Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 567

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 560

←

Archive 565

My page RAID - (Rebreather Association of International Divers) was deleted, why?

Hello, I work for Tribe Sauce - an advertising agency from South Africa. One of our clients, RAID, has asked us to create a Wikipedia page for them. I have attempted to do so but once saved the page keeps on being deleted. Can you help me?Tribe Sauce (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tribe Sauce and welcome to the Teahouse. There are messages on your talk page which explain why it was deleted. The first time it was nominated for speedy deletion because it was a copyright violation. The text appears to have been pasted in from pages on diveraid.com. The second time because the text was considered blatant and unambiguous advertising. Before proceeding any further, please read Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for what is required here for articles in general and articles about organizations/companies in particular. Even more important is that our Terms of Use require paid editors to declare this as well as the names of their company and the client on whose behalf they have written the article. WP:PAID explains this more fully. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains why conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. I'll also leave a note on your talk page concerning your username which is also the name of your company. Such usernames are not allowed on Wikipedia per our Username policy. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, before I could leave the note, an administrator blocked the account as a username violation. The block notice explains what to do next if you wish to change your username and be unblocked. Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

a reliable source

is The New World Encyclopedia a reliable source for articles in Wikipedia?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House Super ninja2

! I believe you are referring to the New World Encyclopedia collaborative project that is a WP:FORK of Wikipedia run by the Unification church, correct? If so, I would be very careful in citing it: anything that is directly copied from Wikipedia with no change is a WP:CIRCULAR violation and cannot be accepted as a reliable source. Furthermore, even citing content on Wikipedia forks that differs from what is currently on the real Wikipedia can be a WP:CIRCULAR violation. Instead, we recommend that you confirm that whatever sources the New World Encyclopedia is using to back up their claims actually do back up their claims (see WP:V), and then you should cite those sources directly instead of citing the New World Encyclopedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a detailed discussion of The New World Encyclopedia in a Reliable sources/Noticeboard archive. Gab4gab (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Creating and placing an image graph & Publishing a draft

I've created a draft for a page to a football coach. i have 2 questions. 1. How do I create the image and the listed information that shows on the top right of a bio page? 2nd question is how do i move it from a draft to an actual article so that people can find it? Msboogaloo (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Msboogaloo. Your draft looks better than many first attempts - well done. However, I haven't looked through the references to see whether they are adequate: this is partly because you have presented only the title and the URL for most of them, rather than the more important information identifying the name of the publication and the date: please see referencing for beginners.

The table of information is called an infobox. I'm not sure which one is appropriate: if you look at an article about another coach in a similar position, you'll find which one they use, and in fact you can copy it from the source of another article and change the data in it. To add an image to it, you'll need to find a suitable free image: if you can take a picture yourself, you can use that, but otherwise you may have difficulty finding one which meets Wikipedia's copyright requirements. If you can find one, you need to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then you can use it in the infobox. See Help:Upload.

You could move the article to main space yourself, but I recommend that you submit it for review instead, by inserting {{subst:submit}} at the top of it (with the double curly brackets). There is a backlog, but when somebody gets to it, they will either accept it and move it to mainspace, or reject it and tell you what they think you need to do to improve it. You can carry on improving the draft while it is waiting for review: I would strongly advise you to improve the citations, as more bibliographic information on them makes the reviewer's job easier. It is worth adding an infobox, but I wouldn't worry too much about an image. --ColinFine (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you change an image's Infobox format in an article?

For example, the article for the 1995 Baku Metro Fire, has an image provided on its own with a caption. It doesn't have any of the "location" or "date" sections in it yet and I'm thinking off adding that Infobox. Am I allowed or can only the user who uploaded the image allowed? Depthburg (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Depthburg:: it's articles that have infoboxes, not images. An article should (usually) have no more than one infobox, which must be about the subject of the article, and will often contain an image of the subject. You can certainly add an infobox to that article (though I don't know if there's an infobox specific to fires), and move the image into it. You don't need to ask permission of any other editor. Maproom (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The Infobox will be "rail incident" by the way. Depthburg (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't exist, Depthburg, and I see you have used {{infobox event}} instead. But I wonder if {{infobox rail accident}} might be a better fit. --ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Depthburg (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleting a page

I wanted to delete a page, currently a redirect page From–rum merger. The page redirects to American English, where the "merger" is barely discussed. I doubt such a deletion would lead to any controversy. Does anybody know how I could do that? Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello LakeKayak, welcome to Wikipedia!

I agree with you that this is a useful topic for an article if you can find adequate reliable sources, as we do have articles about topics such as the wine-whine merger and the caught-cot merger. I think you are talking about From-rum merger (with hyphen) and not From–rum merger (with em dash), though. To do this, go to this page, click either "Edit this page" (Visual Editor) or "Edit source" and delete the redirect and substitute it with an article. If you're not ready to do that, you can make a WP:Userspace draft first. Thanks for your contributions, and let me know if you need any help - I also edit linguistics topics (like Deseret alphabet, Baybayin, & User:Psiĥedelisto/Tagalog profanity) here on Wikipedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to remove the page altogether, not want to instate the information on a different page.LakeKayak (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi LakeKayak. The place to request deletion of a redirect page is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Be patient - it's pretty backlogged at the moment... Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry for the misunderstanding, LakeKayak, but I disagree with Yunshui. I do not think you'll have much success at RFD at all, but I can agree that currently the redirect definitely goes to the wrong place. After some research, I have determined that in the Received Pronunciation from is /frɒm/ while rum is /rʌm/; this merger is therefore closely related to the father-bother merger (involves [ɒ]) and I have accordingly redirected the page to Phonological_history_of_English_low_back_vowels#Unrounded_lot. I would ask that all involved parties reconsider listing the redirect for deletion to (1) keep the backlog down and (2) in light of the fact that I found a more suitable page to redirect to. Perhaps RFD would have come to this same decision, I am hopefully saving my fellow Wikipedians the trouble. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Psiĥedelisto, I actually developed the section "Unrounded lot" myself, as an expansion on the section Father–bother merger. The section "Unrounded lot" refers to the unrounding of [ɒ] to [ɑ]. The pronunciation of "from" as [fɹʌm] is a separate phenomenon. I don't think "Unrounded lot" is a suitable redirect.LakeKayak (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good work

—I read it many times before this discussion, as I linked to it heavily in Deseret alphabet#Alphabet. However, I disagree with you about the suitability of the redirect - in one place in the section, /ɔ/ is referred to. It may be a separate phenomenon, but I would like to point out that /ʌ/ is also an unrounded vowel, and the phenomena are surely related. I think we can both agree that there is a gap in our English phonology merger coverage here - maybe we can work together to fill it, as either a subsection to § Unrounded lot or its own section in Phonological history of English low back vowels? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

/ɔ/ is specifically referred to because of Boston English where the /ɒ/ was raised as opposed to being unrounded. I don't really see the gap in the section, possibly because I was the one who made the expansion (anonymously). My real problem is that "from-rum merger" is not a recognized name. AJD also reported that it was not even a merger. I have no objection to retaining the information on the page American English. However, I see no reason to have the redirect, especially when not every merger and split has a redirect.LakeKayak (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Bewildered

How can I remove an obsolete Wwebsite URL from the infobox at Baby Phat? There is no 'website' field shown in the infobox while in edit mode yet a weblink appears in the article. What am I missing?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It will be another intrusion from Wikidata. I am concerned that English Wikipedia articles are being altered by edits being made in Wikidata. Hopefully you can correct it via the "Wikidata item" link on the left-hand toolbar. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have edited it out in Wikidata, we learn something new every day, had me bewildered! Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks folks!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with my article?

I am currently creating an article entitled "List of Meet the Press episodes." There are over thousands of episodes that feature a variety of famous guests from U.S. Presidents to professional athletes. Can anyone help me with my draft Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Meet_The_Press_episodes

PoliticalBuff (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there PoliticalBuff. Your Articles for Creation submission was declined due to missing a good lead paragraph explaining the importance and/or notability of the list, and the list itself is incomplete. I noticed that you have since added one, but you should expand it to demonstrate notability. You should work on filling in the blanks before submitting again (it looks like that may take a long time!). If you're looking for editors to assist you in adding content, I'm not sure where that would be, but hopefully another editor here can provide that information. As an aside note, I think it will be a fascinating list and a good addition to Wikipedia - seeing our political/social system change before our eyes based on the guests on the show. Good luck! Justin15w (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging two usernames?

Hi there! I'm a long-time Wikipedia reader, but never really got into editing (except for a few minor edits here and there). I wanted to start contributing more with the project, but I couldn't remember my username, so I searched my email and found the login details for this username. I was a bit surprised to see this username had no edit history at all; I thought I would find the few edits I've done before. Turns out, I just remembered I made those edits under a different username!

I would rather keep using this username instead of the one I had earlier. Is there a way to "import" the edit history under my previous username so that it shows under this username? FlyingAce (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey FlyingAce. Unfortunately there is currently no method for doing a history merge for contributions under multiple usernames. The most you can do is to put a notification on your user page that you have edited previously under a different account. This may help avoid some of the suspicion of sock puppetry that sometimes happens when accounts with very few edits show a relatively advanced understanding of Wikipedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

is it plaigarism if I use my own words in 2 different wp articles?

Part of me doesn't want to know the answer, but I probably should. I wrote a sentence for one article, then used almost all of the same sentence in another wp article. If I had copied somebody else's sentence from one wp article and inserted it into another it would be plaigarism, but what if I'm the author in both cases? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that in neither case it is plagiarism (see WP:Plagiarism. When we submit text to WP, we give up all copyright, so your words can be used here on WP by yourself or any other editor. If you copy a large part of an article and put this into another, or a new article, you should leave an edit summary to state where you have copied from so that other editors are correctly attributed. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi DennisPietras. If entirely your own work, this is neither plagiarism nor copyright infringement. When you are copying material across from one article to another material that is not yours, it is very important, but not difficult, to comply with copyright attribution (and also to avoid plagiarism). The nitty gritty is set out at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (shortcut at WP:COPYWITHIN), but all you need to do is to provide in your edit summary at the time of copying, disclosure of that copying and include in it a hyperlink to the copied-from source location, where the page history is available. That complies with the two free copyright licenses our content is released under. The model form for the edit summary is: copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. The edit summary requirement is modified for the specifics, but is at base the same when copying or translating from a different language Wikipedia; from other Wikimedia project; when merging content; when splitting to a new location, and similar acts that use others' work and copyrighted material. You can also place on the talk page the filled-out template {{copied}}, though this is belt and suspenders to the main form of required attribution of an edit summary disclosure, plus hyperlinking. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a technical correction to DrChrissy's comment: we don't "give up all copyright" to our contributions. Instead, we retain copyright but give others the freedom to use our contributions for any purpose under the license terms. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that important clarification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure which names to use in a biography

Hi,

I am working on my first article and not sure how to display the person's name. Her birth name is Dorothy Lamb. She is an archeologist. She then married Lord Brooke and after that a Lord Nicholson.

As a writer of books, she is listed as Dorothy Lamb Brooke Nicholson (Lady). In reading "Writing about Women", I want to be careful not to use information that is about "the other"--her husbands and not her.

How should I display her name in the title and how should I refer to her in the article? Most of her archeology research was done as "Lamb" and I believe the books were written when she was Lady Dorothy Brooke.

thanks MauraWen (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia prefers articles to use as title the name by which the subject is most usually known. For example, Tony Blair, not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. As you examine reputable sources on the subject, you will be able to assess the most usual usage. But my quick check with Google suggests that it may be "Dorothy Lamb". And in the article, you should refer to her by her surname, "Lamb" rather than "Dorothy". Maproom (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert and Warn

Hello, which is the easiest way to revert a vandal and warn him with the fewest possible clicks? Bertdrunk (talk) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−3)

Hi Bertdrunk: That's an easy one. WP:Twinkle Justin15w (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Time Zone

Hi, the time stamp when I use my signature does not match the local time zone I am currently in (America/Chicago). I tried changing and saving the time zone selection under my preferences, however, the time zone stamp remains the same...always a couple hours ahead of what my time is now. Can someone help me? Verdagj (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Verdagj. The setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering only affects software-generated times like in watchlists, user contributions and page histories. Time stamps in signatures are saved in the wikitext and treated differently. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Oh okay. Thank you so much for your help! Verdagj (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Verdagj all Wikipedia timestamps use the UTC timezone. If each user's timestamps were set to use their local time it would be practically impossible to keep proper track of the sequence of events here. Wikipedia has no "downtime" nor does it keep "office hours", it is a global 24/7 project, thus making it basically impossible to cater for a multitude of local time zones. Central Standard Time is 6 hours behind UTC and Central Daylight Time lags UTC by 5 hours. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

How do I establish notability for this article?

I've been working on an article about the fastest growing content recommendation company, Revcontent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Revcontent). However, the article has been rejected twice for lack of notability. I am using what I would consider reliable sources, including The New York Times, Forbes, Entrepreneur, The Huffington Post and Ad Age. Additionally, Revcontent's main competitors have Wikipedia articles using similar sources: Taboola (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboola); Outbrain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbrain); and an even smaller competitor called Zergnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zergnet). Additionally, the founder of Revcontent has his own WP article: John Lemp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lemp). What else can I do to establish notability? I'm a Wikipedia newbie. Please help! Writepunch (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Writepunch. To expand on the notes added to the draft by reviewers: The first reference (Geektime), after an introductory paragraph, quotes John Lemp. It is thus not independent of the company, and of no value in establishing notability. The second reference (Forbes), after an introductory paragraph, quotes John Lemp. It therefore also has no value in establishing notability. The third, Adotas, is evidently an announcement by Revcontent, and so does not contribute to notabililty.

I haven't gone any further; but if you have any solid independent references, I would expect them to occur in the first couple. Please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything said by the company or its personnel, whether in their own publications or in interviews or press releases. An article on Revcontent should be close to 100% based on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about it. If there are no such independent sources, or the ones that exist are slight, then there is literally nothing which can be put in the article, and nobody will be allowed to create one (that is what Notability really means).

Wikipedia has no interest whatever in comparing articles about competitors; (in fact, it shouldn't even mention competitors in an article unless an indpendent sources has discussed the matter). Every article is evaluated on its own merits (see Other stuff exists). If you think that Taboola or Outbrain is inadequately sourced and fails notability, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion and argue the case. But I note, for example, that the second reference in Taboola (Fortune), though it quotes the CEO of the two companies, is clearly written independently of them.

On a quick look, I doubt that John Lemp has adequate sourcing for notabililty, and I will consider nominating it for deletion. But even if he is notable in Wikipedia's sense, that does not mean that his company is necessarily so: notability is not inherited. (By the way, he hasn't got "his own WP article": nothing in the universe "has" a Wikipedia article: Wikipedia has articles on many subjects, but they in no sense belong to the subject, and indeed the subject of an article is strongly discouraged from editing the article. See WP:OWN). --ColinFine (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is a additional citation needed?

When one wikipedia page has a list that contains other wikipedia pages, along with a summary of those page, is an additional citation needed?

Specifically, Beth Chayim Chadashim was addded to the "Landmarks and Attractions" section of the Mid-City, Los Angeles page, followed with a summary of the opening paragraph of their wikipedia page. Someone then added a "citation needed" after this entry on the Mid-City, Los Angeles.

I am new to this, but it seems a citation wouldn't be needed there because the Beth Chayim Chadashim has its own page with citations. Can I remove this request for "citation needed"?

Please advise. Phatblackmama (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phatblackmama and welcome to Wikipedia!

Yes, all pages on Wikipedia must have reliable sources, even if their content is a summary of the content on another Wikipedia page. But, you must not cite the other Wikipedia page, this is a WP:CIRCULAR violation. Instead, you should verify the citation used on Beth Chayim Chadashim and then copy it to Mid-City, Los Angeles in place of the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Psiĥedelisto. I am still a bit fuzzy with this. Can you look at Mid-City, Los Angeles under "Landmarks and Attractions". Directly underneath the entry for "Beth Chayim Chadashim" is a listing for "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles". They each have their own Wikipedia page to link to, but "Beth Chayim Chadashim" needs a citation and "Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles" does not. I don't understand why one needs a citation and the other doesn't. Phatblackmama (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Both need a citation, Phatblackmama (insofar as they are WP:MINREF material, which it is safe to assume that anything more detailed than WP:SKYISBLUE is).

The relevant guideline is WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank youFinnusertop. The last sentence you quote gives me the guidelines I was looking for.Phatblackmama (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not BeenAroundAWhile, so I do not know why he tagged Beth Chayim Chadashim but left the waffle house alone, I can only guess. The point of citing is to source quotes and other perhaps controversial statements in articles. Claiming that a synagogue is the first LGBT friendly one in an area and also quoting "cultural significance" raise the bar for a citation, over just that there is a waffle chain in Mid-City, LA. (see WP:FACTS) However, I agree with you that there is a double standard here, in my opinion, both should have a citation; and not because the fact that the waffle chain does have a restaurant in Mid-City may be something that can go without a source, but because I am not sure that a waffle restaurant chain is necessarily a landmark or an attraction, so citations asserting that, are in my opinion, needed. (see WP:NOTBLUE). I would also like to point out that in general, on Wikipedia, adding a "citation needed" tag to one statement does not mean that the editor is endorsing the fact that all the other statements in the article without inline citations don't also need citations. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Psiĥedelisto. But regarding your last sentence...I am aware that tagging one thing doesn't endorse another...but that lack of obligation on the part of said tagger leaves me disappointed in wikipedia. As a contributor, that randomness is discouraging. Phatblackmama (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not take it personally Phatblackmama, we can both agree I think that BeenAroundAWhile's edit was correct, your added statement does need a citation. The way Wikipedia is improved is oftentimes random: some sections of an article will be amazingly detailed and clear and others will be lacking; the thing that is important is that the article is always moving in the right direction.

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

are there more images like {{oldsmiley|10}}? I need them, now that I know there probably are more!

Please tell me there is a list of emoticons! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Plenty! Way before my time on Wikipedia, apparently, someone decided that they would rather have the smilies in the {{smiley}} template, so they moved replaced them and moved the previous versions to {{oldsmiley}}. I (obviously) don't agree with this change, so I've continued to use the "old" smilies as I find them more visually appealing. There is also {{smiley2}}, {{emoji}} (you can use this if you know the Unicode code of the emoji), and you can see a grab bag of icons on Template:BotComment#See_also. Clicking any of the links in my answer with {{}} around them will bring you to a page explaining all of the different smilies available in that template. Happy editing!

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:

Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Paying someone to fix my wikipedia entry

I am an author who has a wikipedia entry, kindly written without my knowledge years ago and very helpful to me. It is however out of date. I just want to add the names of my two most recent books. Know anyone who can do that for me? I have tried editing myself but I am old---71---and can't seem to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.75.108 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello 66.215.75.108 and welcome to Wikipedia!

Typically, new questions are put at the top of the page in the Teahouse so editors are more likely to see they are unanswered and lend a helping hand, but we can reply just as well to new questions made at the bottom of the page.

There are people you can hire to edit for you, but I wouldn't know any, and Wikipedia generally discourages WP:PAID editing. If you tell me the name of the article you wish to change, I am happy to do some research and add the books for you. Generally, we do not recommend that people edit pages about themselves: this is a conflict of interest, but if you're going to be making many of these types of edits, there is advice on the process of how to do so at WP:PSCOI. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How to merge 2 wp articles

@Dodger67:Folks, believe it or not there are wp articles Variants of unknown significance which is a stub and Variant of uncertain significance which as best I can determine was almost abandoned until moved out of the draft space by Dodger67 earlier this month. I am determined to bring the second version up to high quality. The question is, what to do with the stub? Is it OK if I just delete everything on that stub and make it a redirect to the longer article? It was created by an unregistered user, has only 1 reference (from 2000) and nothing on the talk page. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello DennisPietras and welcome back to the Tea House.

We always enjoy your visits here. Guidance is provided in this case by WP:MERGE. I believe that this is an obvious merge, so I would simply go ahead and be WP:BOLD and perform the redirect as that page recommends, and then follow the process only if there is a conflict. After you do the merge you may consider adding the source in Variants of unknown significance to some of the statements in Variant of uncertain significance as appropriate, as Variant of uncertain significance has problems with not having enough reliable sources. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just do it. BTW, the least of the problems with the long page is not enough reliable sources, IMHO, and the one from the stub isn't going to help! I'll be adding lots from my own searches. Maybe even an image or 2, if I can strap up my courage and delve into that quagmire again!

DennisPietras (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I noted on your talk page, if you need help with images just let me know what you want them to look like, maybe show a copyrighted image I can use as a guide, and I can take it from there

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras Go for it, but first take a look through the literature which title is more common; "unknown" or "uncertain", then merge the content to that title. (Per WP:COMMONNAME) If neither is clearly more widely used then it doesn't matter which page gets the content and which gets the redirect. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Trouble with accounts

I am a disabled musician with a large library of music and recordings. I thought I was doing the right things about logging in,etc. But,I have only been on-line for about one year. I am almost 60 ,and have been allowing my Macbook to guide me with Safari passwords,but they are too complicated for me to remember. So,I use my Preferences thing to retrieve Passwords ,and I keep being unable to log in to contribute anything. I am worried about adding more User Names,but the one I thought was yours isn't connecting,and I find i have 4 different attempt files saved with the letters "wiki" attached. I needed more help setting up,but I tried to do it by myself and here we are.

I don't have much money ,but I believe if I can get this solved and not have an impossible time of trying to connect,or get answers about which group I should be using ,etc. ,then I could donate a very small yearly sum to help keep this encyclopedia running. I worked in my college library ,so I am big on encyclopedias.Can you help me do this right ?2605:A000:D014:8A00:4860:4724:C443:21DF (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse.

Sorry to hear of your troubles. If the usual methods of retrieving a forgotten password are not working for you, the easiest solution may be to simply abandon your old account(s) and register a new username, carefully recording your information so that you will be able to use it consistently in the future. Use of multiple accounts is potentially troublesome, but non-abusive creation of a new account is generally okay. There are also have many editors who do not register accounts at all and you could choose to work as they do.

While the WMF is happy to accept donations, your contributions as a volunteer editor may be more valuable to the long-run health of the encyclopedia. Thanks for taking the effort and the Teahouse is here to help. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My page creation has been rejected for notability

I'm trying to create a page for the Cacoo product (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cacoo); the product has been featured in a number of prominent articles including Mashable, Tech in Asia, CNET, Lifehacker, but I've been rejected twice on the ground of lack of notability. I was looking at similar product pages that have been published on Wiki and they appear similar in content/source and were accepted. Can you please recommend how I should address thisBhan33 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhan33. The draft review process is still relatively new, so it is possible that other articles you have seen did not pass through it. There are lots of poor articles on Wikipedia, but these are liable to deletion, whereas an article that has been through review is much more likely to be kept, so it's worth getting this right. I have taken a quick look at Draft:Cacoo. You have cited plenty of sources. Our notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. "Significant coverage" isn't just about breadth of coverage - it's also about depth, and I wonder if the sources perhaps only mention Cacoo in passing? That could be one reason the draft has been declined. Second, if they are largely based on press releases, they won't be considered sufficiently independent of the subject. I haven't looked at all of the sources, but that would be my initial response. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A Second Opinion?

Hello Wikipedia,

I'm curious if there would be consensus among the Wikipedia guard in evaluative rejection of my proposed article on The American Musicianship Suite? I am a Wikipedia novice, but it’s difficult to imagine that such a modest, abbreviated, accurate entry on such an important organization and work as The American Musicianship Suite is unsuitable here.

If unambiguous validation and specific praise from the eminent professionals who've publicly endorsed this work—including no less than Elliot Carter and Sylvan Kalib—are insufficient justification for a Wikipedia entry, then indeed, this work, and its article, have no place here. If this is the case, I will pursue it no further. Are others of similar mind?BelaB (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BelaB. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by the existence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. You haven't cite any sources in your draft at User:BelaB/sandbox, so it's hard to tell whether the subject is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A clarification of the point that was made above: you have quoted two eminent people who have said positive things about the AMS, but you haven't cited the quotes. You need to include enough information for editors to find the quotes: where and when were they published? Furthermore, as Larry says above, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That means that more than one source with editorial oversight, like a book or a magazine, which is not connected with the AMS or its parent or sibling organisations, needs to have discussed it at length. --Slashme (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Unable to upload photograph

I am unable to upload my profile photograph FinancialEducator (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello FinancialEducator. You appear to be trying to write an autobiography. This is very strongly discouraged in Wikipedia: please see WP:Autobiography for why. In any case, you are writing it in the wrong place for an article, and Exemplo347 has already nominated it for speedy deletion. Your user page may contain some information about you if you wish, but it is about you as a Wikipedia editor, not about your activities unrelated to Wikipedia.

If, despite the recommendations in the guide I linked to, you decide to press ahead and create an autobiographical article, please read and follow Your first article, and create a draft in draft space that can be reviewed by other editors before it is moved to main space. And remember that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything that the subject of an article says or wants to say: it is only interested in what people with no connection to a subject have published about the subject in reliable places. --ColinFine (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello FinancialEducator and welcome to Wikipedia!

Unfortunately you have not provided us with enough information to help you properly. What happened when you tried to upload the file? Did your file go through, and then it was deleted by an administrator? Here is some general help: If your image is free to use (see c:commons:Licensing), try your upload at c:Special:UploadWizard. If your image is copyrighted but you believe it is fair use, I recommend that you use the WP:FFU process. You may also read about WP:FAIRUSE and use WP:UPLOAD yourself. Be sure, of course to follow ColinFine's advice above: your article has bigger problems than a missing photo. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ok,

Sorry guys i am totally new to putting anything here and I though I had written this like everyone else's.

Not sure what im doing wrong.

Ill leave the photograph for now as I rthink it was due to the number of edits at the time but ;its more important to have the page and understand how to write it firstly.

Ill sort the photograph upload later. FinancialEducator (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So when they delete my page am i never able to upload one again? FinancialEducator (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Having one page deleted does not prevent you from contributing to Wikipedia, but if you ignore Wikipedia's policies over an extended period and refuse to engage with other editors trying to help you you may be blocked from editing. However, you're engaging with us now and show a willingness to learn, so you are doing great

! There is an excellent guide that I recommend you read before recreating your user space draft, and that is Wikipedia:Your first article. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Psiĥedelisto (talk)

Don't worry about it, FinancialEducator. Unfortunately, many people have the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is something to do with promotion or online presence. It isn't. Promotion of any kind (whether of self, band, company, charity, or anything else) is strictly forbidden; and since nobody has any control over an article about them, it is not usefully part of anybody's online presence either. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

writing about my grand father and his family history

I wish to write about the life history of my grand father, He was a freedom fighter in India. However, being a right wing never came to lime light after independence. I have very few references with me, but hope to find more over a period of time. Can I write an article about him. I also wish to write about the family tree in a separate article. My ancestors were on the battle field and were a link between the Britishers and the Nizams. My great great grandfather the last among them fought vehemently the last battle at Nagpur but got killed. His wife reclaimed the town which was jahagir and brought up her only son ie my great grand father. Can I create this page? No references right now though. Please reply. Advandana (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Advandana, welcome to teahouse. The very nature of an encyclopedia is we do not allow original research. An encyclopedia does not write about a given subject; rather we write about what is written about a given subject. If you have no references to detailed discussions of your relatives published in reliable sources, you have no basis for an article. Further, you are strongly discouraged from writing about subjects you have a close connection with, such as your family. See WP:COI for further information. John from Idegon (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia is not the right forum for this writing project. Have you considered writing it up on a blog? There are many free blogging services, for example the ones listed at Category:Blog_hosting_services. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How can I fix incorrect sorting in World population table

The problem occurs on this page: List of countries by population growth rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

The sort for the CIA WF 2014 column incorrectly sorts the negative population growth numbers. Whether you sort that column ascending or descending it incorrectly sorts the negative entries. The negative entries are sorted in the inverse order of what they should be while the positive values are sorted correctly.

This is only the case for that column as all other columns sort the negative values correctly.

I was planning to edit this but I cant figure out how to change the sort of a column to fix this particular problem.

Leighton 2602:306:BCCA:CD00:E023:1F01:25D0:B61 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Same as the answer to another question here recently, you need data-sort-type="number"| . See this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

... and presumably the reason why that column behaved differently is that the column concerned had one entry with a dash rather than a number. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info,

I see that you edited it already. Thanks for that too.

Leighton2602:306:BCCA:CD00:E023:1F01:25D0:B61 (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Image Within text

Hello,

I have a question regarding Image text.

I want to add image with in text of Wikipedia page. so anyone can help me about this?. Dilipjrajpurohit (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure!

Welcome to the Teahouse Dilipjrajpurohit.

If your image is already somewhere else on Wikipedia or one of its sister projects such as the Commons, follow the instructions below:

Click "Edit this page".
Click "Insert".
Click "Media".
Search for the image you want to use. Many, many images are available. Click on it.
Click "Use this image".
Make any changes you wish, then click "Insert".

If your image is not here yet, please see WP:CMF for guidance. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikivisually and Wikipedia link

Hi Teahouse,

May I know how does wikipedia link to wikivisually? How can I edit articles on wikivisually, and are all articles on wikipedia on wikivisually?

Thank you! Avataron (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikivisually is a Fork of Wikipedia, that copies our material, and adds adverts and pictures. It appears to be a real-time copy, rather than a database download, so probably accesses all of our content. - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Having experimented, it does not seem to be able to cope with redirects. As an example, if you enter Mohammed here you are automatically redirected to our Muhammad article, but if you enter Mohammed at Wikivisually, you do not have a way to access our Muhammad article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Can the color of text be specified?

Hi! Can the color of a particular section of text be controlled? Specifically, I'd like to have a word appear yellow. Is there some wiki code like <yellow></yellow>? (I tried that, without success) Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're becoming a regular here at the Teahouse. Glad to see you again.

For nearly all article-space pages, making color changes for the text is not advisable.

Elsewhere, for instance in signatures, you might want to play with <span style="color:yellow"> tags. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

An easier way, also, is to use the {{color}} template.

Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you If you want to check it out, see the caption of the tulip at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_of_uncertain_significance And let me know if I'm becoming a pain in the you know what...No, wait, don't tell me

I've got to get to bed...DennisPietras (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem there is that some readers will struggle to read the yellow word. We try to make Wikipedia friendly to all. If you really want the word in yellow, perhaps a dark background would help readability? Dbfirs 09:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please read WP:Colour contrast which explains the accessibility problems for people with visual problems (about 10% of males have some form of colour blindness, and it is not all red/green) and WP:COLOR which covers other issues. Please remember viewers use different coloured screens, typically blue, black or white, and your colour needs to be readable against all these. Yellow on a white screen will almost certainly not meet the minimum requirement of "WCAG 2.0's AA level". Furthermore, as with bold and large text, colour should not be used for emphasis in bodytext. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My example above wasn't quite compliant at the AA level. This would be, just. The best policy is not to use colour in captions unless it is really important to do so. Dbfirs 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, don't you folks have a life either? 8-) Nice to see the flurry of activity on the page. I've changed the caption to the AA compliant suggested above. Thanks again all! DennisPietras (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed that formatting, partly because I am a humourless git, partly because it hurts my eyes and brain, and partly because it is completely at odds with Wikipedia's style . --Slashme (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A compromise has now been suggested with a more detailed description in plain black text, and this seems to me to convey more information than any colour coding, so I perhaps even the readable (but rather garish) colour that I suggested is not a good idea in this case. Wikipedia's style is to avoid unnecessary use of colour in text. Dbfirs 13:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Correcting capitalisation of a Wiki page

How do I correct capitalisation of a page eg RAeC instead of RAec? Petechilcott (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no page RAec; RAeC redirects correctly to Royal Aero Club. If a page has capitalisation which is definitely wrong, it can be moved, but see WP:Manual of Style#Article titles, WP:Article titles#Article title format, and WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) before trying to do that. A credible alternative capitalisation can be made a redirect. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

have i used an allowed source

I am taking part in #1lib1ref so am totally new to this. I added a citation about "Mick Lally" appearing in ads for home equity release by providing the details of the company's website which has links to the actual ads. Is this allowed? I am now thinking this might not be as it is a primary source and a form of advertising in itself. Thanks Janlib (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Janlib.

Yes, that is a primary source and might well be considered promotional. It would be preferable to have a citation from a source that is not the advertiser itself, which could possibly be an advertising trade magazine or other news organization. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll start looking for a better source. Janlib (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

please check my first article

Hi there,

recently i created an article about a new art called sand picture,

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

my grandfather 50 years ago had one of them, and now i buy one of them. but after 50 years this type of art is unknown for too many people so there's no many things in internet about it, but i searched and found about 12 reference, please check my links and edit my article and don't let my article be deleted. 868,383,950edits (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello 868,383,950edits and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry for the delay in responding.

The AfD discussion for your article is going to give you a broader range of opinions than we'll be able to give you at the Teahouse. If you understand and respond to the critiques given there, you may be able to improve the article to the point where it will not be deleted.

I wonder that you call this "new art". As best as I can tell from your description, variations on this idea have been available as novelty "kinetic art" products for quite a long time, perhaps of the same vintage as the Lava lamp. If you take a look at that article, it may give you an idea of the sort of coverage that would make good additions for your article.

I, too, wonder if you've come up with the correct name for this item. I haven't found anything better in a quick search, but finding the right name may be the key to having a proper article. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made a comment at the deletion discussion. It would be reasonable to rename the article if a better name can be found, but deletion is IMHO not the right solution here. Also, someone is trying to delete the pictures that User:868,383,950edits has uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I also strongly disagree with that deletion request. --Slashme (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, after looking for reliable sources, I really can't find anything which passes Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I've changed my comment to recommend that this material can be merged to a larger article for now. --Slashme (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

tnx, please stay in talk page project.868,383,950edits (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I broke 3RR...

If you look at my contribs (accessible by clicking on Master on my sig), the last five edits are on the same page... and within 24 hrs. Something tells me I broke the 3RR. Did I?

The Phase Master 15:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. 3rr means three REVERT rule, not three edit rule. #oopsdefense

The Phase Master 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Self-answering questions; that's what we like, The Phase Master. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD discussions

Just a question related to AfD discussions. There is an article, in which I have a conflict of interest, that has been nominated for deletion. It is in its second round of discussion and after a day I'm the only one who has commented. I am new to this process -- Is there an acceptable way or place to call notice to the discussion so we might come to some sort of eventual consensus? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Johnson_Family_Enterprises)Wax86 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wax86. I'm not sure that more eyes would help until there is some material for them to look at. Anything you can provide to support it, even if it isn't in a form to include into the article yet, would help to inform the discussion. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to remove an amendment

I made an amendment to the Cypress Grove (musician) page and Athena07 has requested information I don't have, please delete my information, I don't know how to do this and didn't realise that the information was a breach. I know it to be factual but I cannot verify it. Many thanks 85.144.169.102 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP user: don't worry about an honest mistake: Wikipedia's policies take a lot of getting used to. There's nothing you need to do - Athenaathena07 has already reverted your edit. For future reference, you can see who has edited a page and what they have done by looking at the 'History' tab; and you can undo the most recent edit by picking 'Undo' next to that change in the history. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Need another opinion

I wrote an article at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Headwear) where I disclosed my conflict of interest and did my best to use only sourced material in a neutral way. The subject has been written about in detail in multiple reliable sources as well as cited in the Wall Street Journal. I believe it passes the notability test, but needs a second opinion to review the content and formatting. Please assume good faith as I believe this article improves Wikipedia.

For some background, the company in year 2000 was once the largest seller of American college licensed products, outselling even Nike and Adidas. It has sold over 60,000,000 hats. Pwgormley (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pwgormley - I do agree that this company is notable but after reading the article, it does sound promotional. Right now, this article is just a stub - I would work on cleaning up the refs and finding good secondary sources, and then expanding into product line, etc. Justin15w (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, I would change this line: "Realizing that his current hat suppliers were not meeting his customers' demand, he starting producing hats and focused on the college headwear business rather than the pro leagues." to something like this: "Zephyr focuses on producing collegiate headwear, rather than professonal headwear." (Just a quick example). Justin15w (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pwgormley

Please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself, including anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be close to 100% based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places; and in any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine, I completely understand. I simply wanted others to look at the topic and make their own judgments about notability and what should or shouldn't be included. I'm trying to remove myself completely from the content.

Just a note, Pwgormley has been apprised of his conflict of interest and I've added the COI template accordingly, as well as attempted to edit that page with NPOV. Also, remember to always sign your posts with four tildes! Justin15w (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

What should I do when a user keeps adding unsourced statements and ignores attempts to get them to go to talk page?

Right to WP:AIV? This is a current event and its page was already protected: 2017 Jallikattu protests. Usually I stay away from current events but I saw the article about this and didn't understand what it was all about so I did a lot of research (Background section). Anyway, as I wrote on the article's talk page I'm going to bed now. It's not extremely important to me that Saffron White Green's unsourced POV [1] stays out - what can I do after all, that's why I tend to stick to uncontroversial subjects, but for some reason his stonewalling me and another editor is really offputting. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, check out Dispute Resolution at WP:DR. Also, feel free to browse the different sections of the Administrator's Noticeboard to see if this issue is relevant enough to bring up: WP:AN. Personally I would warn the user with escalating tones about providing unsourced content. After four warnings you can request a temporary block if an admin sees fit. I use WP:Twinkle to revert and warn. Furthermore, if you request input and consensus on the article's talk page from users besides the "offender," that will stand as the status quo and any further edits by that user will result in warnings. Justin15w (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick question: do new questions in the TH go on top or on bottom nowdays? Justin15w (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Still the top for some reason, Justin15w. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Psiĥedelisto. For purposes of setting up a report at WP:AIV, please see the template series (which I've just tweaked): {{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}} and {{uw-unsourced4}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Twinkle tool provides an easy way to revert and warn with pre-made templates like this. It's great for users who want to patrol in a web browser. Justin15w (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)