Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 575

Archive 570

←

Archive 573

Archive 574

Archive 575

Archive 576

Archive 577

→

Archive 580

I hate danglers...

Yah, new here as well, but longtime IRL editor.

When I put up a request for assitance or input in an article's Talk section, then the fix/assistance is achieved, would I be overstepping to remove the thus-outmoded post & any responses? I worry that doing so would be some sort of gross "memory hole" infraction... but leaving it referring to something that no longer exists seems confusing.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Weeb Dingle. I suggest instead that you use Template:Resolved to indicate that a request is no longer active. If a talk page grows too long, it is appropriate to archive the older posts. Please read Help:Archiving a talk page for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent solution!! So many little details to learn 'round here -- it's quite fun.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328Cool template! Is there some page that lists all the available templates? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, please take a look at Wikipedia:Template messages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did anomiebot tag this cite as citation needed and how do I make a semi-protected edit request to improve the cite?

Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor to the Trump White House on January 29, 2017 suggested in an interview with Fox News the purpose of the order was to stop people who would “infiltrate” through the old system. He subsequently stated: “By our estimates, there're more than 40 refugees in recent history who’ve been subsequently implicated in terrorism, and nearly 400 foreign nationals or naturalized foreigners who became U.S. citizens subsequent to their entry, who’ve been implicated in terrorism since 9/11 so it is a very large number of people who have infiltrated the immigration program."[52][citation needed] page is executive order 13769G1729 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi G1729, thanks for your question. If your account is new and you haven't made many edits yet, you won't be able to edit semi-protected articles (specifically four days old, and at least 10 edits). You can make the edits and wait the needed amount of time, or you can make a request on the talk page ofthe article using this syntax:

{{edit semi-protected|(Provide a detailed explanation of the edit request here)}}

Once you post, an editor who can directly edit the article will respond to the request. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@@JethroBT: Thanks! I've made enough edits to participate on this article, but have less experience I guess on high-traffic/rapidly developing articles like it so this is my first experience on Wikipedia actually needing to interact with other editors/Wikipedians. I slipped up and got some sort of sanction so I am trying to be very cautious. Thanks very much for the reply!G1729 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: I JethroBT has answered the second half of your question, about editing a semi-protected article. As far as the first question is concerned: "Why did anomiebot tag this cite as citation needed", I think you'll find that anomiebot merely corrected the time tag part of the "citation needed" tag, in this edit. The "citation needed" tag itself was added by another human editor, in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: That is helpful. Was the problem with the time part of the cite that it was missing "time" information (required for video?) or "date" information? Do you see anything wrong with the cite on its face that warrants the "citation needed" tag (I'm not looking to complain to anyone, I just want to understand why they think more or better cites are needed.) Thanks very much!!!G1729 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: You may have misunderstood what I said. It will be clearer if you follow the links which I gave (in my reply) to the diffs for the 2 edits in question. Anomiebot's correction was to the timetag part of the "citation needed" tag, changing "|date=February 4, 2017" to "|date=February 2017". If you want to question the reason for the placing of the "citation needed" tag itself, you need to ask the editor who placed it; the diff gives a link to the editor's user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Ah. Thanks again, I think I got it now. And thank you for the link to diffs :) Best regards,—G1729 (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Moving a group of page

How can I move this group of page (Glory 14: Zagreb - Glory 15: Istanbul - Glory 16: Denver - Glory 17: Los Angeles - Glory 18: Oklahoma) into one page 2014 in Glory? I want to group 2014 event pages into one page like this 2015 in Glory? Thanks KINGFEDORQc (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@KINGEDORQc: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not aware of any automated tool that will do what you ask. You basically have to create the new page by pulling in appropriate material from the subpages, as it looks like you've done with 2015 in Glory.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Need help verifying two sites

I have made changes and tried to make the language more neutral in these two articles: Dreaming of Denmark and Michael Graversen. Are they ok now or do they need more work? One last question: I have tried to search on google for "Dreaming of Denmark wiki" and "Michael Graversen wiki" but no english pages come up. Is this because they are not verified? KlausJensen (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KlausJensen. Dreaming of Denmark includes the following sentences:

"The premiere was at a time when the refugee situation in Europe was at its peak hence the film had a big impact not only on the public debate in Denmark but also internationally. After the release in Denmark the film sparked national debate in TV, radio and newspapers about the conditions of the unaccompanied minor refugees in Denmark."

No references are provided to support the claims that the film made a "big impact" or that it "sparked national debate". Those are promotional claims that must be cited to a reliable, independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Graversen contains many unreferenced assertions. The list of awards is entirely unreferenced. Either references should be provided or the unreferenced content should be removed. As for appearing in a Google search, that will happen only after a new pages patroller checks the pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thank you so much for your help Cullen. It is really helpful. I have a lot of danish references in relations to the debate. Would they work or is it only english? KlausJensen (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

KlausJensen. References to sources in any language are acceptable. If sources are plentiful, then English sources are preferred. But Danish sources are fine if no English sources are readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. KlausJensen (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to restore "References" sub-heading

Hello,

I'm drafting an article, and while the references/citations are still there, the sub-heading "References" seems to have fallen off? Is there some way I can restore it?

Thank you for your help! I am very new so apologies for the basic question.

It is for this page (not yet submitted pending further improvements): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wear_it_Purple_Day

SunnyBoi (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Hello and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Something happened in very nearly your first edit to that draft that messed up the references section. I just put in the standard section, hope that's not too startling. Still lots of work to be done on that article, though.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, jmcgnh! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Pix for my page

Hi there - Is there a way to speed up the autocontribute thing so I can upload pics sort of now? CheersRobertspcole (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robertspcole, welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload images with a free license at commons:Special:UploadWizard right away. Is that good enough? I see you already uploaded one after posting. You only need autoconfirmation if you want to upload non-free images to the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Commons doesn't allow that. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I tried it again just after sending you the note...and I must have accidently pushed the right buttons! Two other things while I am on, if I may. 1. I have asked for my user name to be changed from Robertspcole to Robert S P Cole. How long do I have to wait for that and is there a button somewhere I need to push to confirm the change? Or can I change the name of the page in another way? 2. How do I actually publish? Or is it live already in spite of showing me Robertspcole/sandbox? 3. is there a way to wrap the text around the info boxes so as to remove the large white space front an central! Thanks so much, again, Robert. Robertspcole (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Robertspcole: User rename requests have to be reviewed by a user with the right permission. I think it's usually within a day or two. If it's approved then you don't have to do more, and User:Robertspcole/sandbox will automatically be moved to the new name. I don't have access to the interface for Special:GlobalRenameRequest so I cannot see whether you have made a request with that. I made some fixes on your sandbox.[1] It's not a live article. I added a box with a submit button and some help links. It's unlikely to be accepted in the current form. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. The only significant whitespace I see is to the right of the table of contents, and that's meant to be whitespace. Text flows to the left of infoboxes but not to the right of the table of contents. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Prime Hunter - thank you very much for this. Though I thought I had read lots about the dos and don'ts of Wiki I missed the stuff about autobiography. I can't argue with the policy now I know it. If there is a such a place for a opage like this it clearly needs independent sourcing.Robertspcole (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Next steps for draft article. Submit for review? Or perform further cleanup first?

I have created my first ever draft article and I have no more content to add to it. I have responded to a few suggestions from your Help desk and added in lots of references were they had been lacking before.

But the latest comment from the Help desk said that my article needs a lot of work. I have no idea what that means.

What is the logical next step right now? Submit it for review or invite some specific comments from the Help desk? It is not good enough to say that your article is not good enough. Too vague. If anyone has a comment please be specific. CableHut (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am confused when you refer to comments from the Help desk. I can't find any such comment at WP:HD or its archives other than one saying that at that stage you hadn't made any edits, so could you please give us a diff? Or are you perhaps referring to comments here at the Teahouse, such as the one below? If you feel that the comment isn't sufficiently clear, it is better to ask on that thread, rather than starting a separate thread. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that CableHut is referring to the response to the question right below this one, here at the Teahouse. Incidentally – the draft in question is Draft:Jean Jepson: Dancer; Choreographer; Teacher.. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CableHut. I think that you are referring to a comment that I made below, so I will be more specific. I suggest that you read Your first article and follow its recommendations. Also, read a few Good articles and Featured articles about performers to get a sense for how things should be done. A few specific points: We never use self-referential language such as "This article is about . . ." or "This photo shows . . ." The licensing of the photo is incorrect since you claim it as your own work. That would only be the case if you were the photographer. You state that the draft article is about the dancer and her associates. We do not structure articles that way. A biography is about one person, not several. Important bibliographic information is missing from most of your references, such as publishers names, page numbers and ISBN numbers. Also, the references are added to section headers and instead should be embedded in the text. Every significant assertion should have a reference. Please read Referencing for beginners and reorganize your references to comply. It is my impression that your draft article includes excessive detail and I suggest trimming quite a bit. Those are the most important problems that come to my mind after a quick reading of the draft. I suspect that a more detailed review would discover more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CableHut. I posted a comment and some links at User talk:CableHut#Draft:Jean Jepson: Dancer; Choreographer; Teacher. a few days ago, but perhaps you didn't notice it. Cullen328 has given you some good advice, but I would add that you shouldn't embed external links into articles and you sholdn't title the draft the way you have done. I really suggest you take the Wikipedia:Adventure and then try discussing the draft with some of the WikiProjects I mentioned in my post on your talk page. The main hurdle you need to overcome is establishing Jepson's Wikipedia notability and a member of one of those WikiProjects might be able to help you do that as well as fix some of the formatting and other issues that draft has. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page got deleted

I don't know why my page got deleted for it says speedy deletion are you trying to say I am not famous or globally recognised enough because I am I provided links from big newspapers that featured me in it I need to have a wiki page in order to get across to my following but the deletion has really demotivated me a lot :( I would love to get in contact with Wikipedia like a email or number would be great so one of my legal representatives can I can provide any sort of proof you need in order to get my page up I have seen people who are not even recognised at any level and there pages are up its a real shocker! Raj vin (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Raj vin and welcome to the TeaHouse. I think you may have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It is not like LinkedIn or other networking sites where people write about themselves. Instead, it is where editors write about various topics in a neutral way that does not promote them. As was explained in the message on your Talk page, the reason the article Deepak Vinayak was deleted was because it "seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." Nothing to do with whether the subject was notable. This is precisely why autobiographies are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia (see the article at WP:Autobiography for more details). If you are convinced that you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, the proper way to get your article into Wikipedia if you really are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article, is to make a proposal at WP:Requested articles providing the references. If an editor decides to take on the project, they can pick it up from there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Need to reinstate entry for Francis Celentano

fuhgettaboutit deleted my entry for Francis Celentano and I am seeking to appeal this decision. Francis Celentano was a seminal contributor to the Op Art movement and is an internationally recognized artist whose works are regularly exhibited at MOMA and other art installations around the world. Much of the information already appears on his official website at www.franciscelentano.com an I have permission to use that information from his widow Rebecaa Celentano. I am also his nephew and find it extremely frustrating and unfair that one user can summarily remove information that is clearly a warranted and valid contribution to the Wikipedia collection without giving me a chance to address the issue. Acelentano2016 (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Acelentano2016.

Based on what you say, it should certainly be possible to find reliable, independent sources to establish that Francis Celentano meets WP's notability standards. Fuhgettaboutit was probably acting correctly by WP standards because your entry either did not provide such independent sources or was copied too directly from the artist's website. That material cannot merely be copied to Wikipedia. You should also consider yourself to have a conflict of interest with respect to this subject and we strongly advise against trying to create the article yourself.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Acelentano2016: copyright can be a tricky matter. Just because you "have permission to use that information from his widow Rebecaa Celentano" does NOT mean it can be used on Wikipedia. Please read the detailed response on your Talk page at User talk:Acelentano2016#Copyright issues, where Fuhghettaboutit explained the problem and the options to deal with it.

Forgot to sign my comment above, so re-pinging Acelentano2016 and Fuhghettaboutit. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The artricle has not merely been deleted. The parts of the article which were not a copyright violation have been moved back to draft space as Draft:Francis Celentano, and the only other material which has been removed was a lengthy list of exhibitions, which was totally unsourced. The draft is there for you to work on it and hopefully bring it to a standard which is fit for publication. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acelentano2016. Wikipedia requires that previously written information be released into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license before it can be used here. We cannot use non-free copyrighted material under permission for use here, the permission is a release by the copyright owner. You can read about how a release can be provided (directly by the copyright owner in a verifiable manner, not secondarily by you asserting a release has been given) at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This has nothing whatever to do with the notability of your uncle, or whether an article is warranted, and everything to do with copyright infringement. It is not legal for you to post non-free copyrighted material here. If you cannot obtain a release that does not mean an article cannot be written. It means it must be written in your own words, citing to reliable sources as the source of the information, but not copying the words of the sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand WIkipedia HELP

Hi, so I wrote an article about an Tape Art Crew, it needed to be changed, which I did a month ago and now I have no idea, what the deal is. I dont have time to study 6 years of Wikipedia. I am a Macuser, I am used to quick, simple things, not complicated things like WIkipedia. Sorry, if I am too dumb. But I need help, because this project is killing me. :( LizA 1988 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello LizA 1988 and welcome to Teahouse! I have read Draft:Tape_Over-english and see that the draft has a number a problems. One issue is the lack of inline citations within the text. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the information it contains needs to be verifiable for readers. The most important way of accomplishing this is by citing reliable sources - newspaper and magazine articles, books or journals - at the end of sentences. When I write articles, I try to provide a citation every 1-3 sentences. Aiyangiyang is a short article I wrote that can give you some idea.

To provide a citation, when editing your article, place the cursor at the end of your sentence. Then use the mouse to click "cite" at the top of the text editing menu, and after that, "template." You can select the appropriate template and fill in the information.

A second issue with your draft is that it appears promotional. For example, the sentence "TAPE OVER finds joy in experimenting" is what a reader would expect to find in a promotional website, not an encyclopedia. Altogether, I'm guessing that if TAPE ART meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article should be 2-3 paragraphs long altogether, and no longer. Please let me know if that helps. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to do?

Hello there! I need some help. I joined few days ago and I want to start editing here but I don't know where to start! I was in another wiki and there, articles that needed help were tagged for users to easily find them, so does such thing exists here? I want to copyedit articles, you know, fix spelling mistakes and stuff like that. Thanks in advance! PerihanM. (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You might be thinking of Category:All articles needing copy edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

klimgeran I need your help

Hello I am a newbie, this also my project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Litrico Look at my project, tell me what am I doing wrong? J User:Meters User:J947 User:Justin15w David Biddulph Correct project please as you need to be a good article Today I added external links look Klimgeran (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What you are doing wrong is failing to read and abide by the advice given to you on your user talk page at User talk:Klimgeran. The words in blue are wikilinks to more detail on the subjects in question. If you don't understand English well enough to understand the advice given, you ought perhaps to stick to editing the Wikipedia in your own language. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

going from draft to article?

I started a draft 3 days ago and have been editing it daily. I like it to be an article in Wikipedia and continue to edit it as an article but I don't know how to go from draft to published article. Please help with advice. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Riverwood,_Port_Charlotte_Florida maureenwinsMaureenwins (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Maureenwins and welcome to the Teahouse! I have read your draft, Draft:Riverwood, Port Charlotte Florida and I see that there are a number of problems that would likely prevent the draft from becoming an article on Wikipedia. Here are a few possible concerns for you to think about - let me know if you have any questions about each?

First, all articles on Wikipedia must meet what are called general notability guidelines. Many subjects are interesting, but most are not suitable for an encyclopedia. If you read WP:GNG, what is your feeling about whether Riverwood in Port Charlotte should have its own wikipedia article? Has it been the subject of many newspaper articles, book chapters, or academic journal articles?

Second, your draft has no citations to reliable sources that are the basis of all encyclopedia articles. You should envisage each sentence in your draft being concluded with a specific reference to a high-quality source that has no affiliation with Riverwood.

Lastly, the draft is written in a promotional tone. To me, it looks like this is all content that is best suited to appearing on Riverwood's own website, and not on Wikipedia.

I hope this is helpful! Again, let me know if you have any questions. Darouet (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Help improve article!

How to improve the article, who knows make, material, links have to be discussed. Article: Luca_Litrico Klimgeran (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klimgeran: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

It looks like you may already have received some feedback on the article, but there are several problems that have to be addressed and the burden of addressing them is more likely to fall on you than on anyone who would like to help. The two main problems are that the article as it currently stands fails to establish the notability of the subject and appears to be written in too promotional a tone to be acceptable as a WP article. Other problems can probably be fixed with help from other editors, such as making a more standard-looking infobox and bringing the citations in line with a more acceptable standard referencing style.

There are a couple of essays/help pages that may get you moving in the right direction: Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Mastering the material covered there will go a long way towards helping you become a successful Wikipedia editor.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:jmcgnh

Thank you very much. For me, your answer is very important Klimgeran (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

klimgeran

Hello help me to make my project. Its going to remove, I worked on it a long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Litrico Article Why is nominated for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luca_Litrico Klimgeran (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Klimgeran - The best explanation of why the article is nominated for deletion is the comments at the deletion discussion. The comments say that it doesn't establish notability. You say that you worked hard on the article, and we believe you, but that is not a test of notability. Would you like the article moved to draft space rather than deleted? Also, do you have a connection with the subject of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Hello the person in questin Mr Luca Litrico, have autorized me to create a wikipedia page. I want create a persnal page for Luca Litrico. he ask me to create an articole including her personal life. He is a stilist italian.... What i must do for create a profile? Thanks Klimgeran (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Klimgeran - Read the conflict of interest guideline and declare your conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not have "profiles". Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Wikipedia is not the medium for someone to use to publicize their career. Also, you appear to be struggling to express your concerns in English. Have you considered editing the Italian Wikipedia or a Wikipedia in a language in which you are proficient, on subjects about which you are knowledgeable but do not have a special interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted three times on the [[Italian Wikipedia] [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Compressing tables to one-line format

Hello! This question is not really about editing Wikipedia, but I hope it's ok anyway. I'm trying to use the one-line table row format on another wiki (not Wikipedia), but I can't get it to work properly. As an example, I've tried to use this code:

{|
|fmtspec|AA||fmtspec|CC||fmtspec|EE<tr>
|fmtspec|BB||fmtspec|DD||fmtspec|FF<tr>
|}

On Wikipedia, it gives the following result...

AA	CC	EE
BB	DD	FF

...but on my wiki, it looks like this:

AACCEE<tr>BBDDFF<tr>

As you can see, there is no space between the table cells, and the <tr> tag doesn't work. I've tried changing it to </tr>, but it makes no difference. I'm using MediaWiki 1.28 and raw HTML is enabled. Does the one-line format require any extensions (or something else) in order to work properly? Any help would be highly appreciated! 155.4.134.68 (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You should try mw:Help:Contents or one of the mediawiki IRC channels. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggested code at Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting#Compressing to one-line row format looks unstable. It has an opening <tr> without a closing </tr> and makes assumptions about the precise interaction between html code and wikicode for tables. It doesn't surprise me if another MediaWiki installation treats it differently. I would avoid unclosed html tags completely. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

See mw:Manual:Using content from Wikipedia#HTMLTidy, but I recommend avoiding this code instead of trying to make it work. I don't know whether HTMLTidy is enough to make it work. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies! I'll think about it and see what I can do. Do you know any other way of expressing an entire table row on just one row of (wiki-)code, without completely resorting to html? 155.4.134.68 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

is the page I have just contructed Wikisuitable?

Hi - Having had useful adice earlier from JzG can anyone give me an idea about whether my draft page at user:Robertspcole/sandbox meets the Wiki criteria - and if it doesn't, what I might do to upgrade it? Also - can I change the name of the page to what it should have been all along? That is, 'London Poems'?Robertspcole (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertspcole. Your draft article is about a book of poetry that you wrote. It seems the book was published two months ago by a variant of a vanity press, and you use the website of that publisher for several of your references. Clearly, you have a conflict of interest.

You need to make a convincing case that your book meets our notability guideline for books. In most cases, this means that the book has been reviewed by several major newspapers or magazines. Other indicators of notability are winning major literary awards, being adapted into a film or play, or being part of the curriculum of university level courses. I see no evidence at this time that your new book of poetry is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A hand

Can someone come and give a hand on Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. In case you weren't aware there is already List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. Wikipedia does not allow for two article about the same subject. If you feel that changes should be made to the existing article I would suggest that you discuss them on the talk page for said article. MarnetteD|Talk 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A jeepers I am such a maroon. My apologies, I see that you are trying to create an article that devoted solely to animated films. You might try asking for help at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

is there a "blind ping"?

Hi again. With email, I have found bcc (blind carbon copy) useful. (I guess I'm a sneaky son-of-a-gun...) Is there some sort of blind ping available on wp, to alert an editor without actually broadcasting it to everyone? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. If you use Template:Talkback on the editor's talk page, the message will be visible only to those who visit or watch that particular talk page. Since this is an open collaborative project, we do not promote secrecy, except in very narrowly defined circumstances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. There is a template called {{no ping}} which will link to a particular editor's user page without sending them a notification, but not sure if that's what you would want. FWIW, I'm not sure there would be a point to a "blind ping" since anything you post on Wikipedia is pretty much there for anyone to see regardless of whether they are notified or not. So, if you "blind ping" me to a page because you want me to look at something without others knowing about it, then my presence would be made known to everyone who cares the minute I post a comment or make an edit. The "blind ping" syntax, unlike an email BCC, would also be visible in the editing window where you added it. If there's something of a personal nature related to Wikipedia that you would like to discuss with someone off-line so to speak, then there is always Wikipedia:Emailing users, Wikipedia:Contact OTRS and even Wikipedia:IRC. As Cullen328 posted, there may times when it's inappropriate to post personal or proprietary information out in the open. I believe all administrators, etc. are required to have their email access enabled, so you can try and emailing one of them as well, if you have a problem whose details may be too sensitive to discuss on a public noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Another notability question from a somewhat frustrated newbie

Hi again. Since there is a recent question about notabilty, I'll ask my own now, instead of letting stress build. How on earth did so many stub quality articles get onto wikipedia? I've been looking at wikiproject genetics articles. There are about 1,500 stub articles that simply, IMHO, aren't worth the price of the paper they are written on, or the memory they are stored on. How did they get approved in the first place? Has there been some huge change in notability policy recently? If wp wants to not have articles that are not notable (a goal I would support), why is it so darn difficult to get a stub deleted? I PRODed syntelic, and it seems that every possible step is being taken to prevent it from being deleted. It's a one sentence definition, without a verifiable source, IMHO! Why not let auto-confirmed editors simply delete these stubs? If there really is somebody "out there" who is watching the page, that person could undelete. sigh. I feel less frustrated now.... DennisPietras (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. If you think that every article has gone through a standardized "approval" process, then let me tell you that this is not the case. Back in the early days of Wikipedia, large numbers of articles were created without any approval whatsoever. Gradually, a new pages patrol process was developed, which screened out much garbage but not all. The formal Articles for Creation process is much more recent, but is entirely optional. Editors can create new articles as they see fit without going through AFC, and trusted editors who have the autopatrolled user right (as I do) can create new articles while bypassing the new pages patrol.

There has been no recent "huge change" in notability policy but rather a gradual and steady increase in standards regarding new content over the years, which can be applied to old content as well. The General notability guideline did not even exist in the early years of the project. But with 5.3 million articles to review, this is a massive ongoing task.

Only administrators can delete articles. If you want to delete articles, then become an administrator (it is not easy). Many decent articles are incorrectly classed as stubs, and really should be classified higher. Mass deletion of stubs is a really bad idea. The main question is whether or not the topic of the stub is notable, and if so, the stub should be expanded and properly referenced, rather than being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. Since Wikipedia is by design a project that anyone anywhere in the world can edit and be bold, there is unfortunately lots of edits that are made which are not in accordance with relevant policy and guidelines. The same goes for article creation. There are currently over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles, and many more are created each day. Although new editors are encouraged to try and create articles via WP:AfC, many do not and there is no explicit prohibition against creating anything directly in the article namespace of which I am aware. In other words, you or I do not need approval to create an article, we can just create it if we want to. Of course, not everything which is created should be created, which is why tons of inappropriate articles are deleted on a daily basis. So, if you find an article or stub which you feel does not belong in Wikipedia then I suggest the following:

1. Try and determine what the problem is with the article/stub. Is it something that could possibly be fixed per WP:PRESERVE, or is it something that has no redeeming value to the encyclopedia and should be blown up? If you're not sure, then try checking the article's talk page to see your concerns have been discussed before and initiating such a discussion if they have not. You can also ask for advice from any WikiProjects who might be relevant to the subject matter.
2. If blowing the article up seems like the only course of action, then figure out the best way to do this per WP:DELETE. Seriously problems such as a blatant copyright violation, etc. may qualify for speedy deletion, but WP:PROD and WP:AFD may be more appropriate in other cases. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletions which do not qualify for speedy deletion. If someone is objecting to a prod, then that means the deletion is controversial. In that case, you need to nominate the article for deletion via AfD.

The reason Wikipedia does not let just anyone delete any article is because deletion of content is often contentious and requires input from the larger community. Who's to say that my opinion of an article should take precedence over another editor's. What if I want to delete, but that editor wants to keep. It's for this very reason that only administrators are given the tools to delete articles, files, templates, etc., etc. An administrator is given these tools by the community after going through a vetting process called WP:RFA, which ordinary editors such as you and I are not required to do. This does not mean that administrators do not ever make mistakes, but it does mean that the community trusts them to get things right more often than wrong and that they are also held accountable for their actions if they start making too many wrong decisions. Deletion should be the last resort when no other feasible options exist, which is why there is WP:G4 and WP:REFUND for dealing with recreations of deleted content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again DennisPietras. After looking at Syntelic, the article you prodded, I must admit that I don't understand your it seems that every possible step is being taken to prevent it from being deleted at all. Only one edit has been made to the article by another editor since you prodded it for deletion, and that was by David Biddulph to add an archived link. There's nothing wrong with such an edit as explained in WP:DEADREF, and it would actually be considered an improvement by most experienced editors. The fact that you see this kind of edit as a problem actually is a good example of why the community has decided to leave the deletion of content up to administrators. David's edit might be only a minor improvement that is not enough to save the article so to speak, but he didn't remove the prod tag even though he could've if he really felt the article should not be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DennisPietras. I have to agree that there are lots of stub articles that lead one to wonder "why bother". One extra point that I can't see among the comments above is that notability relates to the subject, not to the article. So if the topic of Syntelic is notable, even though the article is currently just a stub, then the article should stay so it can be improved. If the topic is not notable, then no matter how big or well-written the article is, it should be deleted. Of course there is an indeterminate area where the article does not cite the sources, and we just don't know whether they exist or not. This particular article is way outside my area of expertise and I can't comment on how significant the concept is. A quick Google search finds plenty of hits, including two articles in Nature, so if I was a gambler I would put my money on it probably being notable. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: I have added a little more material, based on some of the references I found above. Unfortunately, most of them are way too technical for me to understand, let alone summarize them in any meaningful way. Articles like this one mean nothing to me - I will pass it over to you to figure out whether it is useful or not. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments! The fact that page patrol didn't exist in the past explains to me how wp got these stubs. Yes, I know that there are primary source research papers that use the term syntelic. With sooo much to do on important articles (my frustrations are not going to stop me from editing!) I'm not going to bother to work on syntelic. I understand that there is a wide variety of expertise in wp readers. However, someone who has the expertise in cytogenetics to care about the definition of syntelic doesn't need to use wp to learn about it!!!! It was cool (to me) to find out how to resurrect links from archives, but David did that only after I had PRODed it. That page, and so many others, have simply been abandoned as stubs. Now that I've learned about the backlog of deletion requests (from other discussions) I'm not going to bother trying to get any other articles deleted, unless I find offensive articles, because there are so few administrators and so much for them to do. That's why I proposed to let autoconfirmed users do the deletions, which appears to have gotten zero traction. As to adminstratorship, I'd rather poke out both of my eyes with sticks than even try to become one if/when I qualify! My hat's off to those who willingly accept that responsibility. Thanks again for your comments! DennisPietras (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras:David probably fixed the dead link because you asked about the article at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 January 26#when/how do substandard pages get deleted?. Doesn't it seem more probable that David was simply not aware of the article prior to that discussion than that he was sitting on that dead link and he was holding off fixing it until somebody prodded the article for deletion? He even explained in that Help Desk discussion that he fixed the deadlink because you posted that There is only one reference, which is to a page that no longer exists which seemed to imply that was partly why you thought the article should be deleted. Wikipedia articles are almost never deleted because the links to sources cited no longer exist and editors shouldn't remove a citation from an article just because it can no longer be found online. Sources only have to be published: they are not required to be online.

Finally, you need to be really careful about nominating articles for deletion because you find the subject matter to be offensive. Wikipedia does not censor and what I may personally think is offensive may not be what you find offensive and vice versa. If you try to get an article deleted for just that reason alone, you should expect a strong response for others who are opposed to such a thing just on principle. This kind of rationale is another example as to why the community only allows administrators to delete articles. If autoconfirmed editors could simply delete articles based upon their personal feelings on the subject matter, there would be way fewer articles on Wikipedia than there are now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Stubs in Genetics

User:DennisPietras - I will try to offer a few comments on your frustration about stub articles in genetics, that may or may not address your frustration. First, many of our reviewers, and we don't have enough reviewers, are primarily concerned with making sure that promotional, self-serving, or truly useless crud doesn't stay in Wikipedia. Anything technical is less problematic than some of the spam that we have to delete. Second, many of the stub articles that get entered into Wikipedia daily in biology are species. It is my understanding that we think that any species is inherently notable; all that is required to accept a stub about it is a reliable source. Maybe more information will be entered about it later. I think that obscure species are at least as notable as obscure celebrities. (That, of course, means that we could get a million stubs on species. We have more than five million articles.) Third, the specific case that you mentioned had to do with an obscure technical concept. I think that a similar case can be made that obscure technical concepts should be accepted, and may be expanded later. Maybe this doesn't address your concerns or frustrations. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Thanks for your comments. It's up to the wp community as to whether they want stubs. I got frustrated mainly because I took on the task of actually rating what were 2044 completely unassessed articles in genetics. The number of small nucleolar RNA stubs I found was (and still is) amazing. But, I'm nearly done. After the experience with syntelic and the amount of time various people spent on it, the stubs can just sit there taking up memory, IMHO, regardless of how many wp policies they violate. The fact that syntelic has been deproded means the community is OK with stubs about topics that are not notable. So be it. DennisPietras (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DennisPietras – If you want to discuss with other editors, we should move this to the top. It seems that no one pays much attention to threads that have scrolled this far down. I disagree with almost everything that you say. First, the fact that syntelic has been deprodded does not mean that the community thinks it is notable. It means that one person thinks it may be notable. A deprod is not done by the community, but by one editor. If you really think that it should be deleted as non-notable, you can AFD it. Second, you say “the stubs can just sit there taking up memory”. The idea that deletion has any effect on server memory is a myth, because deleted articles are still available to be viewed by administrators. Memory is not a factor in whether to retain or delete articles. Third, you say that the community accepts stubs that are not notable. No. The community apparently disagrees with you and thinks that the stubs should be kept because the topics are notable. (At least, if you haven’t AFD’d the stubs, the community hasn’t decided that they aren’t notable.) If I understand what you are saying, I disagree with almost everything that you are saying. I think that technical stubs should be kept because the topics are notable, because valid technical topics are almost always notable. (Maybe you haven’t seen real crud that gets deleted by New Page Patrol.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon It sounds like I should be eternally gratefully to not be a participant on new page patrol! DennisPietras (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DennisPietras - If you want to discuss this with other editors, we need to move it up to the top. I disagree with almost everything that you say, both in terms of technical detail and in terms of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Biography

How do I write a biography?

I don't seem to be able to alter anything on the 'biography template' — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello FRAS and welcome to the Teahouse.

Whoa, there, you may be getting ahead of yourself. Most Teahouse hosts will recommend that you spend some time on Wikipedia getting to know the ropes before attempting the rather daunting task of writing a whole new article. In most cases, you can't just start an article in the main part of Wikipedia – it will likely be deleted because it is unfinished when you start it. It looks like this may have happened to you already.

There are two pages that we generally recommend for people getting started: WP:Your first article and Help:referencing for beginners. If you master the material in there, you'll be on your way. The Teahouse is here if you need help.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Need your help.. my article is about to be deleted..!!!

Hi, I knew Mr. 'Dajikaka Gadgil for over 10 years. he was truly inspiring one. What should I do now to avoid being looked at it as promotional material? Kindly help me.. Thank you. Gaikwadyr (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gaikwadyr: Whether you knew him was irrelevant. What you needed to do was cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not affiliated with the subject but still specifically about him. You also need to avoid saying stuff like "he was truly inspiring one" -- we're not a memorial site. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Gaikwadry and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not sure it is possible to save this particular article. Creating an entirely new biographical page on Wikipedia is fairly difficult, since there are many criteria that must be met before the article will be accepted. I took a look at the article and what stands out most about it is that is does not yet look anything like a Wikipedia article. It is not formatted like a WP article. It does not contain anything recognizable as references or citations, which means that it has not even attempted to establish that the subject of the article meets WP's notability standard.

We here at the Teahouse stand ready to help, but there are certain steps which you must accomplish on your own. We usually suggest that editors get considerable experience improving other articles before attempting to create new ones. There are just too many pitfalls that await a novice editor that lead to article deletion and editor frustration. Master the material at WP:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners and you'll begin to see some of the problems with your existing attempts so far.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you allowed to have a clock on your talk page?

So, I've noticed how some people have clocks that tell the time of their time zone and the wikipedia time. I was wondering if Wikipedia allows for users to keep these kinds of clocks on their talk page so that other users would know if they would get a quick reply from the user. NewByzantine (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, NewByzantine. It's certainly allowed. Here's what you can and cannot have on your user page (or the associated talk page): Wikipedia:User pages and here are talk page guidelines in general: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If you see a lot of users doing something that requires more than introductory knowledge and none of them are getting blocked for it, it's safe to assume it's probably allowed. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How does X work?

Your question. Anirban Pancham Vaidic (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anirban Pancham Vaidic and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please try again at asking a question. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Question asked above. Dbfirs 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've lost some pages added to my book

Hello, I'm new on WikiPedia and I don't know the way to share my problem.

I'm only collecting pages into a book to have joint the information I need. I started this action two days ago; and yesterday when I finished and saved my work the book has 72 pages and 7 chapters.

Today I've connected again to WikiPedia and I've found only 32 pages without any chapter.

Could you help me or tell me where to go to find help. Thank you very much.

Sincerelly yours,

Henry

Lhsebas (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no sign of any such problem with the book, so you may need to purge your cache, or (if needed) shutdown your browser and restart it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fast answer.

I've clean my browser cache, cookies and everything, I've change my browser; but the result is the same: only 32 pages.

When you tell me that there is no problem with my book, can you see 72 pages?

Thank you again, Henry

Lhsebas (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lhsebas: I see 9 chapters (including an empty at the end) and 72 pages in your saved book User:Lhsebas/Books/Stellar Evolution. When I click the "Book Creator" link at "Edit this book" on that page I still see all the chapters and pages. Is it possible you are working on a new unsaved book in your browser? It's possible to save many different books and work on either one of them or an unsaved book at a time. Unsaved books may vanish between browser sessions but sometimes they last. Others cannot see an unsaved book if you have one. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking at a different book? Are you looking at User:Lhsebas/Books/Stars Evolution instead of User:Lhsebas/Books/Stellar Evolution? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I overlooked that. It has 32 pages and no chapters so that must be it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Upsss... Thank you very much.

I don't know where to hide my head. What a shame!!!

I wouldn't know I had started two different books. What a rookie ;o)

Thank you.

One question please:

When I log in to Wikipedia, I don't know how to find my book. Is there an easy link to access them?

Thank you, Henry

Lhsebas (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lhsebas: One way is to click "Contributions" at the top right of any page, and then "Subpages" at the bottom. If some of your most recent edits are to the books then they already show on "Contributions". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

All in order. Now I can access easily to my books.

Thank you very much.

Lhsebas (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

my entry was deleted.

my entry, Four Primary Days, was deleted. this happened two times previously. i want to be able to post it again and it to not be removed. the reason for removing my entry was totally bogus. What can I do about this? 50.161.46.26 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

When your submission was deleted, the reason will have been given on the rejection notice. Can you recall what it said? Maproom (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was created and re-created multiple times — Four primary days (deleted twice) and Four Primary Days - Presidenial Primary Reform (sic) (deleted once) The details for the rationale behind the deletion are at User talk:DouglasRoberts1986. Basically "(A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I haven't seen the deleted articles but they seem to have been based solely on the contents and ideas at http://fourprimarydays.blogspot.com. If there is no significant coverage of this movement in entirely independent sources, I'm afraid the article doesn't stand a chance of being kept. There were some proposals to reduce the presidential primary elections to four days back in 2008. But they don't seem to have gained a lot of traction and it's unclear if they are related to the movement espoused on that 2013 blog. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi. I would like to edit the page for International Alert, the charity I work at. This was recently deleted and written from scratch but there are a number of significant details missing. The page has also been flagged and one concern is 'conflict of interest' (the author has declared having a very loose connection to International Alert). As an employee I obviously have a much closer connection to the organisation, so I'm concerned the changes I make won't be accepted and may result in the page getting deleted again (especially as it will involve some heavy editing/re-writing). I plan to keep the style very factual with plenty of external links but please can someone advise me on the best way to amend the page and get the flags removed? Many thanks.82.108.6.210 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello anon. You may request changes on the article's talk page by including {{request edit}} in your comment. Changes suggested should be precise and supported by reliable sources which should be provided so that the information can be verified. There is currently a backlog of 102 requested edits, so it may take a little while for someone to respond, but a volunteer will address your suggestions and accept, modify or decline them. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to delete an article

I am trying to delete the article for URL_(rapper) because it is simply copied from his facebook page and is otherwise unverified because every other link is broken or useless. I have tried adding tags to the beginning of the page to make it an article for deletion and the proposed deletion but they don't seem to change as desired, or am I doing something wrong. Thanks.Higthomas (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the page - you may find this policy helpful in the future -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Samtar, Before this was deleted the question that really should have been asked is, what came first, our article that was created 20 April 2010 or the facebook page where the oldest post is 3 October 2010 come first? There is a strong possibility that the article came first and it was copied to Facebook, not the other way around. - GB fan 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read that, hence why I thought it was suitable, I was just failing at the actual deleting process.Higthomas (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Saving a half-edited page.

New Editor: I want to copy-edit a page but I need to do more than one thing. First I need to do the copy-edit, then I need to put in some Wikilinks that would explain the subject a little better. How do I save a half edited page? Then, how do I find the page again to complete the edit?

Cynewulfsfadr (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cynewulfsfadr. Welcome to Wikipedia. There is a link called "contributions" at the top of every page which shows every edit you make under you user account. The page you are working on has a "history" tab at the top which lists every edit that has been made and allows you to view older versions of the page.Charles (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That was helpful Charles, thank you. I think that I am slightly overwhelmed at the scope and complexity of Wikipedia at the moment and am trying to find my way around it. At the same time I don't want to 'break' anything. (That is probably not possible but I'm sure that you understand the fear. - ooohhh, sounds like the definition of phobia doesn't it?. Thanks for the help. I'll be back! (Terminator 1).

Cynewulfsfadr (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Cynewulfsfadr:, if you are unsure about a specific edit, both the text editor and Visual Editor have a "Preview" function where you can check the effects of your edit before actually saving it. Anyway, most edits can be easily reverted - even if something goes wrong, you can usually "undo" such edits in the article's edit history. GermanJoe (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)