlymourad (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You can place {{U1}} template on the page. Ruslik_Zero 20:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:U1 applies only to user pages and subpages. For other types of pages, including articles, WP:G7 applies "if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author". --David Biddulph (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Alcomsat-1, it is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcomsat-1. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Where to discuss changes to an entire family of related pages?

I recently discovered the 'YYYY in science' collection of pages (there is an entry for every year between 1500 and 2016).

I'd like to contribute to these pages, both by adding individual entries (which is easy to do), and by proposing (and, if I can reach consensus) implementing some changes to make the pages more consistent. But I don't know where to have a discussion about the whole family of pages ... adding to the Talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_in_science is probably the best place, but I thought I'd ask here if there is a more formal place to discuss families of pages.

Metawade (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You could try discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years (as Wikipedia:WikiProject Years in science is defunct). Talk:2016 in science also mentions two other WikiProjects. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

how can i create my page like every actor have ?

hello

i want to create a my page on wikipedia like every celebrities have ?Mehakdhavan (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mehakdhavan, You can learn about creating an article at Wikipedia:Your first article. That's a good place to start. However, it sounds like you want to write an article about yourself, which is highly discouraged - see Wikipedia:Autobiography. I would encourage you to find another topic you are interested in, and start working on an article about that. Let someone else write the article about you. :) LadyofShalott 14:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, Google seems to find mainly "unreliable sources" that mention you, most of them self-published. Actors and celebrities don't get articles in Wikipedia until they are written about in independent WP:reliable sources. Dbfirs 17:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

article edittin question

Can you tell me what wrong with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daranga and how can it be improved. Referenceing stub adding etc...how to add stubs with it for e.g. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It has no references. The only reason that it hasn't been deleted is ipso facto notability of its topic; in its case, it refers to a named place with a local government, and they are always notable. Please add references, such as official Pakistani government entries (which aren't independent, but are better than nothing). If travel guides mention it, they might be the best sources. Also, expand it with any additional verifiable information (not information based on fallible memory). Thank you for any improving that you can do. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So thats it? references and expand the article with info? Saadkhan12345 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Saadkhan12345: Yes, what the article needs most is references to reliable sources. Please read Referencing for beginners. Once you have found reliable sources that discuss the topic, expand the article by summarizing, in your own words, what those sources say about the topic. Brief quotations from the sources are OK, but quotes must be in quotation marks and followed immediately by a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

oh ok. Can you point me the appropriate layout info for places article/ more like district units (provincial unit). Saadkhan12345 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Saadkhan12345 The article contains statements about census information but does not actually reference the relevant census report(s). Finding the census information source(s) and adding references would be really useful. Further information may be available from other government publications such as reports by regional education, health or legal authorities. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

COI editors continuously removing referenced contributions

What's done to keep editors from changing a page for conflict of interest? Aronpi (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We have the policy that all articles should be neutral, so editors with COI on a specific subject are often warned not to edit that subject in the first place, or be careful about their edits. If they do edit on a COI article and they keep it up till it gets disruptive, they can get blocked by an admin. However, it's a good idea to discuss their edits on the article talk page or their own talk page first and give them a chance to explain. Is there a specific page you think this is happening on? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it University of the People? Discuss on the talk page, Talk: University of the People. Read the dispute resolution policy and the policy to assume good faith with regard to whether edits with which you disagree are COI. If discussion on the talk page is inconclusive, the dispute resolution policy offers options. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aronpi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Our behavioral guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Our strict disclosure requirement is at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. The first step is to discuss your concerns on the editor's talk page. If the problem continues, you can discuss it on article talk pages. If you believe that the integrity of the article is being compromised, place Template:COI at the top of the article after explaining the problem on the talk page. A variety of ways to solve the problem are described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You can discuss specific COI concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

How to add images in a question here?

My real question needs images to be understandable :-P

Reggiehg (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Reggiehg: Welcome to the Teahouse. In general, the only images that can be added here at the Teahouse are those found on Wikimedia Commons. If you find an image, there is a menu bar at the top of the page that lets you share the image on a wiki. Click that option, and it will generate the necessary wikicode. Copy that code and paste it here at the Teahouse, and the image will display.

If the image is not on Commons, please describe the image in detail. Who took the photo or created the non-photo image? Has it been published elsewhere? When? What is the subject of the image? This information will enable a host to give you more specific advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Jim. The images are screenshots I took to describe my problem of going from reading to editing a wiki with the least # of clicks :-)

I also tried doing it here at my Talk page but wasn't successful either:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reggiehg

Reggiehg (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Reggiehg: as someone has said on your talk page, you can't link from Wikipedia to images on your device, that is a deliberate software limitation of the Wikimedia software. If you want use to see a screenshot that shows your problem then upload that image to Flickr or suchlike and then link to that page here. Nthep (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Transaviabaltika

I reviewed Draft:Transaviabaltika and declined it on corporate notability grounds. User:Barrybounce then asked me on my talk page:

Hello
You reviewed my Transaviabaltika draft article  Draft:Transaviabaltika , which was the first article I'd tried to submit. Could I hassle you with what I'm sure is a noob question? You've suggested the article isn't notable, and to add sources of references. However although there are lots of sources of references for the airline that could be added, none of them would add anything to the essential facts of the article (Airline. Exists. Has planes. Flies them between certain places. Is under contract.)
Adding references to an article to show it's notable wouldn't improve the article in itself (other than in order to persuade an editor it's notable so it could appear). It could just make it less readable and more fussy, and the article itself would tidy a lot of orphan links in all the related articles. Could you point me in the direction of guidance on how to resolve this conflict?
Thanks! 

First, I would take out the “new article content”. I don’t know where that comes from. The Article Wizard? Do other editors think that it has sufficient references? If so, should it be accepted as is? If not, what should be added? Can other experienced editors comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Barrybounce: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation), "Commercial airlines can be notable if they have been discussed in multiple, reliable sources." In my opinion, the three references already in the article are solid, but they are simply bare URLs. Please read Referencing for beginners and fill them out as fully bibliographic references. Please also be aware that it is not necessary that the references be in English. When I do a Google News search, I see quite a few articles in Lithuanian. I would add two or three of the best of those to the article. That would allow expanding the content of the article beyond its current "bare bones" state, including things like history, predecessors, financing, corporate leadership and the like. One source renders the name as TransAviaBaltika. That seems more readable to me if it is accurate. The bottom line is that I believe that the topic is notable, even though the airline is small and new. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello all, I'm Linguist111. I've been a Wikipedia for just over a year, and my most common activities on Wikipedia include editing Top Model-related articles, reverting vandalism and working at UAA (reporting and clerking). While I think I'm alright as an editor, I think I could do better. I saw a page about the editor review process, and I would have liked to have an editor review, but the process is now defunct. The page suggested the Teahouse might be helpful, so I decided to come here. I would appreciate anyone who would take some time to review my contributions (my edits since April/May are probably the most relevant as it was around this time I started getting more involved) and give me some advice on what I could do better. If you want to a question to ask me about anything I've done, please do so! Thank you! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 23:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I really need answers

There as been currently a minor edit war on Hurricane Matthew whether or not the 1,000 death count toll is more verifiable than a 473 deaths. The 1,000 death count is the most widely used version as of right now (mostly by major media) while the 473 death count toll is from the UN Humanitarian Society as of yesterday. Currently there is a truce between the major editors of the page to have it in a range, but many smaller accounts (20 edits-50 edits) are reverting it to the 1,000 death count toll. What do you guys think about this edit warish situation?— JJBers Public (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers Public (talk • contribs)

hm, difficult, IMO media can have a habit of monkey hear monkey report as fact, especially around tragedies, I would go with the UN, unless it can be proven that the UN isn't "o the ground" so to speak. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Give both figures and explicitly cite the sources for each. That is the best way when there is a conflict between reliable sources. Say "Media outlets such as XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ report deaths of about 1000, while the UN Humanitarian Society has given a figure of 473." Wikipedia's job is to not decide in this case, but to report. We report what reliable sources say, and when reliable sources disagree with each other, we just report what each source says. --Jayron32 17:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to write exactly the same thing as Jayron32. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Huggle

I'm very new to using Huggle. When I start it up, the display screen where it shows the changes is soo small that I can barely read it. How can I enlarge the text and the screen. Thanks. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: Welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest that you discuss this matter at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback, a page watched by Huggle experts. I am sorry that I do not have a specific answer for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Women's Club of Evanston

Hi,

Thinking of doing a page for the Woman's club of Evanston but concerned about its notability. What do you guys think? Notable enough to write about. It has quite a bit of history behind it. It's included in this register and several of the places here do have wikipedia pages in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Evanston,_Illinois

165.124.145.11 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Zaayer

If it's on the national register it should be notable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. No well-referenced properly written article about a building on the National Register of Historic Places (or any other similar top level list in other countries) will be deleted. Any such article is a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Ipso Facto Notability

There is a concept in Wikipedia that I call ipso facto notability. Some topics are automatically notable, and a guideline says that. If so, they still need a source, but they will not be deleted if the source is reliable. Examples include buildings that are on a national historic register, named places with local governments (see above), members of national or state legislatures, and generals. Any articles on such topics, as User:Cullen328 says, are positive contributions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC) If any new editor really wants to help the encyclopedia and is determined to help by doing the hardest task that there is, creating a new article with sources, rather than helping in many other ways, if they select a topic that is ipso facto notable, they can be confident that their contribution will be kept if they follow the policies and guidelines. (That is certainly better than trying to add an article on your employer, which violates the conflict of interest guideline.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Species are also notable. Wikipedia needs an article about every type of bug, critter, creepy-crawly, weed, tree, grass, frog, fungus, pond scum, worm, bird, bacteria, etc. that has been designated a distinct species. Writing a decent stub about a species is actually quite easy - there are already thousands of examples to follow. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert W. Hemphill vs Robert H. Hemphill (continued)

I asked for guidance back in August with respect to a quote that is often attributed to Robert W. Hemphill.

Some searching indicates that the quote was originally found in the preface of the first edition of Irving Fisher's book 100% Money.

How can the following be made into an article?

---

Robert Herman Hemphill (1876—1941) is cited in this The Chicago Plan & New Deal Banking Reform which is about the Chicago plan and is also cited in Meltdown : Money, Debt and the Wealth of Nations which was apparently published through the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform.

He is said to have been the first credit manager at the Atlanta Federal Reserve, and an authority on banking and finance.

In January 1934, along with Irving Fisher he attempted to convince Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. that banks should be required by law to keep 100% reserves.

He drafted a bill (s.3744), which was supported by Irving Fisher, and submitted to Congress by Broson Cutting of New Mexico and Wright Patman of Texas on June 6, 1934, although the bill was defeated in what was described as a "skilful parliamentary move that succeeded in preventing full Congressional consideration of the bill."

On March 6, 1935, Fisher and Hemphill together visited the White House to advise President Roosevelt on financial issues.

He is mentioned in this document about the Banking Act of 1935 and on March the 22nd, 1935 made a statement before the The House of Representative's Committee on Banking & Currency in Washington D.C. (Banking Act of 1935 Hearings before the Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, Seventy-fourth Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1935. p.484.).

The New York Times mentioned his departing April 24th 1941 and described him as former utilities executive, financial expert and financial authority for the Hearst Newspapers from 1932-1937 as well as inventor of an aerating cube used in many commercial ice plants.

There is further info on Findagrave.com.

JamesPoulson (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@JamesPoulson: Welcome back to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is not the place to post big blocks of possible content. Please use sandbox or draft space for that. References are golden on Wikipedia, so any article that you write must summarize what reliable sources say. So, write a well referenced draft and an experienced editor can evaluate it. It is impossible to properly evaluate unreferenced content.

Avoid equivocating "weasel words" like "he is said to have been" or "he is mentioned". Unless the facts can be established, such mentions do not belong in the encyclopedia. The biographical sketches at Find a Grave are not reliable sources because they are user submitted content. I have cited that website just once for the wording on a gravestone based on a photograph, but do not consider it reliable for much more than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sorry about that and wish I knew my way around better. I'm not sure how to use a sandbox or draft and will zap text while I copy it elsewhere.

Since this would a first go at an article, is it best to go through Help:Userspace_draft instead of Wikipedia:Drafts and do you reckon there is enough content?

I do know the important of references as otherwise pages would be filled with opinion and I'll make a note to avoid weasel words as well as avoid the subjective content on Find a Grave. --JamesPoulson (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@JamesPoulson: Please read Help:My sandbox and Wikipedia:Drafts for more information about drafting articles either in your personal sandbox space or in draft space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Will do. Thanks and have a good day :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Add photo

How do I add photo on to an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enoch Gillatine (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You should probably worry more about citing reliable sources to prove the article subject's notability first. You need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but still specifically about it. Otherwise, adding photos won't really matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

how i delete my upload images ?

hi , earlier i dont know about image policy of wikipedia . now i want to delete some image so tell me , how can i do that ? DS Writer 2916 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi DS Writer 2916. Add {{db-author}} to the file description page. —teb728 t c 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are some edits thankable and others not thankable?

Some edits have a thing that says (undo|thank) at the end, and others just have (undo) and thus cannot be thanked, why is this? --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@UnforgivablyPotatoes: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks, the "thank" feature is enabled for logged in users unless they turn it off. It is not available to IP editors. Therefore, if you do not see the "thank" feature, the most likely explanation is that you are logged out or have disabled the feature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But when I go into an article's revision history, I see that some edits can be thanked and other edits cannot be thanked. I don't remember logging off while checking the revision history or disabling the thanking feature, wherever in Preferences that happens. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@UnforgivablyPotatoes: Another possibility is that an editor may be blocked or banned, and you cannot thank such an editor. If you name the article, I will check the edit history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked the revision history of Jon Roberts, it turns out I can't thank accounts which have '-bot' in the end. (so I can't thank bots, that makes sense), but when I turn on the strikeout names of blocked/banned accounts feature, I can see that some edits by blocked/banned users (such as sock suspects and user page abusers) can be thanked. Also I see that I can't thank anonymous IP editors. So it turns out that bots and anonymous IP editors are the only people whose edits are unthankable, so it isn't what I previously thought. --UnforgivablyPotatoes (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@UnforgivablyPotatoes: Right, you cannot thank IP's. IP addresses often change or are used by different people. mw:Extension:Thanks#Configuration says thanks to bots is disabled by default. All Wikimedia wikis use this default. Bot accounts have a bot flag which can be used to decide whether the account can be thanked. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As well, each registered editor may choose if and which actions they wish to be notified for. (In 'Preferences' under the tab for 'Notifications'). For example, I do like to know if an edit of mine has been reverted and I also have chosen to receive 'thanks'. So hopefully, after this edit, there will be a 'thank' available... ツ Fylbecatulous talk 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Should reverts be marked as minor?

I have noticed that, much of the time, users reverting edits will mark their revert as minor. (Cluebot NG appears to do this as well.) Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline on this? Thank you. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Joshualouie711: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to Help:Minor edit, "adding or removing content in an article" is the type of edit that should not be marked as minor. Reverting vandalism, though, is an exception to that general principle, and that is what Cluebot does. Minor edits are noncontroversial edits, such as correcting typos. Reverts are often controversial and therefore should not be marked as minor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If this is true, then why does Twinkle mark automatic reverts as minor? RedPanda25 15:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

When you have the rollback permission, all rollbacks are automatically marked as minor. (?) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: As I mentioned above, reverting vandalism is an exception to the general rule. Like Cluebot, the primary purpose of Twinkle is to assist in reverting vandalism. A reversion of a good faith edit should not be marked as minor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove (UTC) symbols

How I remove the (UTC) symbols who are automically added when I sign with four tildes (~~~~) GXXF T • C 19:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? All timestamps on Wikipedia are indexed to UTC so that the sequence of events can be kept in the correct order. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can remove it if you are displaying times in UTC, GXXF. However, there is a Gadget in your Preferences which lets you "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge two articles

I want to nominate the articles Ervin Lee and Urvin Lee to merge, because they are articles about the same person. I have seen the page that says how to merge pages, but I don't get it. If anyone could nominate them for merging, it would be very nice, and it would improve the quality of Wikipedia. Thanks StroompjeZeewier (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If they are indeed the same person, you really don't need to make a nomination. I'll be happy to do the merger, if you'll first verify that the correct title of the merged article should be "Ervin Lee". NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ervin Lee has one source, which is a reliable source, according to this discussion, and [1] supports that name too. Urvin Lee has only a dead link, the URL of which suggests his name is Ervin Lee. Therefore, logical conclusion is that he's Ervin Lee, and merge/redirect would be good. Joseph2302 23:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your logic. But, ... real life has a funny way of confounding logic. In this case, it's the player's listing at the British ESPN site here. This might turn out to be an "actual name vs. common name" type of question. Or maybe something else. I'd like to hear what the original poster has to say about it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

His official name is Urvin Etiënne Lee, but he is called Ervin. I don't know which of the two versions is better for the article, but at least not both.StroompjeZeewier (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please check for accuracy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I prove that I have the right to publish an image?

I have just started contributing to some articles. I make a lot of graphics myself and woudl also like to use images from semi-public bodies that are happy to giver permission to use their images. How do I let Wikipedia know that I have permission to use images or that I have made them myself?Kapsch - Richard Lax (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Kapsch - Richard Lax. Like many things on Wikipedia this is in the first instance done on trust, according to the principle of Assume good faith: when you upload an image to Wikimedia commons, you are asked to choose an appropriate licence, and if you own the copyright in the image, you are free to license it at that point under a suitable licence for use in Wikimedia projects. Only if there is something about the image which makes people suspicious that it might not be your own property, is anybody likely to question that - for example, if it has somebody else's name on it, or if it as has already appeared on the internet. If you do not hold the copyright, you need to get whoever does to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials: it does need to be them, not you, and they need to understand that they are not just giving permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, but granting an irrevocable right for anybody to reuse it for any purpose, as long as it is properly attributed. --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colin, thank you for your response! For the time being this means I'll use homemade images, which are mine. The other bodies I will need to check with. richardKapsch - Richard Lax (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Renuka David

I am unable to understand the reason for Dr. Renuka David page stating that it does not meet the some of the guidelines(MD 02:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizm (talk • contribs)

Hello, Dennizm. It looks as if nobody noticed your question, because you added it to the end of an existing question at the bottom of the page. I have moved it here (on this page, new question go at the top) and added a header.

Editor Kudpung has restored your deleted draft to Draft:Renuka David. Please read Your first article, and referencing for beginners. You have some external links in your text (which are not usually allowed), and some of them would be acceptable as references if they were properly cited and presented as references rather than links; but as the text stands, it has no references at all. You also need to be careful with phrases like "recognised as": Wikipedia articles must be written in neutral language. If you can find a reliable published source, independent of her and her businesses, that says she is "recognised as a 'wellness icon'" then the article can say so, citing that independent source. But the article must not say in Wikipedia's voice what she is "recognised as" - see Peacock words. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've entered a few AFC comments, some of them the same as what ColinFine has said. AFC comments should remain in a draft while it is in the AFC review process. When it is accepted, the script that cleans up accepted drafts removes the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Losing References

Hey. My name's Adam. I'm sort of new to Wikipedia. When I was in high school, I had an account which I can't for the life of me remember the username for and over the intervening years I must have made hundreds of IP edits. I created a new account the other day as I noticed that there is a large gap in the English language Wikipedia when it comes to articles on Scottish legislation. I am quite interested in politics and law (although my field is actually computing and maths) and so I wanted to learn about the legislation myself by writing and improving articles.

That brings me to my question. Last night, I was updating the article for the Census (Amendment) Act 2000 (I would appreciate any criticism or feedback on my edits while I'm here, as it's the first article I've completely redone). During my research I had found something which would have benefited the article. However, it was not the part I was working on at the time and so I didn't put it in and when it came to putting it in I couldn't find the reference. I was trawling through my browser history trying to find it (which was actually quite a waste of time as I had over 100 hits for "census" in my history) Now, I can't even remember what it was I wanted to add so I can go back and put it in. My question is, can I add material I know is accurate and can be referenced when I can't find the reference, and put {{citation needed}} tags after my own work? As I said, I can't remember exactly what it was and I don't think it would have been contentious, but as the Act I was writing about involved religion, it may have been viewed as contentious by some.

Thanks in advance for your help Adam (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Adam, and thanks for contributing. That's an interesting question. Since you're working to improve the article, I don't think there can be any objection to doing that; and yet, it doesn't feel right to me. What I'd do, I think, is put a note of what you wanted to add on the article's talk page: if there are other people watching it, somebody else might even come up with the reference you've lost. Alternatively, you could record it on your user page, or a user subpage.

By the way, you can refer to a template without using it by using the {{tl}} template. --ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate Drafts on Same Subject

Sometimes, in reviewing drafts at Articles for Creation, I try to move a draft from a sandbox to draft space, and get told that a draft already exists. I then check the histories of both drafts. Sometimes I find that the version in draft space and the sandbox draft are by the same author. In that case, the author is creating multiple copies of the draft, either in good faith because they don't know what they are doing, or to game the system. That is easy enough; I ask them to please compare the drafts and decide which one they want reviewed. However, sometimes they are by different editors. Sometimes the two drafts were created months apart and are significantly different, in which case the current author should compare and ensure that all of the desired information is in the article to be reviewed. However, there is a third case that I am asking about now. The two drafts are identical or essentially identical, but are written by different users. I see two obvious explanations, neither of them good. First, the second draft was copied from the first. That is a subtle form of plagiarism. It won't get Wikipedia in trouble, but it breaks our rules on credit. The second explanation is that the two editors are the same person, which is sockpuppetry. Although I think that there has been an impropriety, I don't know what the impropriety is. What do other experienced editors suggest be done in that situation? (The drafts are very seldom good enough to be accepted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright on WP is assigned to the username who created the content. If User A copies a draft created by User B without providing the attribution required in terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, User A's draft is a copyright violation which must be blanked and tagged for speedy deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, it doesn't matter which of the two forms of impropriety applies. If there is really only one user using sockpuppets, no harm is done by blanking the second version. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

In the case in point, I concluded that the two editors were the same person, and filed a sock-puppet report. They have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Thank you for the advice that the second draft can be blanked for copyvio. In this case, it was sockpuppetry, which occasionally unfortunately sometimes happens with COI editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Usability: filter languages in "Languages" menu

Hi, (A minor usability issue) Is it possible to choose which languages appear under "Languages" in the left-hand menu bar? This to eliminate the need to scroll up/down when I want to read an entry in another language? Practically daily I switch English/French <-> Finnish/Swedish and most often this requires first a click and then zooming in the the wanted language. Would like to restrict the number languages displayed to perhaps a dozen. /Vesa ˜˜˜˜ Vesaraisanen (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vesaraisanen: I don't know if this is possible but the best place to as is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Nthep (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit filters public/private

I see that some filters have a public code, and some have a private code. Why is there this difference? RedPanda25 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: Welcome to the Teahouse. Edit filters are sophisticated software routines that scan edits to detect vandalism and other highly disruptive attempts to damage the encyclopedia. These filters prevent the edit from being completed. In that sense, they are our "front line defense" against persistent and ongoing attempts to wreck Wikipedia. I suggest that you read WP:Edit filter which says "Filters should only be hidden where necessary, such as in long-term abuse cases where the targeted user(s) could review a public filter and use that knowledge to circumvent it." Some filters are written to deter misguided individuals who are obsessed with vandalizing Wikipedia, or are paid to try. It is essential that these vandals do not have access to the details of our defenses against them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense. Thank you for clarifying. RedPanda25 14:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Follow up question

Following on from your reply I am conflicted as I am trying to edit what someone has said about me - it is nothing derogatory - it is just not accurate or complete. It would be better if there was no reference to me - I do not seek one and do not need one. Or if there is one it is better that it is accurate. What to do? Thanks, Gordon79.75.96.38 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If this is a follow-up, please give us a link to the original question and reply (in the archive, if that's where it is). I hope that the reply pointed you at Wikipedia:Autobiography, including WP:AUTOPROB. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Interview Request

Hi my name is Edward and I've been editing for a few years on Wikipedia. For my Graduation Research Project I require an interview or a couple interviews with some Wikipedia editors, preferably administrators but anyone is welcome if they wish. I do need at least one administrator to do this for me. If anyone is willing to participate, the questions are located at User:EoRdE6/Graduation Project/Interview. Thanks! If you have any questions feel free to reply or leave me a message. Thanks again! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

EoRdE6, I would be willing to help if you don't mind me not being an admin. I have over 10,000 edits and have been here for a year. Not as experienced as some, but I have a fair idea of how Wikipedia works. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: that's fine, the more the merrier I would say. Would like at least one admin too but you are more than welcome to and it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear to me how we are invited to respond. If I "answer on the page", then the page will contain my answers, which will be in the way for the next responder. And they may influence what that person writes, something I think you should try to avoid. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: My original plan was simply for you to respond on page and then others respond below you however if this does not suit you, use the email me link and send your responses by email and that will work fine too :) Good points though and I will take that into consideration in the future thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Give each responder a separate page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

How to reach participants for Edit-a-Thon

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can give me some ideas about where/how I should reach out to get participants to an edit-a-thon on a university campus. I've held a couple of events and have had limited attendance. I have one more coming up in November (second Wednesday). I've sent out email announcements to my local campus community and advertised on an events calendar. So I'm wondering, do you think existing Wikipedia editors in the local area who would like an opportunity to gather together in person? Is so, any thoughts on how I might reach them? Mesquitetree (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mesquitetree: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon for ideas. Since your edit-a-thon is on a university campus, perhaps the Wiki Education Foundation can give you some suggestions. Check out the edit history of the Wikipedia articles about the university, the city where it is located, and other topics closely associated with that university. Reach out to recently active editors working on those articles. Reach out also to campus and community newspapers in your area, pitching more than just an event listing. If you frame it as an inside look at how Wikipedia works behind the scenes, you may get more attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you so much for the warm welcome. I really appreciate the tips about how to get the word out. I will follow up on them. I think you are on to something with the "inside look" as well. Thank you again for the great advice. Mesquitetree (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed duplicate question. Rojomoke (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:C104

I reviewed Draft:C104 and declined it, stating that Wikipedia should not be used as a reference. On re-reviewing it, I see that it was not using Wikipedia as a reference, but was using a form of second-level references. User:JamieHanlon pointed out to me where this convention is described. While I see that it is correct, I personally find the use of Notes and References to be difficult. Since I didn’t have an easy time reviewing it, I would appreciate the comments of other experienced editors. Should I accept it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That technique is described in WP:REFB section 6.1, Alternative systems/Notes and references. It's sometimes preferred when there are multiple references to different pages of a source book. Certainly an acceptable practice. Gab4gab (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not only acceptable, but also used in featured articles. It would perhaps be better (easier for the reviewer) if links from the notes to the bibliography were provided. When {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}}, etc. are used this requires use of the ref parameter. If the authors and publication dates are uncomplicated and given in the "standard" way, "ref=harv" is sufficient. In more complicated cases the subparameters harvid or sfnref may be needed. --Boson (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: I have taken the liberty of providing such links, to show how it can be done. --Boson (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Question on notability for a scientific journal

Hello, I would like to create a new article about the scientific journal Paralleles (here is some information about it: http://www.paralleles.unige.ch/index.html). I saw that another scientific journal had its own page on Wikipedia here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Specialised_Translation and I was wondering what notability criteria apply to scholarly journals? Would Paralleles be admitted? It publishes research in translation and interpreting since 1978. Could you please help me identify what notability criteria and further instructions I should consider before starting an article about this scientific journal? Many thanks in advance! Melmaradan (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Melmaradan. There is a notability guideline for journals with detailed criteria, but the short version is that if a journal is indexed and/or highly cited it is notable. Joe Roe (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

article still not published

having issue getting a draft published any and all advice would be great haven't had luck in almost 3 months its still stuck on draft. thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:David_Charles_Whitney&section=1&wteswitched=1

-Sww

Sww87 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sww87 (talk • contribs)

For starters, you haven't submitted the article for AFC review. However, if I were reviewing it, I would decline it, because the sources that I see don't appear to be independent of the subject and Northwestern University. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links to avoid: What does number one mean?

I've read a lot of WP documentation, and I'm a semi-intelligent person (at least, I was able to tie my shoes all by myself this morning) but I have read this sentence over and over and I can not figure out what it means: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Featured Article" means "reasonably complete" (the 'featured' comes from the fact that such articles are fit to be featured on the Main Page). Thus, if a finished version of the article would include all the information on the site, than the information should be added to the article rather than having an external link to the site. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "unique resource" is a bit more difficult to work out. It would appear to mean that no links should be provided to non-unique resources. I suspect that is something of an overstatement, intending to prevent choosing to link to one resource when there are numerous similar resources. --Boson (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. I know what a featured article is, I think. I'm trying to figure out how it relates to external links in that sentence. Yes, the problem seems to be the definition of unique resource and how it relates to featured articles.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's saying that, basically, we should be selective about what sites we link to, as Wikipedia is not a link repository. On film articles, we almost always include a link to the IMDb, as it includes a lot of information that a) Wikipedia has chosen not include and b) is difficult to find elsewhere. For example, MOS:FILM suggests not including detailed cast lists because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an overview and not a comprehensive database. So, a featured article would be missing out on some useful information if it didn't link to the IMDb, which is a comprehensive film database. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

how do i make a page that people can read

plz tell me Jace johnson (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not how you create pages (articles): How many atoms are there in a single human cell. Wikipedia is not a Q&A site and not everything qualifies for an encyclopedic topic. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Jace johnson. Yes, read what Finnusertop suggests, and then afterwards, read Wikipedia:Your first article. That will give you a good starting point. LadyofShalott 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do I request the title to be moved

I would like a page title to be changed to its new name[2] . But on the article for requesting uncontroversial moves it has said do not edit the articles talk page[3].So on which page should I request the move? Tarun.joseph (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tarun.joseph. Request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial technical requests. It just a short distance below where it says not to edit the article talk page. —teb728 t c 05:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding a box with information

I'm making a page for a web series. How do I add a table with informations such as cast and production team on the right hand side of the article?Theotherlovestory (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Theotherlovestory. See my reply to your duplicate post at Wikipedia:Help desk#‎Making a table of information. —teb728 t c 07:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On Jesus's page the story of how the date of the Crucifixion was picked doesn't make sense.

On Isaac Newton's page it says he placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33

Isaac Newton-Religious views- "He placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date."

Jesus-Chronology- On Jesus's page some unnamed unverified imaginary astronomers were to able estimate the precise date of the Crucifixion by analyzing lunar motion and calculating historic dates of Passover (which method did these made up people use? Fake made up lunar motion story the moon has the same exact cycles it did 2000 years ago) this kind of poor work exposes wikipedia as liars because either Isaac Newton placed the date of the crucifixion and Wiki fabricated the Astronomy story or Wiki lied about Newton placing the date to make him look smarter or more important than he really is, this might work for first graders but not I. I already have some fixes in mind to make this more believable. Jesus-Chronology- Middled (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Middled, and welcome to the Teahouse. All information on Wikipedia is just summary of what others have previously published in reliable sources. These sources are enumerated inline as footnotes that point you to where exactly this information comes from. You can check all those sources and evaluate if they really say what Wikipedia claims they do, or how reliable and neutral those sources are. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as the article's truth goes, I believe there are fairly good records of the lunar cycles 2,000 years ago because the Greeks and Romans had astronomers and kept records. They probably noted when Passover was each year, because it was believed that the Jewish people might try to rise up against Roman rule at that time. There was quite a bit of guerrilla warfare against Rome. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Middled: Jesus#Chronology says:

"Astronomers have tried to estimate the precise date of the Crucifixion by analyzing lunar motion and calculating historic dates of Passover, a festival based on the lunisolar Hebrew calendar. The most widely accepted dates derived from this method are April 7, 30 AD, and April 3, 33 AD (both Julian)."

Click the reference number (currently ^[293] in the article) to see the information came from http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/newton.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Arrangement of images

I am working on a page that has a list of images that appear one after the other vertically. What can be done to make them appear horizontally?

• 
  The Madonna 'del parto'
• 
  The Madonna with child, wood sculpture 1310-30
• 
  Head of Christ 1220-30
• 
  Annunciation (1410) attributed to Lorenzo di Niccolò

Thanks for the help!

User:TimeForLunch

TimeForLunch (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(And placed on this Teahouse page they appear horizontally, exactly as needed. Hmmm...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeForLunch (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi TimeForLunch. It looks like you worked it out. Some things like <gallery> should not be on indented lines. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

PrimeHunter I worked it out by accident. Next time I'll know what to do. So much to learn... TimeForLunch (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

TimeForLunch Use Template:Gallery rather than the simple <gallery> markup tags. It gives you various options such as specifying the layout in rows and/or columns. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67) OK, thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a try.TimeForLunch (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)