Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 937

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 930←Archive 935Archive 936Archive 937Archive 938Archive 939Archive 940

Land-Grant Colleges

I hope that someone can read "College Community, and Librarianship: Women-Librarians at the Western landgrant Colleges" in the book Reclaiming The American Library Past: Writing the Women In, edited by Suzanne Hildenbrand (see pp: 221-249) and then add to the Wikipedia page about land-grant colleges to say how there is a great deal of cross influence between these colleges and American librarianship at a time when many women entered the field of library science.

refer to Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Land-Grant_Acts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.240.116 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for coming over with your suggestion. You know, I think you'd be better off placing that comment on the talk page of the article itself so that someone with an interest in the topic might pick up on it. Over here at the Teahouse we're more about helping with the practicalities of editing, rather than researching changes to individual articles. That said, I do happen to know one particular editor who might be very interested in your suggestion, so I'm going to ping Megalibrarygirl, as I think this could be right up her street. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes! I'll take a look and see if I have access to the book. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

On a new article, should I make lots of small edits, or few large edits?

Im working on the TI-BASIC 83 (Z80) article and I spend most of my time editing while in school. This means that I only have time to formulate a couple sentences before having to leave. I would understand if it were better to make few large edits so I don't clog the history.

So, is it better to make many small edits or fewer large edits?

VeryGoodDog (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @VeryGoodDog: I do not think there is a policy set in stone for this, but it is generally best to make lots of small edits, provided that each edit can stand on its own. There are a couple of reasons for that. On the technical side, you have a lower risk of losing a lot of text due to computer/network failure and a lower risk of getting an edit conflict with another editor. On the "logic" side, it makes it easier for other contributors to identify single-purpose edits in order to link to them or revert them without having to touch one gigantic edit. See also "commit early, commit often" (a computer science adage, but I feel it applies).
BTW, I would advise against editing during classes, but I am not your mom. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I would concur with Tigraan; I would say though that if you wanted to do it all at once you could make edits gradually in your personal Sandbox and then copy and paste them into the relevant article all at once. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tigraan: Thanks! I will keep this in mind. In my defense, while I was typing my teacher had told us to "just chill" and right now I'm at lunch. :P - VeryGoodDog 15:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving my first article into publication

I have decided to build Wikipedia's entries on notable keynote speakers and subject matter experts. I have edited a number of entries successfully but do not know how to move my first new subject entry into publication from it's draft Draft:Mark_Bowden_(body_language_expert). Please, could I get some advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keynotespeakers (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Keynotespeakers (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Article declined

Hi There,

I recently posted a bio on career coach and author Adele Scheele, which was declined. I was told I needed citations and reliable sources. Does this mean I just need footnotes and references to her books, quotes and career endeavors? Thank you in advance for your help! - Suzy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzarella90210 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Suzarella90210: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What you need are independent reliable sources that support the content of the article. Wikipedia articles are not just for telling the world about someone, they summarize what independent reliable sources state about them with indepth coverage and indicate how they are notable as defined by Wikipedia(for people, that is defined at WP:BIO). If you don't have such sources, the person would not merit an article at this time. As you have found, successfully creating an article is difficult. If you haven't already, you should read Your First Article and maybe also use the new user tutorial to better understand the process. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Bi-lingual contributors/contributions

Hello et bonjour!

I am bi-lingual (English/French) and I find that a lot of information in the English or French version of an entry does not get translated at all in the French or English version. That is understandable, of course. But it would be much easier for people like me -- bi-lingual -- to contribute to BOTH entires in English and French if I didn't have to log OFF the English site to go to the French site.

Does this make sense?

Is there anyway to program the site so that I might be able to move from English to French and vice versa without logging off and logging on in the other language?

Or maybe I am missing something altogether and there already is a fix for this.

Thanks for your help.

Bicjic (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Bonsoir @Bicjic:, and welcome to the Teahouse! You should not have to log out - you can use unified login, provided the French user called Bicjic is also you. If you click on this link, your accounts should be automatically unified, if they are not already. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


GENIAL, et merci pour la reponse super vite.

I will merge the accounts. Very helpful!

Bicjic (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to The Wikipedia Adventure is irresponsive

In response to the comment sent to my talk page, I'm open to the 30mins interview as a potential member of Objective Review Evaluation Source (ORES) and I'm in consonance with the use of algorithms and AI to improve Wikipedia, curbing vandalism, newcomers protectionil etc

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.: To respond and to offer to take part in the ORES interview, you will need to reply directly to Bowen on your userpage. Just make sure you include his username and that you sign your reply at the same time with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) when you publish your response. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting a Page Edited Without Knowing Wiki's Code Language

Hi,

My question is this: I am not savvy enough to learn the language necessary to edit Wiki pages. Is there any way to work around this problem if I see a page has inaccurate information? Is there anyone out there - whether from Wikipedia itself or elsewhere - to whom I could submit/report the inaccuracies and/or offer suggested edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1304:452:3986:3D09:8B53:ADBE (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. First, create an account and then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor to enable the Visual Editor. --Jayron32 17:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, rather than trying to edit the article, you can post your concern on the article's talk page (every article has one, though in some cases it hasn't been created yet: you can still create it). But that will still require you to do some editing, though. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, when you find a mistake, correct it! That is what I do. Discussing changes to an article on the article's talk page may or may not get the attention of other editors. If no one responds in a reasonable amount of time, then go ahead and make the corrections yourself. Please don't add content to the article unless you have sources to back up the content. I am still learning the wikicoding myself after years of editing. Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 21:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Linking to other language article

Can you explain or describe on how to link other Wikipedia language article link with English Wikipedia ? Like for example, if there is an article in French Wikipedia of a particular person, how do we link it with English wikipedia for that article, which does not exist in English Wikipedia ? It is something like "ARTICLE (FR)" BookWorm767 (talk) 3:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Try Template:Interlanguage link. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Upload Question: Two documents that are from 1860's

Hi My name is Kirstyn and I wanted to know if I can upload two documents to the Benjamin Bradley article. I am working on editing it. I was e-mailed two documetns from an archivist at the Naval Academy which are 1) 1900 U.S.Census form with Benajmin's info and the other is a 1865 newspaper clipping from he "African Respository" which shares some interesting info on what he was achievng at the Naval Academy. Can I upload these ,or will there be a licensing or copyright conflict? Or a diffrerent conflict that I am unaware of? Thank youKaprager (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Kaprager

Hi Kirsyn and thanks for your question. How did you want to upload the the image files? The can be uploaded to to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and if you it that way, you will also be making these images available to the other language Wikipedias. Have you ever uploaded image files before? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 21:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there ,thnk you for your response. I am not sure I asked the question correctly, I wanted to make sure that by downloading the 1900 U.S. Census and newspaper clipping from 1865 would be safe with regards to copyright licensing? Thank you, Kaprager (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)kaprager

Infoboxes

Hi! I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, and I've got a question about infoboxes.

How do you orient them on a page? For example, on this article, I want to orient the infoboxes so that the article is more visually pleasing (scroll to bottom to see them).

–Adamilo (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adamilo, welcome to the Teahouse. What do you want to change? Wikipedia positions infoboxes floating to the right. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, in the "Notable recordings" section of Body and Soul (1930 song) I'd like to make the infoboxes smaller if possible so that they align with the information about them. –Adamilo (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Infoboxes are hard to alter since their present form has been endorsed by a large group of editors and can't be changed easily. The infobox template is what needs to be changed and it's doubtful that you will ever get a large group of editors to go along with that. I like your sense of design. I don't like all the templates on Wikipedia and I can't do a thing about it. I have created a number of plain vanilla templates myself and one of them exists on thousands of talk pages-I can't even alter that because other editors also work on it. Thank you for your Teahouse question. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Font

I did something to the front on Wikipedia and now it say it’s in a different font how do I change it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ps it sems to be in San Francisco font and also does not show up on any other websites nor does it show up on my computer only my mobil device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

On Special:Preferences you can pick a "skin", that could change the font, but I doubt that San Francisco has anything to do with your preferences. If you're using Windows as Operating System try a reboot with the "last known good" configuration, or figure out what you (or somebody else using the same box) did and undo it. –84.46.53.95 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

de:Josephine Saxton

Hi. The subject of the article above has no English-language entry on Wikipedia, so it seems to me the most efficient way to provide one would be to translate the German-language article, while retaining its (excellent) structure. Would that consitute a breach of the German author's copyright?

Thanks.

gyms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyms (talk • contribs) 10:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You'll frind translation advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You might want to WP:PING the person who is interested in answer: @Gyms:. --CiaPan (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
When folks on dewiki translate enwiki texts to German, they often use some convoluted Special:Import process to get the complete enwiki edit history (for the credits) before they start the translation. I'm not aware of a similar procedure here, but Special:Import and Help:Transwiki exist.
Alternatively there's some talk page "translation" template to get an interwiki permalink to the original version in the talk page header, but I forgot where I saw that, sorry. –84.46.53.95 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEB

WP:WEB can be tricky, if a source is IN (=used on various pages) it might pass as RS, if it's OUT (not used) it generally fails as RS, a chicken or the egg issue. If a website exists for years, is "noted" by reliable independent 3rd party sources, but not (yet) used, how can the notability be checked here? I'm aware of w:de:Relevanzcheck, but w:de:Relevance is not exactly the same idea as w:en:Notability. Two cases I'm currently interested in:
The HYpocriteDEsign magazine looks good for me, it's used as source outside of enwiki (~7 pages on google:Hypocritedesign), two uses on enwiki, not counting Talk:Hypocrite (disambiguation)#HyocriteDesign.
Harder, Sara Doucette has a website hellothemushroom.com, noted by some 3rd parties,[1][2][3][4] and one of her irregular book reviews was quoted by Amazon in an "editorial review" (NOT customer review). I'm not hot about this source, I added it, somebody else removed it after discussing the issue, fine. But I'm still curious if her site actually is notable and unreliable simultaneously, so far I thought that this is a stunt for The Sun, The Examiner, Breitbart, CNET, or similar crap, not mostly harmless living persons. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The archive bot moved that to 930, but I'm actually still waiting for an answer or a better suggestion, maybe WP:RS/N? –84.46.52.44 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@84.46.52.44: To be honest with you, I don't entirely understand what you're asking. Based on your post to the Hypocrite talk page, I think what you're trying to ask is whether a source can be reliable while not also having a Wikipedia article about that source? If so, that's true - a site can be reliable but not necessarily be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, as notability and reliability are two different concepts. And as you've noted website can be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article and not reliable enough to use as a citation on Wikipedia. Are you trying to create an article for HelloTheMushroom? SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I tried to use a book review published by her on the The Mismade Girl redirect target. What I don't get is how a site so far not used as source on enwiki can be recognized as RS. It this like the Internet in the 90s, if you're IN you're IN, and otherwise you can't get IN? Is the only way to get IN some guerilla tactics, use a site here and there as source, and if nobody intervenes decree that it is "obviously" a RS, because it's then used as source on some pages? –84.46.52.195 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@84.46.52.195:I wanted to chime in to hopefully give you some clarity on the matter. I think your confusion rests mostly on this one statement: "WP:WEB can be tricky, if a source is IN (=used on various pages) it might pass as RS," This is false. A source's use in other Wikipedia articles is 100% unrelated to whether it is a reliable source or not. There have even been times when sources were widely used throughout Wikipedia, were declared unreliable after discussion, and then were blacklisted and removed from all instances. A source's reliability depends on how accurate it is, and you can refer to the policy (which you've already linked to) to find out what what constitutes a reliable source. Additionally, as another editor already explained, the policy WP:WEB has nothing to do with reliable sources. It is discusses whether a website is important enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. Notability guidelines differ a little from one kind of article to the next, but a subject can usually get it's own article if it's been widely talked about, written about, referenced, discussed from MAJOR third-party sources. I looked at your edits on the Sasha Grey article you mentioned, and you added a reference from Vice.com, and it's still there. I'm not sure why you said you "tried" to use a book review. Did you previously try to add a reference from a source that's been blacklisted, but couldn't save the edits? If that's the case, the site has been blacklisted after the community discovered the source is not reliable, and this is only done with particularly egregious sites.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll ignore WP:WEB+notability for my two RS questions: Hellothemushroom.com was the source added + later removed as not RS (after discussion) for her book review. I haven't tried hypocritedesign.com so far; both sites are unknown in the RS/N archives. –84.46.53.186 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Plan B: Trial and error. –84.46.53.95 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

lack of event notability based on independent coverage by reliable sources

The page I am working on is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:National_Stand_Down_to_Prevent_Falls_in_Construction, and I work with the Visual Editor.

While the draft does need some modification, I am reluctant to proceed with edits if the proposed article will still just be deleted for lack of notability. Is part of the problem that the references are from OSHA (the sponsoring organization) and the numerous partnering organizations instead of news stories? First, I would argue that government websites are reliable sources of information. If OSHA, CDC/NIOSH, the National Safety Council, the US Navy, the American Society of Safety Professionals, the National Association of Home Builders, and the National Roofing Contractors Association are considered unreliable sources, I am curious to learn what is considered acceptable.

Second, while this topic may not be as popular as the Kardashians, this safety awareness campaign is important and notable, as shown by the safety publication references and the number of people participating. In fact, I think that this topic would fit nicely under the Occupational Safety and Health WikiProject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Occupational_Safety_and_Health.

How is it best to proceed? Is it worth forging ahead or is it better to condense it to a section on the Construction Industry Page? UCIHGrad18 (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Review my first created business page

Hi! I'm AIESEC volunteer. Daily I edit on Wikipedia profiles, and I want to start to create really needed business pages or biography, to ensure our community with outstanding and reliable information, this is why I'm here as an editor. Guys, please review my first business page. I'm not sure that is created correctly. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Global_Data_Intelligence_Limited. Please do not delete, only say me what I can change to have a final version. My goal is to create a minimum of 100 pages, starting with wanted articles. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Marylyn Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymemore (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Trymemore. I think your article looks pretty good for a first attempt, but I don't think it cites enough sources to meet our Notability criteria for companies, WP:NCORP. It won't be deleted as it's still a draft, but you'd usually want to have at least three reliable secondary sources (like big news sites, books by a well known author or some other well edited source), independent of the company (not press releases, usually not interviews), that give the company a significant mention (a paragraph or so each will do. If there are only a few sentences, you might be able to get away with combining many more sources, but it's difficult). If you've looked at the criteria and think you pass them, you can get someone familiar with the standards to review them by putting {{subst:submit}} at the start of your article, though there are many submissions so this does take a while. Thanks for your contributions, and good luck on getting them published! Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Alpha3031 for your answer, support, and advice! I will try to find some valuable secondary sources. It's so hard to create business pages but is very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymemore (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Trymemore, and welcome. It's great that you want to help improve Wikipedia's coverage. I'd just like to pick up on a few words you used above, and suggest that you think about things a little differently, to be better in line with what Wikipedia is. First, note that Wikipedia does not contain profiles. Not one. What it contains is articles about notable subjects - people, organisations, other things. These are different from profiles in that they don't necessarily tell you what the subject wants said about themselves, but what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. Similarly, I think it would help if you use the phrase "articles about businesses" rather than "business pages". Finally, I suggest you look at that word "needed": who is it that needs the article? If it is the subject (the person or the business) that you think "needs" the article, then I would say that Wikipedia doesn't care in the least. The only needs that are relevant are Wikipedia's needs - which are that articles be well referenced from independent sources, and neutrally written. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2019(UTC)

Thank you a lot for your suggestion, ColinFine!

Username Change

Do you still get notifications under your old username if you request a username change? –Adamilo (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adamilo: What a good question! . I really don't know the answer, but shall we find out?
Just reply with a ping to my old username, Parkywiki, (by including this text: {{re|Parkywiki}} and I'll let you know if I get an alert. (Don't include the 'nowiki' commands if these are visible to you - they're just to help me display the correct text here) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Parkywiki: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamilo (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adamilo:That ping won't have worked, as you forgot to sign it. Let's try this: @Parkywiki: --David Biddulph (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adamilo and David Biddulph: No notification received from David's mention of my old username, so it looks like the answer is 'No'. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

SSBFWU123

So... when do I start from here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSBFWU123 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SSBFWU123. When do you start what? I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. If you want to get started as a Wikipedia editor, I would suggest The Wikipedia Adventure. I've put some other links on your User Talk page. (I don't know what the message on your user and talk pages is about, but I don't need to know, if you're stopping whatever it was) --ColinFine (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Why cant I update my hospital statistics?

Why cant I update my hospital statistics?

Saidu Teaching Hospital

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heiwhsoanwk (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Heiwhsoanwk, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have successfully updated your hospital statistics. One of your earlier edits was reverted because the website link was in the wrong place. The article needs some references from WP:Reliable sources. Are you able to find publications that have written about the hospital? What is your connection with the hospital? Dbfirs 07:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

M intern at saidu teaching hospital I would like to either save the statistics or revert back to the old statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heiwhsoanwk (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As an employee, you have a WP:Conflict of interest, and WP:Paidstatus which needs to be declared, but for basic statistics this should not be a problem. You have already made several changes to the number of beds. What is the correct number. Are there other statistics that need changing? Dbfirs 08:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Please help me improve my draft submission on Jem Bendell

Hello, I have submitted a draft article, which was reviewed on March 15 (status: Submission declined).

I have corrected the article extensively since, following recommendations from the review, also sought advice from the Teahouse forum, since archived.

The article has since been left in a draft state. Do I need to mark it ready for another review in some way, or will this happen by itself in time please?

Ndaniau (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Matslats resubmitted it on 20 March. The brown box at the foot of the draft confirms that it is awaiting review, and says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2768 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation create account

How can I create an account on the Wikimedia Foundation Governence Wiki? Harold Hutchins (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Harold Hutchins You'd have to ask them- but in looking at that Wiki it appears only users who have had accounts created for them(or are otherwise granted access) are allowed access. This is because that wiki is only meant to share governance materials to the public, it is not meant for the general public to edit. If you need to contact it for some reason, this page describes how. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Unreasonable reverts

On 7 April 2019, i did two edits here Special:diff/891304352 and here Special:diff/891305604. Firstly, i will be justifying my edits.

The first one is intended to correct the english that is provided in the Gameplay section of the article. In the game, Aiden Pearce is a hacker who uses his smartphone to steal the money from others bank. But in the article, it was written that he empties others bank using his phone. Stealth is a different thing and emptying is different. He doesn't withdraws and throws the money out of the bank account, he steals it so the proposed form of english can be seen as far more appropriate. And about the second i want to say that "solving of puzzles" can mean really different things at the same time but if we explain it furthur as i have done in my second edit, then the readers can get more aware of what the game actually asks you to do and maintains WP:NPOV.

Now coming onto the main topic, an user named Cognissonance reverted both of my edits here Special:diff/891324688 and in the edit summary said "Mediocre". I'm not as much intelligent as these guys so i don't understand the reason behind my edits being rejected. And in fact, there is no reason to reject my edit (because there is no provision for reverting constructive minor edits). Can someone please tell him that Wikipedia is not the place for taking out your frustation. From a universal servant Levent Heitmeier (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Levent Heitmeier. Please read WP:BRD. This is how Wikipedia works. You made some edits that you thought were improvements. Cognissonance thought they weren't, and undid them. Your next step is either to let it go, or to engage with that editor (either on the articles' talk pages, or on their user talk page) to try to reach consensus, not to appeal over that editor's head for somebody to "tell him" anything. Your opinion is of no greater weight - and no lesser weight - than any other editor. --ColinFine (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
JFTR, WP:BRD is an essay with its own #What_BRD_is_not section, and many folks supporting BRD miss the fine print: The B requires references in reliable sources, and the R requires an absence of references in reliable sources, anything else could be considered as vandalism, if there's no simultaneous D attempt. Lots of R without D removing good references is the worst side-effect of BRD. –84.46.53.95 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In this specific case what happened was BRC, as in an edit, a revert, and the person who did the edit came over here to Teahouse to complain. ColinFine's admonishment was valid. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
While having more Wikipedia experience is not a guarantee that an editor's edit is correct, be aware that Cognissonance has made more than 8,000 edits, including raising many video game articles to Good Article status. You can disagree with other editors, but a statement like "Can someone please tell him that Wikipedia is not the place for taking out your frustation." is not appropriate, in that it attacks the editor, not the edit. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert

I have given a draft to rereview it, when will i get the revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krutika Samnani (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are asking how long it might take for your updated draft to be reviewed, the answer is in the brown box at the foot of the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than two months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2791 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Krutika Samnani. Draft:Crave Eatables has already been declined twice by Articles for Creation volunteers, and rightly so, because the article does not include sufficient independent secondary sources to demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's notability standards for companies. These sources generally include things like magazines, newspapers and books, and exclude things like press releases, official websites, and routine corporate listings. If these types of sources are not included, then the draft will not be accepted regardless of when, or how many times it is submitted for review. For more information on referencing, see guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. GMGtalk 12:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please can you help to review my proposed edits on the talk page of Talk:Dona Bertarelli and fr:Discussion:Yann Guichard

Hello dear Wikipedians,

I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to update the pages of Dona Bertarelli and Yann Guichard, who I am employed by (see my talk page).

It's been some time since I posted on the Talk page of Dona Bertarelli's profile, October 2018, and I've contacted previous editors but the page has not been updated with any of the proposed factual corrections or additional information. I posted on the Talk page of Yann Guichard's profile in February 2019, so I'm guessing it's normal that it's not yet been updated.

I have provided sources within Wikipedia as well as in national or international media for each point.

Whom should I contact or how can I get help to get Dona Bertarelli's profile page updated?

Thanks so much for your help and advice! MiaNorcaro (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi MiaNorcaro I'm not sure there's much that anyone can do for you with respect to the article on French Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has it's own policies and guidelines; so, you're probably going to need to ask for help on French Wikipedia about the Guichard article. Try asking at fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux.
As for the English Wikipedia article, there's not much more you can do than following WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. You've already done Step 1, so you just need to be patient and wait until someone responds. You can add the Template:Request edit to your post at Talk:Dona Bertarelli to better let others know about your request, but it still might take a bit of time for someone to respond. If after a few days or so nobody still hasn't responded to your request, try Step 2 and so on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

hey

im working on the Felly page, how can i move the table to the right. and how can i add a picture without it gettting removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inpuza (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Rather than the table you need to include an infobox, probably {{Infobox musical artist}}. As for pictures, you will find a number of useful links at WP:Images. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Inpuza, welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, don't try to move the table. Instead, please insert an Infobox which, by default gets positioned on the right. I suggest you use {{Infobox musical artist}}. If you click that link and read the documentation, you should be guided through each field you can enter. You can add a picture into an Infobox, assuming it is already available on Wikimedia Commons. What you can't do is just upload any old picture you find on the internet, because it'll no doubt be copyright, and we don't accept copyrighted content nor, indeed, anything that is deemed promotional in tone. Hope this makes your life easier. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

ABP Ganga

Few days back, I have created a article, called ABP Ganga, a upcoming television channel in India, which will be launched on 15th April. I have added a authentic source here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABP_Group But, currently the page has been deleted from here. Don't know why. If it seems, page should be needed then brings my created ABP Ganga page, I have to edit something there. Or allow me to create a new page for same topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWiki5678 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@WikiWiki5678: The article was redirected, not deleted. [[5]] It may be WP:TOOSOON for the channel to have its own article. I'm curious - you said you created the article yet another editor shows in the editing history. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Till now, I m unable to find that article. Is that article gone or out of reach from general people? Or will I create another new page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWiki5678 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@WikiWiki5678: The article was redirected because the TV channel is not (yet) notable enough for an individual article. Do not create another article about the channel - if and when it becomes notable, somebody who is not connected to the company will probably create an article about it. Again, are you the original creator of the article ABP Ganga? Finally, please address the issue of conflict of interest on your user talk page (there is some important information at the bottom of your talk page, which you need to read and respond to). --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not the author of this article. So what? I found that article few days back when I was going to create. But after that, when I had needed to edit the page, I searched the page, writing ABP Ganga, but all the time, ABP Group page had come instead of ABP Ganga. Help me to find the page, I have edit there something.WikiWiki5678 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@WikiWiki5678: The page you call ABP Ganga no longer exists as a separate page, but was turned into a WP:REDIRECT which now takes users to ABP Group. Follow this link to see how the page did look before it was redirected. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance to remove this redirect link and making a way for ABP Ganga? Or ABP Ganga article is not allowed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWiki5678 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty understanding English? Read what Bonadea told you above. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist

Can other people view my watchlist? Can I view other's watch lists? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No and no. Deor (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
See Help:Watchlist#Privacy. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

UnitedMasters Stub

I've taken it upon myself to expand this stub on UnitedMasters and correct the maintenance template that is at the top of the article. Would someone be able to review my edits that I've made and maybe give me some pointers in the right direction? Hope the edits I made are okay. Grimothy29 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for visiting the Teahouse. This article reads like an advertisement. Marketing on Wikipedia will get an article deleted. The language must be neutral and include content from sources that are unaffiliated with the topic. So you can do two things. First, go back into the article and delete all the weasel words, see WP:WEASEL. I can help change the tone in the article into something neutral but I won't do it if that offends you. When it comes to articles like this, I routinely edit out the promotional language which usually results in the loss of content. It is up to you how you want to fix this. Good luck! If you want to contact me for further help on this then leave me a message on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Will check out WP:WEASEL per your advice. Also no worries about offending me, but I would definitely like to try this myself. I'll let you know if I have any questions. Grimothy29 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing Podcasts from iTunes?

Before I get into my question I will need to give a little background on what I'm doing. For a while now I have been working on expanding an article on the 1990 film Begotten via a separate userspace draft and recently I have come across some sources of information given in podcast interviews with the film's writer/director. The first question I have is can I use them and which template should I use for them considering the information given is at various points in the podcast interview? In one such podcast, the original link is still up but the podcast is no longer available on the link but is available on iTunes, so the question I have for that is how would I go about using that source if I am able to do so? Original Link for "dead" url: https://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/12/20/e-elias-merhige/ iTunes url (episode #40):https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/ultraculture-with-jason-louv/id1060199031?mt=2 Much help with this would be appreciated.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paleface Jack. Welcome. Unless the website on which a podcast appears has been blacklisted, and assuming that the podcast itself can be regarded as a reliable source, you should probably use {{cite podcast}}. This lets you insert the times in a podcast where relevant content appears. Just click that link to go to the template page to read the full documentation. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Paleface Jack. Also remember that an interview with the writer/director is a primary source, so there are limits on how it may be used. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What are the limits?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: The limits are explained at WP:PRIMARY, part of which states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." Thus you may use the podcast by the writer/director to present simple facts such as what the writer said were his intentions for the film, or how long it took to film, but not to support statements about how society has interpreted their work - that needs secondary sources that are independent of the writer, even if the director has voice their opinion on how other have interpreted it. If in doubt, leave it out. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This helps me immensely! Wish me luck...--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Problems with a citation in wikitext

I am having problems with a citation here. Scroll down to Ronneby Municipality. Down near the bottom is Gammelstorps kyrka, which should be under it's own heading of Sölvesborg Municipality (and is when you edit the page). I am having problems with the citation for the building dates of the church (which also doesn't show on the regular page, but does on the edit page). No matter what I do, the < ref > and < /ref > (without the spaces) tags mess up the formatting. I have copied and pasted this onto another page, where it works fine. I thought the problem might be the link, so I tried just the title of the citation, without the link, but the same thing still happens. When I take the citation completely out, the page goes missing! I also have to remove the second citation for the page to display properly. I have copied the whole text from another page (see link above), and I still have the problem. I'm missing something, but I can't see it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs)

@Aurornisxui: Partial reply: It'll be an issue with the table above, as I see the closing curly bracket of that higher table is not being recognised. That suggests an imbalance, like a failure to close a bracket, or some other small but significant element of the table missed off, causing an imbalance. I can't spot it immediately (and have to nip off to serve family dinner now). Hopefully another editor might see it. If not, I'll look later for you. (A trick is to selectively delete elements above the problem, saving each as you go, and looking for the point where the lower table correctly displays again. Then you can revert back to full table and correct the minor typo that is causing the problem.)Nick Moyes (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks so much! I'm guessing the last church of Ronneby because everything before that was fine and there are a couple of things I wasn't sure of. Sorry about forgetting to sign my post. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC) ETA Got it! Unclosed ref tag above. Everything ok, now, thanks again for looking. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aurornisxui: Glad to see you fixed it - a missing closing reference command, it seems. Did you use 'syntax highlighting' to help you? If you didn't, next time try the little highlighter pen symbol just left of the "Advanced" option in the tools menu which adds different colours to links, references and templates, and is extremely useful when trying to distinguish different elements of a paragraph. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:. No, I didn't know about that! Thanks that will really come in handy. Aurornisxui (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aurornisxui: Glad you like it. It struck me that it might be worth publicising a bit more, so I've just proposed it as a new Tip of the Day. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Excellent, I've bookmarked that. Is there a way to vote "yes, I'd like this" ?Aurornisxui (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aurornisxui: I'm very new to contributing at Tip of the Day, but I don't think any '!vote' is necessary. I think the active editors there, such as JoeHebda, The Transhumanist and others, just assess whether or not it has merit, and then tweak it to fit. At the moment, my mockup uses example text that is far too long to fit into the small TotD box. But you can easily add their tips box to your user page with one of a number of templates, such as {{totd}} or {{totd b}}. They're well-worth browsing through for other neat ideas! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings (Aurornisxui—Nick Moyes) - In addition to Alpha list of tips mentioned above, there is here the tips library by subject. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Thanks, I'll look at that. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks again! I just used this and decided to just leave it always on. It truly helps me see what is going on on the page! Aurornisxui (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am editing about a person and would like to link to their faculty page as their website. The link for there faculty page is as follows:

https://www1.wne.edu/law/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?uid=520

Wikipedia seems to have a problem with using this as a website target. I think it is having trouble parsing it when it gets to the question mark. Is there a way I can use this as a valid target for an external link?

Here is the link to my sandbox page--this link is at the bottom of the officholder infobox in case you want to see what it is doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Artie_Berns/sandbox

Artie Berns (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Artie Berns The trick to solving problems like these is to find which actual template the infobox is using (i.e. {{url}}) and then go and read through its documentation. It reqires parameters 1= and 2= for the hyperlink and display text, which you weren't using. It certainly wasn't a problem with the url itself. I also fixed the References section and the External links section, the latter needing each line to begin with an asterisk, then have one square bracket followed immediately by the external url, then a single space, then display text followed immediately by a closing square bracket. See WP:EXTERNALLINKS for more details. Be advised that your draft shouldn't be a LinkedIn listing of every paper they've ever written. Just choose a handful, title it 'Selected publications' and it will be much more like an encyclopaedia and less like a promotional CV. If they have an online list of everything they've ever written, I advise you to put a ink to it in External links. Hope this assists. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Having just seen your userpage, I would ask you to read and act on both WP:COI and WP:PAID. This doesn't stop you drafting an article about your boss, but you need to be very open about the fact that you are, potentially, conflicted, and you're definitely being paid, albeit indirectly as an employee of the university, though not under her direct instructions, I assume. But the requirement to make a proper declaration is still the same. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nick Moyes, I have added a generic {{{paid}}} indicator to my user page and will add more specific indicators for articles I draft about the university as they are closer to being finished. Best, Artie Berns (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia article/topic

Hello, I'm trying to create wikipedia page for our cryptocoin. Now it is just "draft" ? I already looking for in editing site every link but not found the solution for this problem. Can someone help me to get my site away from draft and get it public and also shows in "altcoins" "cryptocoins" and "scrypt-based coins" list.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepcb (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Before someone instructs you on how to submit your Draft:CoinM, be aware that none of your references are about CoinM. Unless there are independent, significant articles published about CoinM, this will not pass Articles for Creation (AfC). Only after it is an accepted article can it be added to those lists. P.S. "Sign' your comments here and at article Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thepcb Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GS/Crypto before you edit further. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Last edit

Hey so I see you took down my last edit if you want proof of change i'd be more than happy to send you it because i am a member and firefighter for the shaker road loudonville fire department — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wigglygruff (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wigglygruff Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to provide a documented source, we can't just take your word for it. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
More than that, Wigglygruff, we need a published documented source. Unpublished documents won't do it, no matter how authoritative. If a random reader in a random country next week or next month or next year has no way of checking that something is right, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism/Spam?

An IP user (216.188.197.90) has recently vandalized the moo man page (Vandalized Page). What should i do? --Sir Arthur Puddingtrousers Jr. IV Esq. (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit: They are still doing it on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Arthur Puddingtrousers Jr. IV Esq. (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The place to report vandalism, once the vandal has been adequately warned, is WP:AIV. I've done that, and the IP has been blocked. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The block is for a year, as it was only this morning that the IP came out of a 6-month block. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. --Sir Arthur Puddingtrousers Jr. IV Esq. (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and fonts

Did Wikipedia recently changed fonts on their Cellphone website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Not that I'm aware of - the mobile version looks the same to me. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who you are. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what shows up Image= File:Strange font on Wikipedia.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed inline picture to link to file. RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@BigRed606: The article you screenshot-ed (is that a real verb?) is Wikipedia. I've just looked at it in both the mobile preview in desktop view, and on my iPhone in both desktop and mobile view. I see nothing different/unusual about the font. Your text in screen shot does look a lot bolder than mine, so I'm wondering if you've either changed which Wikipedia 'skin' you're using (via Special:Preferences, or have changed something in your phone's browser? I'm a great believer in "turn it off and on again" whenever I'm baffled by something, so you could always give that a go, too. Sorry I can't offer further suggestions, except to remind you to sign your posts, please. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes ([[User talk:Nick Moyes|talk] I tried that many times I even tried it on another browser on my phone with no prevail don’t know why it’s acting up BigRed606 ([[User talk:BigRed606 |talk]

@BigRed606: Just for clarity, can you describe the change you're seeing (is it just a slightly bolder font?), and is it on every single Wikipedia page, and I presume you aren't seeing any difference on other websites? What browser/OS is it? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes that and I think maybe slightly different font BigRed606 ([[User talk:BigRed606 |talk]

@BigRed606: OK thanks. Still sounds like something on your phone's browser or Wikipedia Preferences. Just to explain how to sign a post: it's weird, but extremely easy. Just type four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) rightt at the end of the very last sentence you write, then hit publish changes. that adds everything - your username, a link to your talk page and a timestamp. Simples. Oh, and when you've finally sorted it, you might like to delete the file by nipping over to Wikimedia Commons, find the file, and on the left side of the page in desktop view, click 'Nominate for Deletion' and explain why the file can be deleted. An admin will remove it for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

6 months

If I create a draft that passes notability criteria but do not publish it for reviewing, is it typically deleted after 6 months, or will someone move it to mainspace? 79.67.90.180 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible for somebody to move it to mainspace, but this is exceedingly unlikely. It would require somebody seeing the draft, deciding that it was worth moving to mainspace, and doing so. --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion criterion G13 allows the draft to be deleted 6 months after the last edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In other words, refusing to submit your article for reviewing dooms it to deletion? 79.67.90.180 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Not quite: Refusing to make any edits whatsoever to a draft for 6 months dooms it to likely deletion. Just keep working on it, albeit at a snail's pace and it'll be fine, so long as its content is not breaching any of our rules on copyright violation, promotion, etc. By way of example, here's one I've been working on for the last 18 months and am nowhere near completing it yet: Draft:National Pollinator Strategy. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

WHAT IS AN INAPPROPRIATE EDIT?

What counts as an inappropriate edit? Wikipedia is ready to block me!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80stunes (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi 80stunes. Trying looking a the first two "pillars" in Wikipedia:Five pillars and at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for genreal reference; then, try taking Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure for some actual practice at editing. You've only been editing for a few weeks, so it's OK to make good-faith mistakes. You won't get blocked unless you start repeating the same mistakes over and over again, especially after being advised not to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_937&oldid=892244751"