Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 839

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 835←Archive 837Archive 838Archive 839Archive 840Archive 841→Archive 845

How does user notification work when username is mentioned

I'm doing TWA and it says, "Notify Will that you replied by typing his name somewhere in your reply like User:WillKomen. If you're on Will's user talk page, it will notify him automatically." What does it mean to say that I have to be on Will's user talk page? chaos1618 (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Chaos1618 and welcome to the Teahouse. Because I have included your username in my reply to you, and signed it with four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~), you will receive an automatic notification that I have mentioned your name, plus a link to it within that notification. It appears as a red bell (in desktop view) or, if I remember, a red star in mobile view.- both at the top of the page. You can click that red notification link to see who and what message has been left for you. Every editor here has their own Userpage (e.g. User:Chaos1618) and an associated Talk page. It would be wrong of me to edit your Userpage - that's really for you to use. But if I were to want to contact you directly, I would find your user Talk Page tab, click it, and at User talk:Chaos1618 I'd leave a message for you there at the bottom of the page (where new messages always go). I wouldn't need to include your username in my message - but you would still receive a red notification when logged on to Wikipedia that someone had left a message there.
You can read more about the different ways notifications between editors happens by visiting Wikipedia:Notifications. BTW: Do keep persisting with The Wikipedia Adventure - there are a total of 15 badges to collect, and you are totally free to delete any or all of the welcome messages that the TWA system leaves you. (You get another one for every time you log in, so it can get a bit irritating if you do it in multiple sessions) I hope this makes at least a little sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful reply Nick! :) I went through Wikipedia:Notifications. My confusion actually arises from this use case. Let's say I participated in a talk page discussion of an article and I have NOT chosen to include that talk page in my watch list. If someone else replies to my discussion on the talk page (by leaving an indented message), but without explicitly mentioning me. Would I get a notification? For example, I've intentionally didn't link your username in this particular edit. If this page is not on your watchlist, would you get a notification that I replied to you? Sorry if my question is unclear. Look forward to your reply. And yes, I've completed TWA and don't intend to delete those badges. I've earned them! Greetings. chaos1618 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
No. If you're not mentioned you don't get notified. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you David! Indeed I didn't get a notification for your reply because you didn't mention me. chaos1618 (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey chaos1618. A notification is generated in two cases: 1) Someone adds texts that includes a link to your user page and also a new signature by typing ~~~~, or 2) someone leaves a link to your user page in an edit summary. If either of these are satisfied, it will notify you regardless of whether the page is on your watchlist. If these are not satisfied, such as someone linking to your user page but without a new signature, or if someone incorrectly attempts to link to your userpage but includes a typographical error, then it will not notify you, regardless of whether the page is on your watchlist.
The only cases that are special is your user talk page and your main user page themselves, where you will be notified every time someone makes any change regardless of what that change is. So for example, if I left a comment on your user page saying Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjpy your stay. ~~~~, you will get one notification. Then, if I go back and fix my typo to say "enjoy" instead of "enjpy", you will get a second notification because I have made some change, even though it was only fixing a typo. GMGtalk 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the detailed help, User:GreenMeansGo. May I ask what you mean by new signature? Is it different from signing with ~~~~ every time I make an edit? I'm already feeling very good with the overwhelming positive responses here :) chaos1618 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Chaos1618: New signature means that a signature must be added in the same edit as the user page is linked. It does not work if you edit an existing signed post and add a user page link without making a new signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
i.e. the time stamp of the signature needs to match with the time of edit, or else it won't work. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: The time stamp is actually ignored and doesn't even have to be present. This edit is signed with ~~~ which omits a time stamp but you should still be notified. PrimeHunter (talk)
  • Hey chaos1618. So the way that the software works, once you hit save and transform ~~~~ into [[User:Chaos1618|chaos1618]], it's no longer a "new signature". The practical implication of this is that you can't go back and add a notification to a previous comment. For example, if I forgot to notify a user like this:
Let's ask [[User:User Number One]] and [[User:User Number Three]] what they think. ~~~~
I can't go back and add the ping for User Number Two. I'd have to add a new comment with a new signature like this:
Let's ask [[User:User Number One]] and [[User:User Number Three]] what they think. [[User:GreenMeansGo|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color:#07CB4B">G</span><span style="color:#449351">M</span><span style="color:#35683d">G</span></span>]][[User talk:GreenMeansGo#top|<sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk</sup>]]
 :Oops. I forgot to ping [[User:User Number Two]]. ~~~~
Hopefully that makes sense. GMGtalk 14:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement of what an article should be called

Hi. I recently moved an article (Chequers Agreement), from it's official long title ("The future relationship ..."), to simply "Chequers plan". Recently, another user moved it to "Chequers Agreement". I think "plan" is a more appropriate than "agreement" of several reasons (more common name, part of ongoing negotiations, etc.), but don't know how I should go about it. Also, the user who moved it is much more experienced than me.

I am considering just moving it back, and notify said user, as per WP:BOLD, but think it might be too aggressive, since he also used BOLD to move it. I can also make a move request, but don't knowhow to do that, or what the procedure it, or how much I will set in motion. Or I can just make a talk-page-comment, saying I think the other name is better, but it might very well just be ignored.

What should I do? Heb the best (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Heb the best. The third step in the BOLD cycle, after Bold and Revert, is "Discuss". When somebody reverts an edit you make, you choices are to accept the reversion, or to open a discussion. From your description, this isn't technically a reversion, but the same applies. (Because it is not a reversion, it is within the rules for you to revert their change, but I wouldn't advise that). Open a dicussion on the talk page, and ping the other user - see if the two of you (and anybody else who chooses to participate) can reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Heb the best: You've now done the right thing by starting a discussion at Talk:Chequers Agreement. Thank you. I have just added my own observations on the matter there, and I agree with your plan to re-title the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to ask if Heb the best can use the consensus mechanism at this point. Thanks. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your help. Heb the best (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Page creation

How to post information on wikipedia so that any user can search and get benefitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vats12345 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vats12345: You appear to have found Articles for Creation. I suggest filling out the article a bit more, then submitting it again. I cannot see your deleted edits, as I am not an administrator. Do you know what article they were on and why they were deleted? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
regarding susta village.
@Vats12345: I have indented and separated your comment to add clarity. Also, please add four tildes (~~~~) after every post on a discussion page so it can be identified as you.
I have found the article Susta, is that on the topic you are looking for? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

To L293D

Regarding my comment on Creation Sandbox from 3 months ago:

I am indeed dissapointed that my comment was not accepted. Please chalk it up to my inexpearience submitting comments to Wikipedia.

Lightness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldonastring (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to talk to L293D, the place to do so is User talk:L293D. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Theworldonastring, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you have misunderstood what Wikipedia, and more specifically the draft process, is about. There is no process for submitting "comments." The draft process is for drafting Wikipedia pages, with the intent of ultimately putting them into the main Wikipedia space. If you would like to learn more about what you can do on Wikipedia, a runthrough of the Wikipedia Adventure might be helpful. Regards, JTP (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

? re editing

Hello,

Several times I've added a small amount of info via edit on the same 3 Wikipedia sites. My additions appear, then, disappear. Once, a message was sent to me saying I was banned for some reason which I don't understand because what I said was 100% accurate & benign. I may be doing the process incorrectly, i.e. not documenting.

I'd greatly appreciate if you could check into this & get back with me so I can learn how to remedy this recurring situation.

Thank you so much for your Insight & assistance.

Genia Stephenson Angelsings1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelsings1111 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Genia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking over your contributions, I see that each time you have added information, you have said in the edit summary something like "This information is 100% accurate because he is a friend of mine". Thank you for using the edit summary (many inexperienced editors do not). It easily pinpoints the problem. Because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody may edit, people can put in all sorts of information: things they know to be true, things they think are true but are mistaken, things they don't know whether are true or not, and things they know are false. On top of that, most users don't use their own names (and even if they do, we have know way usually of knowing whether they are really the person they say). To make matters worse, even if the information somebody inserts actually is correct, somebody else may come along later and change it - again, either in good faith, or maliciously.
Given all that, nothing in Wikipedia is actually reliable, unless there is a source given where somebody could look it up. (In practice, of course, 99.something % of it is actually reliable, but the problem is knowing which is the 0.something % which isn't). For this reason we require that all information in a Wikipedia article is backed up by a reliable published source: personal knowledge is not acceptable, unless supported in this way, so that a reader next week or next month or next year has a way of checking that the information is correct. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
A second point: People listed in Notable sections of place articles are included because there is a pre-existing Wikipedia article about that person - hence the name showing up in blue. Don Lasseter, albeit a well-known author, does not have a Wikipedia article about him. If such an article existed, and had references for the various places Lasseter has lived, then he could be listed as notable for those places (Fort Ord, etc.) without having to provide a reference in those articles. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. You were neither banned (blocked) nor warned - what you got was a suggestion to not do more of what you did, which was add content without referencing. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

USBG

"USBG" redirects directly to the United States Botanic Gardens. However, the United States Bartenders' Guild, a well known organization in the service industry, has the same abbreviation, but doesn't have a page. I've been wondering whether to create a disambiguation page for the "USBG" abbreviation (since there may be many more uses for it), or to merely create the page for the United States Bartenders' Guild, and have one or the other include an "if you meant etc. etc. etc., you may be looking for this" sentence at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polio18 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Polio18. Since on the face of it, the Gardens seems likely to be the more prominent of the subjects, we would probably want to create the page for the Guild, and then add Template:Redirect to the Gardens article in case someone is redirected there, but intended to go to the other article instead. We generally don't create disambiguation pages where there are only two existing pages, in the case that one is pretty clearly the more prominent of the two subjects. GMGtalk 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

how do I submit an article from my Sandbox?

My article is completed in the Sandbox with all references/citations included. I reviewed Article Wizard, but still cannot understand where and how to submit the article for review. Can you please help me with this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Django1887 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend that you do some reading of the links on your user talk page. It will aid reviewers if you make the draft comply with the Manual of Style, for example: wikify the draft, format section headings, tidy up same reference used more than once, reference punctuation, remove inappropriate capitalisation, ... After that, the first paragraph of WP:AFC tells you how to submit for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Films and their content rating

Hi, I was just wondering: why do movies' pages tend not to have any information related to content ratings? I.e. American films have the MPAA rating (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17), but for a classic movie like Jurassic Park, for example, there is nowhere on its page that has rating information (it was rated PG-13). I would think this information is important for several reasons:

One, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it makes sense to record the facts of a film's publication and effect on society - the MPAA is factually related to the release of the film since it classifies it in a specific way that is relevant to its target audience.

Second, from a financial standpoint a film's rating has a big effect because it limits (or liberates) the audience who are able to see it and thus can dramatically affect is financial gains. Since finances are a part of the business aspect of filmmaking and thus relates to its social relevance (which is a criteria for it to be on wikipedia in the first place), it might be important to consider how a rating affects a film's business.

Third, From a practical point of view, since Wikipedia results often come up first (or close) when searching movie titles online, many people might search a film's wikipedia page if they were looking for film's rating. This could be important to them for obvious reasons, i.e. if they have small children and need to know if the film's content is appropriate. But if they are unable to find the rating of a movie on the page, they might think of it as a needless omission of something pretty important. If wikipedia is THE place most people go to for information online, why should a person have to go somewhere else to find something as simple as a film's rating? It makes little sense.

Fourth, it is true that some people (professionals or not) find the rating system controversial or just plain don't like it/think films need it. But Wikipedia is not about what people's preferences are, it is supposed to simply state the facts of a topic or entity with as little bias as possible. And a film's rating - the fact that it has one or doesn't, or if it does, what it is specifically- IS a fact, it is not subject to interpretation because that it is part of the reality of its release.

So that is what I was wondering. I made the above cases because my recent experience with Wikipedia bureaucracy/formality has shown me that for the smallest issue, there is usually a BIG reason why things are done the way they are. I know that if I were to make a minor change on the Jurassic Park page and add a "rating = PG-13" in its infobox, within an hour it would probably be deleted by someone because that's "not how pages are done." But for this particular issue I can't see why there can't be a rating display on a film page. If the issue is that films are rated different things in different countries, then clarification can be made in that regard (i.e. by using a table box or something). The point is that it wouldn't be that hard, and it is still a pretty important thing to know, despite it being a 'small' thing.

Thanks.

Rush922 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rush922. I'm not apart of WikiProject Film, so I can't answer this question directly, but I believe WP:FILMRATING is what you are looking for. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your answer. That information somewhat satisfies me, but not entirely - I guess I will have to question the WikiProject Film people directly at some point! Rush922 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Common nickname

I've created a page for a sportsperson whose name has no current duplicates. It seems that publicly they have a nickname which has duplicates. What would be the approach to help visitors find this person? Should I create a redirection page for Nickname (sport)? I've brought this up on the talk page of the disambiguation page.

Thanks in advance for the guidance. - Mcstove (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mcstove, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess this is about Georgina Fisher, yes? It continually puzzles me why people asking for help here so often avoid actually telling us what article they are talking about, so that we have to go and look for it.. The answer is in COMMONNAME: all three of the sources refer to her as George, therefore that is what the article should be called: George Fisher (netball player) or similar. Moving the page will automatically leave behind a redirect from Georgina Fisher to the name. You can also add her to the disambiguation page George Fisher.
However, I want to point out that there is a problem with that article: at present, the references do not, in my opinion, establish that Fisher meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Two of them simply list her name; one has more information, but appears to be based on an interview with her, so is not independent. In particular, you have not given any source for the claim that her name is Georgina. Please review the requirements of biographies of living persons. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine Thanks for taking time to look into the post and apologies for the avoiding - I was unsure about making the problem completely specific, and assumed it would only be a second more to see my contributions. I'll review the links to notability and then see if there are appropriate sources, and look into moving after. -- Mcstove (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly non-notable minor locations in bulk on Wikipedia

Why are there so many seemingly non-notable minor locations with full Wikipedia articles, often barely cited such as this or this that I've found while using Special:Random? They appear about one in every eight articles. --9563rj (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

My speculation is that there a lot of people who are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and one of the most obvious places to start is one's own hometown. You might well be interested in learning more about your hometown for other reasons, and doing that research in support of a Wikipedia article achieves two goals. Some of these editors then move on to other things and some decide editing is harder than I they realized and go away.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
First off, they are easy to make. The structure is basically the same and the key details can be derived from data sources. If you look at the edit history of these articles, they are not created by people whose hometown it is, but by people who know how to use (semi)automated tools.
Populated places with legal status are "are typically presumed to be notable" WP:GEOLAND. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this presumption is notoriously hard to rebuke when it comes to even tiny villages. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree on both points. One common headache on copy patrol with an article about some small town that triggers a possible copyright situation. When you do the investigation you see that it is almost identical to some site that is copied from Wikipedia with the only differences being the name of the town and the various census numbers. The structure and flow and much of the text is identical.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Page rejected

Hello, I've just had a page I submitted in the artist Henry John Dobson rejected on notability grounds only to see a similar page on the same subject appear minutes later including similar links. Jamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Stuart 11 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-01T23:04:21 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jamie Stuart 11. When I compare Draft:Henry John Dobson with the new article Henry John Dobson, it is clear to me that the new article is much better than your draft. The article is written in complete sentences, is properly formatted, and has several references. Your draft lacks these features. I suggest that you read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Why my edits removed?

Hello, I made a few edits and quite shaken they were struck off. Not sure what I'd done wrong. Thank you. [1] Greenleaf CA (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not part of my question so I made it a new section. The editor who removed your edits stated that they contained content that was under copyright. Wikipedia disallows. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Greenleaf_CA

Tredwell Onderdonk edit

Hello, I don't have the time right now to do the edit, but my ancestor Bishop Onderdonk's name is Tredwell Onderdonk, not Treadwell. No 'a', if anyone can please correct the misspelling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.209.21 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. It does seem like there is some inconsistency between sources in how his middle name is spelled: [1] uses Treadwell, while [2] uses Tredwell. I realize they are probably hard to find, but are there any other sources that can point to how his middle name is actually spelled? I JethroBT drop me a line 03:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I might be of help regarding sources supporting the Tredwell spelling. The Bishop Pike Affair by Stringfellow and Towne (ISBN: 9781556353260) used the spelling in a section detailing his 1844 trial (p. 185). Other sources that used this spelling include Shattuck and Hein's The Episcopalians (ISBN: 9780898694970), p. 267); and, the American National Biography: Supplement (ISBN: 9780195222029) where his name was listed in p. 768). I found that there are fewer books that use Treadwell. - Darwin Naz (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Music artist

What does it take for a musician to be accepted on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki World Centre (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wiki World Centre. Please read the Notabilty criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Portmanteau Word

If portmanteau is a three-syllable word with three meanings, and each meaning arose vis three different and unrelated paths, how can I prove this to puddingheads who simply refuse to accept Carroll's own definition? That is, how do I demonstrate that a portmanteau is a (1) narrow table intended for use in front halls were space may be dear, (2) a potable closet for carrying coats and other long clothes, and (3) an adjective used to describe its unique relationship with (1) and (2) without arising from the origins of either of (1) or (2) so that it does not create a connection between (1) and (2) and fulfills its own meaning as (3)? If you doubt that the origins of (1) and (2) have no tangent, I refer you to the OED. Yes, I said "tangent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary beachum (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gary beachum. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. You may have better luck at the Reference desks. By the way, I can find no evidence that "portmanteau" refers to a narrow hall table. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The word is sometimes applied to a hall stand where you can hang coats. They sometimes have mirrors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

about speedy action

what is speedy action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbabu5405 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If you mean "speedy deletion", the criteria are listed at WP:CSD. The notices on User talk:Durgaprasad107 have blue wikilinks to the relevant criteria. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Are inactive Users purged?

Stats for English language state >34 million registered users, but only ~130,000 editing within past 30 days. Is there any policy for purging Users who have not edited in, say, five years? Or if no-purge is a firm policy, perhaps adding a stat counting people who have edited at least once in past year? I an saddened by the numbers showing only ~ 0.4% having edited in past 30 days. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @David notMD: For the same reasons accounts cannot be deleted even at user's request (copyright mostly), I would expect there be no "purge" either. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) ​We couldn't delete any account that has ever made an edit, because that would destroy attribution; this is a legal requirement so not something we could consider even if we wanted to. The statistics for active editors are here; in general, around 30,000 editors are active (in the sense of having made at least five edits in the past 30 days) at any given time. Bear in mind that a lot of registered accounts are either people who don't edit themselves but create an account so they can operate a watchlist of articles that interest them, or are people who don't edit English Wikipedia but are active on another Wikimedia Foundation project and have consequently had a placeholder account created under Wikipedia:Unified login, in the same way that सदस्य:David notMD exists on Hindi Wikipedia despite you never having edited there; purging inactive accounts would cause significant inconvenience to huge numbers of people. ‑ Iridescent 08:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple topics in one article

It seems EN series seems off one paragraph about chairs and another one about steel. I thought the chairs were maybe made of steel, but the care seems to be made of plastic. So those topics seem to be unrelated. I've seen other pages where a disambiguation page is used, and I've also seen "this article is about the X, for the Y, see title (Y)". When is each thing used? And how do I split a page in two while keeping the history? Pretended leer (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The article should be about the steel; someone added some unsourced spam about chairs to it last year which wasn't previously detected. I've reverted the article to its previous state. ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Pretended leer (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

sir i want to write articale on website

how to write a articale on website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durgaprasad107 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Durgaprasad107, and welcome to our Teahouse. We encourage people to write about 'Notable subjects'. But for a new editor like you, creating a completely new article is one of the hardest things to achieve here. (It took me 9 months before I dared try!) It is actually far better to learn the ways of Wikipedia by slowly making small improvements over time. A very good introduction would be to try out The Wikipedia Adventure and then to read Wikipedia:Your first article. If you want to write about a website, it will have to have already been written about, in depth, by other, totally independent, reliable sources. You can learn precisely what criteria are used to decide whether a new page is meritorious (worthy of being added to this encyclopaedia) by visiting Wikipedia:Notability (web) where the criteria are explained in full. Should you want to write about a company, the criteria we require you to met are explained at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I'm afraid that if you cannot provide sources to demonstrate a new topic meets our notability criteria, then you stand no chance of a new page being accepted. This may sound harsh, but Wikipedia is not here to help people promote favourite businesses, websites, musicians etc - we need to know that the world at large has already taken an interest in them, and we demand that references (citations) are provided to demonstrate that fact. I hope this assists you in deciding whether you stand a chance of being successful. Feel free to come back for guidance if you need it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Mongoloid Race article

The Mongoloid race article seems to be organised to promote outdated notions of racial categorisation. This is a difficult subject that causes much controversy and debate in the social science and anthropology fields. It is accepted by scientists that the concept of ‘race’ is a social construct. Forensic anthropologists sometimes attempt to determine the ‘ancestry’ of human remains in an attempt to predict how a living individual would have been assigned to a social constructed category. It is also understood that such classifications are utilised terms that are no longer considered appropriate, due to common origins with racist/pejorative terms. This Mongoloid article certainly seems to be a case of this, with unrelated images and many quotes included that omit or reverse the context in which it is used. It seems that some editors who introduced this material are banned. It seems as though the article has been written by someone who found every academic use of the word "Mongoloid" and found a reason to insert it. If you get a chance please help with this review of sources, and help find better sources. Travelmite (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse is primarily to answer questions about the functioning of Wikipedia, not of specific articles. My guess is that none of the editors who help out here have any knowledge of the topic. That said, looks like you have made several dozen edits to an article that gets more than a thousand visits a day, and has scores of people who have it on their watch list. Expect other editors to get involved. Meanwhile, kudos for your Bold efforts to improve the article by both deletions and additions. I agree that many of the images make no useful contribution to the article and should be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The article explains in its first two paragraphs that it is about a historic term, not much used today. Most of the body of the article is about its historic usage. Maproom (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Improving the European Grid Infrastructure page

Dear Wikipedia editors: I work for the European Grid Infrastructure and I noticed that this page is not up to date. Since the page was last edited, EGI has 40000 new users, has reached 1 million CPU cores, developed a Cloud Service for researchers in Europe, etc. I would like to make a few edits for factual information (no marketing I promise, I know this is not the place). However: I am aware that I have a conflict of interest and I probably cannot edit the page myself. (If I was Wikipedia, I certainly wouldn't want people to edit their own pages!!) So: what can we do? Kind regards, Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.117.237 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sara. If you can find sources to verify the information, you can leave a comment on the article's talk page, and if you include {{Request edit}} it will add it to a list of requested edits to be reviewed by volunteers. GMGtalk 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Sara, and thank you for complying with Wikipedia's policy. GMG has told you how to request edits. The article certainly needs work. It starts "European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) is a series of efforts to provide access to high-throughput computing resources". How can a series of efforts can have 40,000 users? Maproom (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Precisely!!! :) EGI is an e-Infrastructure (that sentence is a relic from the time EGI was indeed a series of projects. I will follow the suggestion and add a section on requested edits. Thank you for your support! Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.117.237 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Where do I add the Request for edits thingy? The page itself? Or on the discussion page? (Srry for the stupid question) and how do I sign? Thanks, Sara

See Wikipedia:Edit requests for details on the process and how to use it. Signing is as simple as typing ~~~~ which will automatically be converted to your username / IP and date/time. While you are at it, consider creating an account which will hide your IP address and allow you to track all your edits as well as plenty of other things. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is at Talk:European_Grid_Infrastructure -- Mcstove (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you all! Sara 145.100.117.237 (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find art pages that need improving

Wright of Derby, The Orrery

I am a fine art student from Wolverhapton University and am interested in improving some art pages. I am particularly interested in artists from the North of Englan. Could anyone recommend any pages to get me started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albrighton Titon (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Albrighton Titon and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your willingness to help improve Wikipedia. I think the Arts WikiProject might be a good place to start. Others may have better suggestions. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ThanksAlbrighton Titon (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Albrighton Titon, and, likewise, welcome to the Teahouse. Are you also aware of the 'GLAM project'? It stands for Galleries, Libraries Archives and Museums, and if you click that link you'll see the worldwide homepage for projects trying to encourage collaboration between Wikipedia and Museums etc. So one good place to start would be to look at the UK section of that project, and then maybe the Wolverhampton Art Gallery page here. I'd then suggest contacting one of the art staff at the museum directly to see if they have resources or local artists they'd like to work with you on to improve. Give them a ring and make an appointment for a 10 minute chat. Museums love volunteers, and this could lead to some valuable CV experience for you working with them, perhaps. Local museums are bound to have books and resources that are not easily found elsewhere which can be used as references sources here, and most staff are delighted to provide information on their collections that others might be able to mobilise for them (though sadly this rarely extends to images of their collections). You may encounter the odd curator who's a bit suspicious of Wikipedia, but nowadays museums recognise the need to publicise/promote awareness of their cultural holdings but rarely have enough resources to do it themselves. Of course, you could approach any other museum in the North of England that you're interested in and enquire of their staff. I used to work at Derby Museum and Art Gallery, albeit in natural sciences, but what got me involved in Wikipedia was when one long-standing editor (Victuallers) approached us to work with Wikipedia. Nobody else was very keen, but I was, so a project ensued that put QRpedia codes on museum objects on display and launched an international project to improve a range of pages about notable people and artists relevant to our city, specifically across multiple languages. Now, I'm not suggesting you go that far (LOL!) - but the opportunities are almost endless. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions here, or if you would like any general support or ideas from from me personally, I'm happy to guide you via my Talk Page, should you so wish. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, that's a great idea. I might actually be swinging by the museum tomorrow or the day after so I will phone ahead and see what they are saying. I'll let you know how I get on. Albrighton Titon (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

1) The photograph of my great grandfather Kumokun Haastrup was deleted for copyright reasons. I don't understand. The photograph is by an unknown photographer taken in Nigeria latest 1920 (he was in his late 70s in 1896). I requested an undeletion a couple of weeks ago. This has not been effected and I can no longer find the thread. (I must admit, I do not find navigating this site straightforward).'DesoHaa (talk)

2) I submitted a series of photographs from family archives, again by unknown photographers, to support an article on Adedokun Abiodun James Haastrup which was declined for not demonstrating sufficient eminence of the subject. The photographs of aforementioned with various eminent personalities such as Emperor Haile Selassie, met during his work as one of the first 12 ambassadors of Nigeria were submitted to address the Wiki editor's concerns. These family held photographs have been published by Heinemann Books in the Biography of subject with no reference to authorship as there is no record of such. Heinemann are reputable publishers therefore I am certain that all due diligence was done.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

'DesoHaa: thank you for trying to contribute these images. It ought to be possible.
Navigating this site can indeed be difficult. Part of the problem is that English-language Wikipedia (here) is a different site from Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded the images. So people here can't really help with your problems. That's unfortunate, because in my experience people here are more helpful and friendly to new users than those at the Commons Helpdesk. I see that there are some messages for you at your talk page at Commons. I hope you will persist, and explain to the people at Commons that any photograph taken before 1923 is ought of copyright, and that Haile Selassie was a notable person. However, an image taken from a book published after 1923 will still be restricted by copyright. Maproom (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like User:Yann did end up undeleting File:Kúmókụn - Ajimoko I.jpg. Maybe they can give insight into whether the other images can be similarly restored. GMGtalk 14:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction. I finally worked out how to re-post the photograph. Hopefully on the right track to sorting out the issues with the others. Your Help has been invaluable and I very much appreciate it. You're all doing such wonderful work.'DesoHaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No subject

Is it possible to use STiki on mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfield1122 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Approved for database access at Wikipedia Library, but no access months later

Hi,

I applied for access to databases at Wikipedia Library earlier this summer. I have been sent user ids and passwords to all but Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis. I cannot find where to ask for help with this or ask a question on the Wikipedia Library site. Can you point me in the right direction or assist me with thiis issue? thx MauraWen (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@MauraWen: You can check your applications on your library card user page. From there you can access your individual applications and leave a comment for the reviewing coordinator. Alternatively you can go to the page of the resource in question from the overview where you will find the name of the coordinator for this resource as well as a way to contact them. Regards SoWhy 17:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting page published

I was wondering how I can get my page reviewed/published and wondering if any editors could help me! I'm new to Wikipedia! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs) 12:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Martinmoorejr: Hello and Welcome to Teahouse! If you have created that page under Articles for creation, you can submit it for review by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. If you have created the article in namespace and published changes, the article has been created already! However, a new page patroller/reviewer will review that article, which may happen any time. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's views on autobiography are at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for sock. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A to edit or present information on a major discovery in the art world

To Wiki We want to know how to best bring this to the attention of your readers.

A major revelation has been discovered in the content of a Caravaggio work that will affect the presentation of the painting “Saint Matthew and the Angel”.

We have documentation and incontrovertible provenance on the details and color scheme of that painting. The painting as portrayed since its loss in 1945 is now notably inaccurate; Both in color and a small but very significant detail.

We feel that simply editing the current primary page on Wiki about the painting will not alert the art world to this change. We would like to request guidance on best to make this know on your site. A major worldwide press release is being organized. We would like to be sure Wiki has the first level of notification. What is the best approach to accomplish this?

We again wish to emphasize that this is a huge, new revelation to the art community, worldwide. Thank you B Baron your page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthew_and_the_Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by BARRY BARON (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi BARRY BARON! Wikipedia, at its core, is a reflection of things that have already been published elsewhere, in reliable sources. Wikipedia is never supposed to be first with something. Our entire quality control systems depends on this. The best way to get something accepted in a Wikipedia article is to get reputable publications covering the art world to publish it, then using them as sources here. /Julle (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Explain "The Signpost" please!

Just in wonderment: Exactly what is "The Signpost" , how often is it published, how is it edited, and is I have something to contribute how do I go about doing it? All responses welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

See the big set of links at the bottom of the page for details. The explanation of what the Signpost is is here, and the instructions for new contributors are here. ‑ Iridescent 17:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Just noticing, why is their so many vacant places in the staff? Lack if interest perhaps?

This isn't a response to this question so much as your initial question, but if you want to come over and help with the top 25 report feel free! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Single vs. Other Charted Songs

On artist discography pages what are the criteria for something that goes under “singles” and something to go under “other charted songs” and how do I tell whether or not something was released as a single?

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CAMERAwMUSTACHE. The basic answer, like every such question, is "if you can find a reliable source which says that it was released as a single, then you can list it as a single". If you can't - even if you happen to know it was so released - then a Wikipedia article should not say that.
I'm aware that your case might be a bit more complicated than this, and suggest you ask at WT:WikiProject Discographies. --ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking for a Wiki Writer

Hi there!

I am new to Wikipedia but wish to post an article about the nonprofit organization I work with - Overcoming Multiple Sclerosis. I think retaining someone to do this would be more objective and present a balanced view of the organization. Plus, an experienced Wiki contributor would be well acquainted with the formatting and footnoting requirements. Is this a commonly accepted practice? Can someone point me in the right direction or refer me to people who can perform this service?

Best,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextwersky (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alextwersky: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We cannot recommend someone you can hire to write for you; that's outside of our purview. Please review the paid editing policy. It is certainly possible for you to hire someone, but anyone you hire cannot guarantee any particular result for you, such as writing an article that will not be deleted. On occasion, people who claim to offer such a service just take your money and don't do what they claim. They also need to comply with the paid editing policy(a Terms of Use requirement) or they will be blocked. If you want to take the risk, that is your decision and we cannot prevent it, but few people here would advise you to do it.
You are correct to recognize that you shouldn't write about your nonprofit. That would be a conflict of interest. However, your nonprofit does not necessarily merit an article here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not merely a forum to tell about an organization. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage state about a subject, indicating how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. (in this case, it is defined at WP:ORG) Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good causes.
You can make a request at Requested Articles for volunteer editors to write about it, though it is severely backlogged and it may be some time, if ever, before it is written. Your best bet is to continue what you do at your organization and hope that an editor takes note of the organization and writes about it. That would be a very good indication that your organization merits an article, more than if you or someone you hired wrote one. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I also recommend that you review WP:COI and WP:PAID yourself. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alextwersky: There's a lot of guideline and policy info to read to stay on the right side of things, but your best bet is to first see this section: WP:ORGCRIT. My personal take after participating in dozens of deletion discussions and also looking up sourcing for your organization is that there isn't enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Because of this, even if you requested the article at Requested Articles, as mentioned above, I don't think your request would be successful. I wanted to save you the time and disappointment. If your organization grows and gets significant media coverage, as 331dot points out, you can then request the article and see what happens. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Struggling to figure out what is happening

I'm new to Wikipedia and want to start creating and maintaining updates to articles of photographers and filmmakers of notable importance. I'm part of a few groups off Wikipedia who find the lack of documentation of MANY photographers such as Chase Jarvis, Martin Moore, Brandon Woelfel and others on Wikipedia concerning, but as I start to edit articles I have a gang of people trying to undermine additions throwing accusations of COI. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, you could start by not making obviously nonsensical claims such as that User:Martinmoorejr doesn't have a COI on the topic of Martin Moore Jr. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Blocked as confirmed sock. David notMD (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Request..

Dare,

I am writing to you to request that, please create the Wikipedia of Syed Nadeem Raza Sarwar ( Noha Writer,reciter). He is he most popular Noha Khawan among all muslims either shia or sunni not only in Pakistan but internationally also.If you want more information regarding Nadeem Sarwer i will be always available.. Thank You,

Regards

Muhammad Junaid Sherazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaid Sherazi 110 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have started a draft at User:Junaid Sherazi 110/sandbox. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the notability criteria at WP:BIO. If you reformat the draft in accordance with the Manual of Style, and more importantly add references to demonstrate the subject's notability you could then submit the draft for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspect in vandalizing

Hi! I tried to do some corrections into World of Warships page, but unfortunately it didn't happen, as my edits were identified as "vandalizing". First of all, I'd like to object as I just provided some actual infos into the outdated article. Seconds, please give me a hint how to avoid such situations in the future.

Best regards, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holycalf (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Holycalf: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was not identified as vandalism- but it was reverted because it removed information from the template during your effort to add something, and also cited a blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. I think that the warning you were given was a bit harsh- but they were correct to remove your edit. If you disagree with it, you should post on the article talk page explaining what you were trying to do and get input from other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what should be done. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The parameters which you were trying to use do not exist in Template:Infobox video game, so the material you tried to add wasn't being displayed (as you'd have seen if you used the "Preview" button). Your edit was obviously in good faith so the warning you received should not have described it as vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_839&oldid=862858480"