Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

Maproom, Teahouse host

Question forumYour Hosts

Learn more about the TeahouseArticles to improve

Experienced editor? Become a host!

New to Wikipedia? See our introduction for new editors, or try The Wikipedia Adventure - an interactive guided tour.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 3 days.

(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

Naming a tributary that has the same name on the same river

I am working on creating articles for tributaries to the Haw River in North Carolina, USA. In doing so, I have come upon two tributaries (Terrells Creek) that have the same name and are within 2 river miles of one another. Generally, the tributary would be named--Terrells Creek (Haw River tributary). However, in this case, there would be two of the same. The two tributaries are on opposing sides of the river and because of this I have thought about naming them "Terrells Creek, Left Bank (Haw River tributary)" and "Terrells Creek, Right Bank (Haw River tributary)."

What are your thoughts on the above naming proposal and/or is there an established way of handling this situation?

Thank you in advance.Veg Mapper (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Veg Mapper. The Teahouse is pretty good place for asking general questions about Wikipedia editing, but your mileage may vary which more specific detailed questions like yours. What you're asking sounds like a Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names related question to me, but you might get a more specific answer by asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers since this kind of thing probably has come up before and there may be a specific way of dealing with it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Veg Mapper: I think the question is "what are they called by sources?". I saw "Terrells Creek" vs. "Terrells Creek (west)" in one source. In another, a separate column indicated the road they were near – "NC 87" vs. "SR 1520". The former seems better to me, though I'd make the first one "Terrells Creek (east)" and a dab page at "Terrells Creek". At Geonames, the eastern one's alternate names include "Ferrells Creek", which is also in some other sources, so the possibility exists that that is the correct name for that creek. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Veg Mapper, I would consider "Terrells Creek (Haw River tributary, left bank)" and "Terrells Creek (Haw River tributary, right bank)". Maproom (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems a sensible suggestion, providing the editor appreciates that 'true left' and 'true right' banks are so named solely from the perspective of being on the river, looking in the direction of flow, and not left and right as seen when looking at a river drawn on a map. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the comments. I have decided to go with left bank and right bank. In proceeding through the tributaries of the Haw River, I encountered a similar situation with Cane Creek. Like, Terrells Creek, there is a Cane Creek on the left bank and one on the right bank. I think using the bank position defines them as long there are not two streams of the same name on the same bank side. Again, thank you.Veg Mapper (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Veg Mapper: Thinking about it further, why not use 'upper' and 'lower' e.g. "Terrells Creek (Haw River upper tributary)"? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I like your second suggestion of upper and lower as it would cover both of the situations stated above (streams on opposite side banks or streams on the same side). Is there a way to change the title of a page once completed? For instance, from Terrells Creek (Haw River tributary, right bank) to Terrells Creek (Haw River upper tributary) and Terrells Creek (Haw River tributary, left bank) to Terrells Creek (Haw River lower tributary).Veg Mapper (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Veg Mapper: Yes, changing a page name is no problem, though (confusingly) you do it by 'moving' it to a new name, leaving behind a WP:REDIRECT to the new name. You'll find guidance on doing this at WP:MOVE. Shout if you get stuck! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we display an article's quality assessment to all visitors?

I have long thought that we (English Wikipedia) should display an article's quality assessment, e.g., "stub" or "B-class", to all visitors. If I understand it correctly, we currently display an article's quality only to registered users who have specifically requested it via Preferences > Gadgets > Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header. // If you are familiar with past discussions of this topic and can explain why we don't display an article quality's assessment to all visitors, that would be awesome. But that might take too long, and I know y'all (Teahouse volunteers) are very busy. Therefore, as an alternative, if you know how I can find past discussions of this topic that would be great. In that case, I can go read up on the whys and wherefores. (I searched through Help but could not find anything on this topic.) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Markworthen: First of all, don't apologize for asking a question: that's what the page is for.

The pages to search would be MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-metadata.js and the links from there but I did not find much of interest in my limited search.

Good articles do have an indicator of that assessment status (not a very visible one though), but GA is an ironclad rating (need some in-depth review and discussion) whereas most other levels of assessment are just "someone passed by and rated it". I think it would be risky to give that status for other articles, especially since lower-tier assessments can be significantly outdated. (Also, on the technical side, the gadget has a couple of known bugs which would need fixing before going live to readers.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tigraan for your (quite helpful) answer to my question, and for identifying my unnecessary apology (an "old tape" that still runs from time to time).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: adding to what Tigraan says, most editors here are concerned with improving content so, for them, having the choice to enable the gadget to display assessment via their Preference setting may assist them in their desire to check and improve articles, and update the quality assessment, if they wish. I certainly have it enabled. But by far the largest proportion of our visitors to this encyclopaedia are not editors - but ordinary users and seekers of information, with no interest in editing whatsoever. As was stated, the quality assessment (apart from FA/GA) is very prone to misjudgement, malicious alteration, or simply being left unchanged for many years, long after major improvements have been made. Showing 'quality' information by default to every single user would, I feel, be incredibly misleading and not at all helpful. Users would be fooled into thinking it is reliable indicator of completeness, when it isn't. But if you happen to visit any of our numerous 'WikiProjects' you'll find most have a table of article numbers by 'quality' and by 'importance' - (see this example). They can be incredibly useful to help editors prioritise their work on related articles. Just click the hyperlinked numbers in the table to see a list of articles ostensibly fitting that quality and importance rating. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Markworthen, according to WP:STUB, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I routinely encounter articles rated as stubs which obviously are no longer stubs because they have been significantly improved and expanded over the years. I re-rate them as start-class, but there are a massive number of incorrectly rated stubs. Assessment of articles below Good and Featured is inconsistent and wrong way too frequently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Great points all of you. I understand now! I have "Display an assessment ..." enabled and I too find it very helpful since, as you all point out, the quality assessments are often inaccurate. I was thinking that for purposes of transparency, and to help students (and teachers) determine the potential value of an article, it would help to display quality assessments. But all that presupposes that the assessments are accurate. Since they often aren't, the current policy makes good sense. I appreciate you helping me understand the rationale. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Glad this was helpful. One last thing: There's a useful script you might be interested in which you can install to quickly help you make quality assessment changes. See WP:RATER. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Smack-Boys

Do you think we should add my Smack-Boys related things on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaytonAshGames (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@ClaytonAshGames: Articles must cite three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of but still specifically about the subject. If such sources existed, then there'd be the problem that as the creator of Smack-Boys, you would have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article.

Wikipedia isn't for anything and everything, it's just a summary of professional sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you are pretty smart! I AM the creator of Smack-Boys. Because you are smart, I shall explain it to you. Smack-Boys is a superhero team that I created, which makes me the leader. Smack-Boys does exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaytonAshGames (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@ClaytonAshGames: You should read WP:NOTHERE and WP:MADEUP before making further responses like Smack-Boys is a superhero team that I created, which makes me the leader. Smack-Boys does exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? When you were 10 years old, did you make things up and wanted it to be real? Also, I think you're cool. ClaytonAshGames (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Also also, I was explaining what Smack-Boys is, Ian. ClaytonAshGames (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ClaytonAshGames There is a difference between "want to be real" and "real". - ZLEA _T\^C 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that! I'm just saying it isn't real yet, because someone will make it a reality. ClaytonAshGames (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If that happens, somebody who is not connected to you in any way will probably create an article about it on Wikipedia. You should not do that yourself (nor ask anybody else to do it). --bonadea contributions talk 06:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that making an article of Smack-Boys is prohibited here on Wikipedia? Cause if you are, that's very stupid and unfair. ClaytonAshGames (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@ClaytonAshGames: It is not prohibited, just very strongly discouraged at the moment. In the future, it may become notable, and someone may write an article about it when it becomes notable. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, 1: to me they are the same thing, and 2: how do you it will be notable in the future? I mean, unless you have a time machine, it would be unknown, wouldn't it? ClaytonAshGames (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@ClaytonAshGames: It doesn't matter if it will be notable, what matters now is that it's not currently notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Will my article be published?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daya_Reddy - this is the draft of my article? I have reviewed and edited it twice, please can you advise whether it will be published or not? Nataliembent (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: Hello. The draft was never resubmitted for review. In the meantime, work on it and address the issues with it. The, submit, but it will take some time as there are thousands of drafts awaiting review. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. If you feel you addressed the reasons why the article was declined in the first place, you need to resubmit it for review by clicking the "Resubmit" button on the review banner. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Appears you have resubmitted, having made changes after it was declined. In my opinion, it will be declined again. Whole sections, and paragraphs within sections, do not have references. Reddy's list of publications should be deleted - think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia - academics are written about by citing what other people have written about them, not by listing what they have written. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: Please don't be discouraged. I actually disagree with David notMD's assessment. I think your article has great potential, and that the WP:AFC rejection of your work by a new reviewer was wholly flawed. I think the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, but will still need a little more work before being ready for the main encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes please can you tell me how much more work (in a bit more detail) the article requires? I am a total newbie and need some guidance, thank you Nataliembent (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: First off - there's no rush. You can keep working on a draft for as long as you like. Abandoned drafts (ie completely unedited ones) might get deleted after 6 months. So you've plenty of time! The work you need to do now is mostly to cut out anything which you cannot verify with an independent reference. All other factual statements need either a new reference, or for you to reuse an existing one (see WP:REFNAME for how to do that). Read WP:NACADEMIC and try to assess whether an independent person would feel your article clearly demonstrates or proves that he meets the criteria listed there. Providing you can assure me you haven't been asked, or paid, to create this article, I'd be happy to help you further once you've addressed those issues. I am presuming from your username that you are a new female editor and I'm keen to encourage more women to become good editors here. I suggest you contact me on my own talk page when you want further input. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I'm pleased to say this article's notability has now been recognised by one of our newest admins, Barkeep49, and they have moved it into mainspace. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to note that I made these actions as an editor - being an administrator (or as I like to say sysop) gives me no special powers in this case. As an editor I felt that the article met our notability standards and would be likely to survive at AfD. As a New Page Reviewer, I felt the article was ready for inclusion in the Google Search engine and so marked it reviewed. Now there were actions I did as a sysop that brought this article to my attention but think it's important to remind everyone, new, old, and myself, what privileges sysops have over content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I added a link defining an uncommon term to an image description. Is that too much (over-explaining)?

In climate change research (I have learned), researchers analyze changes in "temperature anomalies" over time. The term, "temperature anomaly" is uncommon for most readers. I added a small link to a (very good) definition on a U.S. government website (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). I think my link is fabulous, but one person's fabulous might be most persons' "too much". What do you think? The article is Scientific consensus on climate change and here is the diff for my edit. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Incorrect to add hyperlinks to text or image captions. Instead, create a reference. As you want to define a term, I suggest you find a place in the body of the article where it will be appropriate to describe what "temperature anomaly" means, with your reference, properly formated, there. In brief, right idea, wrong place. In general, the place to discuss a change to an article is on the talk page of that article. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks David notMD. I didn't post on the Talk page b/c I wanted to see if it was appropriate first.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Note that there is already an article for temperature anomaly (actually a redirect to Instrumental temperature record), so you should prefer to simply wikilink the term (i.e. change it to [[temperature anomaly]]), versus an external source. If you feel the target article could be improved with reference to that site, you should work it into that (Instrumental temperature record) article per WP:CITE, WP:EL, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh cool. I didn't know about that article. I shall cite accordingly. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

... Although, that article is very technical. I didn't understand most of the first several paragraphs. Just FYI.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering rewriting an article

Hi everyone. While doing some research I was looking at the vertical farming article and, well, as the warning box at the top of the page says it has problems. I added a little bit on current usage of containerised farms in northern Canada and Alaska, but I feel like what it really needs is a complete rewrite, probably keeping a fair bit of what is already there, but re-structuring it to make it more readable and putting current practical applications ahead of aspirations. This is not something I've ever done though (and I'm a bit nervous about taking on such a task) so I'm wondering if anyone has some advice. Thanks. Physdragon (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Physdragon, I know nothing about this topic. But my advice is, take it a bit slow. Work on one section/subsection at a time until you are happy with it, then wait a day or two to see is there's any reaction. Repeat. Starting at the bottom section is as good way as any. Lastly see what you have and write a new WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You may also want to post your comments on the Talk page of the article, to facilitate collaboration and to give a heads-up to other editors who may be watching the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did leave a comment on the Talk page with some of my thoughts, so maybe leave it a few days to see if that brings in any other comments and then start working through it slowly one section at a time? Physdragon (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can give it up to a week.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sports Teams Rebranding

I am the main editor for the sports teams Sporting Kansas City and Swope Park Rangers. Recently, they announced that the Swope Park Rangers would be changing their name to Sporting Kansas City II beginning the 2020 season. How would I go about re-naming the main page for the Swope Park Rangers and when should I most likely do that. Should I wait until the last game of the 2019 season has been played and then change it or wait until later on in the winter? Thanks, Gatorinator (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Gatorinator, Wait until the rename has been performed then move it to the new title. Interstellarity (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Reference

Hello, I Added reference on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhakar_Tukaram_Shrangare cause I found there no references but still showing message like “ This article is about a living person and appears to have no references.....” can anybody can help me on that how to remove that message? Also please check my syntax of references (l learn this on references for beginners article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppch83 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ppch83: It looks like David Biddulph removed the message for you so you should be good. Interstellarity (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In this edit I've improved the formatting of the ref, added a references section and reflist tag, & removed the prod blp tag. Note also that when you are referring to a Wikipedia article it is better to use a wikilink like Sudhakar Tukaram Shrangare, rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhakar_Tukaram_Shrangare --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit wars blocked?

Can IP addresses be blocked because of edit wars? Main CentralTime301 page and talk 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CentralTime301. Simple answer: yes they can - just like registered users can be. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Tried to write article

Hi! I tried to write an article but it was declined 2 days ago. Today I reviewed the article, can anyone tell me if I have to change something else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roberta_Rosca/sandbox Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta Rosca (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Roberta Rosca Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to have just added your associations with others to the article. I would ask if you have read the notability criteria for musicians? You would need to show that you meet at least one of the criteria and also have significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit a Wikipedia article. I'm not clear on which of the criteria you would meet- and no amount of editing can confer notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is interested in what third parties state about article subjects, not in what the subject wants to say about themselves. This is why autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. It is very difficult for people to write about themselves in the neutral point of view required by Wikipedia, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or other alternative outlet where doing that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

NOT autobiography, as the Sandbox draft is about Alberto Braida. However, I agree the draft does not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please pardon my error. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The entire Music career section is useless, as none of the references are to articles ABOUT Alberto Braida. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Visual Editor on article not working to delete stuff

I am trying to delete the full section Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Cost-sharing_Reductions as part of an agreement with user:Newslinger on how the article is to be handled.

I am trying to do it using the visual editor, as this is the only automatic way to deal with multiply-used references. I thought it would work, based on my early experience with the visual editor. But now, in visual edit mode, when I select the section or a part of the section, and click "cut", the editor seems to get all mixed up, and no "publish" option appears.

Has something gone wrong with the visual editor? Am I doing something wrong? What should I do? Thanks.NormSpier (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: The visual editor has its limitations. In your particular scenario, I would recommend that you use the source editor to make your changes. Interstellarity (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Page request

hello, I'm here regarding a question about the James Charles "spill the tea" phrase. I'm wondering if anyone could make a page on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindagart (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lindagart. If you would like to make a page on it, feel free to do so, if you are able to find independent, published, WP:Reliable sources which discuss the topic in depth.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Change of information in wikipedia

I found a line in one of the pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India as below

Settled life emerged on the subcontinent in the western margins of the Indus river basin 9,000 years ago, evolving gradually into the Indus Valley Civilisation of the third millennium BCE.

But a recent discovery at Keezhadi reveals that the settled life was there @ Sixth millennium BCE.

I would like to add this as well in the page until it is proved otherwise.

Regards, Meenashankar Sivasamy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.45.242 (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@61.12.45.242: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a reliable, published source for the new information you'd like to add? You are free to edit the page and add or change information but only if you have a reliable source for it. Hug^syrup 07:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable source is important, as it often takes time for relatively new discoveries to be analyzed by the scientific community. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please also take care to work any changes properly into the existing text of the article. When people read the article, it should be consistent and flow coherently (as though it were written by one person at one time, ideally). Often, we see such "corrections" slapped in without any explanation or supporting context or sources, and no explanation of the difference from existing statements or supporting text around it. That, in a sense, is worse than having old, but well-supported, information. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed link

Hello.

I tried to add links to two pages about the current state of war sites in Vietnam. There are similar links for the sites at Quan Loi and Phouc Vinh, but they seem to be pasted in to the description so the link doesn't show. Is that the problem? That I just pasted them openly?

Best Jonas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnam History (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam History Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the links was removed by another editor as promotional, as it was a link to a travel website, not a history website. If this is your website or company, it is a conflict of interest for you to link to its website.(please review that page) 331dot (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I see now, thank you. It is not a travel website as in selling tours. It is a website describing the history of war sites in Vietnam and what they look like today. However it is my website so I understand the conflict of interest. I posted the link there and for the battle of Hamburger Hill also as we frequently get questions from people who wants advice on how to get to these places of just to see what they look like today. It is a part of a larger not for profit project we are running to help veterans and those interested in learning more about the history. I do understand now that I can't put these links up though. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnam History (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam History If you truly feel that the link has encyclopedic value, you can make an edit request on the article talk page, but if you are just providing information(as opposed to being an authority on the history of the battle who has researched the subject for historical papers, etc.) it probably would not be included. If you did wish to discuss the issue, you would need to formally declare your conflict of interest- and if you derive income or any compensation from the website(even if not for profit) you would need to comply with the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Well there is no payment whatsoever involved as we don't even have ads on the website and we received no money from other sources either, this is all out of our own pockets as learning about this part of history is our passion. It does have some encyclopedic value I believe as we are uncovering history in some of these places. On Hamburger Hill for example, we are running a project with the veterans from the battle to map and locate the actual battle sites that are away from the area where people normally visit. It was a large battle during the war, but surprisingly little has been investigated on the site since then. We were likely the first foreign visitors to the area since the war, at least that knew what we were looking at. I have not discovered any other documentation on that. Same for LZ Peanuts which was a smaller battle just after Operation Pegasus in the Khe Sanh area. The whole project has become so vast over the years that it's hard to describe here. I might make the request later on as I think it does have some value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnam History (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam History Please add any follow up comments to the existing section instead of creating a new section(click "edit" near the section header). 331dot (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Now I saw it, thank you. I wasn't sure how to go about it. Well, you saw my last reply. Thank you fore your help with thi.s I understand better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietnam History (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, Vietnam History, whenever you post here or to an article's Talk page (but not on article pages), please always sign your post by typing four tildes in a row: ~~~~. The wiki software will turn that into your signature and a date-time stamp like what you see after this sentence. Thnidu (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Can some write a Wiki for my Video Game?

Hello,

My name is John Daniels and I need someone write a Wiki Page for my video game, it is on IMDB but not Wiki. I can give a free voucher to the game, so far is it released on the PS4 for North America but will be released in Europe on October the 25.

I would love to have the game on Wiki but do not know how to get it on here. I tried to make a page but failed and need someone who know what they are doing to kick this into gear.

Whatever information you need I can supply.

The game name is NEXTGEN SANDBOX.

You can reply to this but I am not for sure if it will notify me, or contact me at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadaniels (talk • contribs) 13:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadaniels (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I deleted your email address, the YouTube link and the Playstation link. The answer you got when your draft was declined is correct - your game does not meet Wikipedia's concept of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. Only when a topic is written ABOUT in published articles by people who have no connection to the topic does it happen. Wikipedia is not social media - it is an encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I would add that one does not "write a wiki", one writes a Wikipedia article. A wiki is a general type of website. Wikipedia has no interest in helping you promote or tell the world about your game. If someone takes you up on your offer of a free copy, they would need to comply with the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnadaniels: You might consider using Wikia for that purpose. You will probably find a place for it there. ––Handroid7 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Image editing

How to edit image on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir M Rizvi (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rizvi and welcome to the Teahouse. If you download the image to your hard drive, you can edit it there using any software you have available, then upload the new version to wherever you downloaded it from. Dbfirs 15:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Muntazir M Rizvi: Which type of edit do you want to make to which image? The above applies to the most common situation but there are many other possible situations. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanking via Special:Thanks does not show up on version history. Is it just me?

When I thank using using Special:Thanks, the version history of the target page still shows the “thank” option as if I hadn't already thanked.

Is it just me, or has anyone else observed it? ––Handroid7 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's one of the logs. Use Special:Log/thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Handroid7: I think that happens sometimes. I thanked someone yesterday, and in the page history the thank link is still there. From Help:Notifications/Thanks#How_this_feature_works "You can only thank someone for a given edit once. After you have thanked someone for an edit, the "thank" link[2] is replaced by the word "thanked".[5] The "thank" link may reappear later but using it again will not send a new thanks. " RudolfRed (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It was me who added 'The "thank" link may reappear later but using it again will not send a new thanks'.[1] I don't work on the software and don't actually know how it's supposed to work. I just described how it does work. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Improving a web page that includes own articles and COI

I spent hours/days try to improve a web page that was fundamentally bad - incorrect, misleading, fragmented, lots of repeated information. Because I am an expert in the field, I had the great idea of improving it. I spent hours and days on this, only to have it all rejected by wikipedia. There seems to be a circular argument. They want experts but when experts try to improve they are thought to be promoting themselves and the improvement rejected. What I wrote was excellent, concise, well referenced, researched and informative. Most importantly it was correct. So, how do I improve a page that includes citations to my own work? I spent so mcu time on it that I don't want to give up now, even although I feel like it. 213.67.216.180 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Suzanne Dickson 17:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne Dickson (talk • contribs)

You will find advice at WP:Expert editors. If you want us to comment on the specific edits which you made, you'll need to give us a wikilink, because there have been no previous edits from your current IP address. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link [[2]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Dead link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_child_abduction_in_Japan

I noticed that if you go to references, the sixth and tenth on the list are dead.

I looked at the rules for editing dead links, but felt I could do more harm than good since I don’t have the time/inclination to learn Wikipedia code etc so forgive me.

96.232.187.163 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Article at International child abduction in Japan David notMD (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The first thing I would do is to copy the reference title and do a browser search for those same string of words. It didn't take a moment to find that the page used in reference 6 had simply moved within the Japan Times' website and is now at https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/05/14/national/hague-pact-no-answer-to-in-country-custody-fights/#.XZTv9EZKjIU. Feel free to update the url and access date for that reference, then perhaps try the same with the other one? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources

hi. i have a pretty straightforward question. where do i find sources and how do i cite them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bill cage, welcome back to the Teahouse. Finding reliable sources should be easy. You look for good quality, independent sources (books, magazines, journals, websites, newspapers etc) which contain factual statements that you can use as evidence to allow people to verify what has been added to an article. They can be online, or published in paper format. The best way is add a reference is to insert an 'inline citation' immediately after the statement in the Wikipedia page that you want to support. To learn how to do that, either work through the instructions at Help:Referencing for beginners, or take a look at some instructions I wrote myself at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. You will need to put the effort in to understand these instructions, but correctly adding good quality references is really essential to being a good editor of articles. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Awaiting feedback for conflict of interest request.

Hello, Wikipedia! I'm Jessica, an employee of JLL. I have posted on the article's talk page to hopefully get in touch with editors that are interested in reviewing some proposed changes to the article. I've posted at all of the associated WikiProjects to no avail. It would be fantastic to receive some feedback about how to find interested editors to review my request. Can someone give me some guidance? Thanks! JKatJLL (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@JKatJLL: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for being open with your conflict of interest. You should place {{edit request}} when you post a request for COI assistance on the talk page. Remember that all the editors here are volunteers, so it can take some time before an interested editor takes up your request. RudolfRed (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Curtis Lovell II

There is a formating problem with the line with "cryonics" in it. I have no idea how to fix it. Keith Henson (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It just needed a new line after the section heading. Thanks for letting us know. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Is zoominfo a reliable source?

• zoominfo.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com

I notice in the current revision of American Automobile Association, zoominfo has been used as a reference citation for the AAA headquarters address. Although I see there are a lot of Wikipedia pages that cite zoominfo, I am wondering whether zoominfo should be considered a reliable source. Wouldn't it generally be preferable to use a page from the company's own website to cite information such as the headquarters address, assuming they provide that info on their website? (I'm not bothering to mention the multiple things wrong with this specific citation... those would be moot if it's agreed that zoominfo is not a preferred source for this info.) Fabrickator (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, you know, it's funny you should ask that. I've noticed a few new accounts recently whose only purpose has appeared to be spamming links to zoominfo into various articles disguised as "references". I've been reverting those additions which are clearly just WP:REFSPAM, but I'm also aware we have lots of existing links. I'm going to ping Beetstra as the "go to" expert in all things spammy, to see if they have any comment on this. -- Begoon 03:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, current headquarters location is a classic example of the type of routine, non-controversial information that can be cited to a company website, assuming that the company is otherwise notable. I have no reason to believe that Zoominfo is particularly unreliable in the sense of being overtly inaccurate. Their business model is based on use of proprietary web crawlers to scrape data about corporations and executives off the internet to assemble a database, and they sell access to the full details of that database. But it seems that they lack routine human editorial control, and this is the type of situation where the company website is the best source, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: as per your edit and User:Cullen, I agree that that is information which is perfectly fine, and probably even best, when served with a primary source. (the whole of the article should not depend on primary sourcing only, but that does not mean that some specific information cannot or should not be referenced primary).

Zoominfo is selling access to their database with information about business people and companies to sales, marketing and recruiting professionals. That does suggest that they need to be 'correct' and likely reliable. That does not mean that they are the best source of that information (as the example of an address of a headquarter, or for example numbers from company records - these are (IMHO) way better primary sourced even if other sources are reliable). Here I do worry that some of the information is not freely accessible (??, you need to pay for access?), and other sources, including primary sourcing, may be freely accessible, and data may become outdated (depending on how active they refresh their data).

The typical place to discuss specific (one reference) or general reliability of a source is at the reliable sourcing noticeboard. If there are cases of active spamming (Begoon) they should go to the spam wikiproject (or escalated if they are uncontrollable). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: @Beetstra: @Cullen328: Thanks for your feedback. I'm kind of wary of the Zoominfo data. It didn't help that the zoominfo link displayed the name as "AAA Club Alliance" rather than "AAA" (even though the linked page showed the same street address, though it displayed an alternate name for the post office), but I think we need to be wary of adding links on thousands of pages to some third-party service that can be here today and gone tomorrow. I'd rather see a template that could be generic (and whether that would be an appropriate use of Wikidata as a way to implement that, though my knowledge of such things is surely minuscule).

That said, it doesn't appear to me that on most pages for corporations or other sorts of organizations, that we normally provide a source for the headquarters, and it does not really seem such a good use of resources to add citations for the headquarters location (and of course, the same expectation would apply to all the other infobox information).

If it were up to me, I would advocate to continue reverting this mass addition of zoominfo links. I took the trouble to add a (primary) citation for AAA, I felt this was warranted given the potential confusion due to AAA's organizational structure as well as its name, but I'm not suggesting that there should be a mandate or major effort to add such citations generally. Fabrickator (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Carides, actor : my birthplace according to Wikipedia

Hello,

I am an Australian actor, but I was actually born in London UK, yet Wikipedia states I was born in Sydney Australia. I would appreciate that information corrected. I've corrected it myself twice, but a user called Petereye2005 has changed my edits, reverting them to what he believes is the truth - based on a citation from The Greek Hollywood Reporter publication, which does (wrongly) state that I was born in Sydney, like my sisters. I was not; as I said, I was born in London. It's only a little thing, I suppose, but I'm very frustrated that Wikipedia is advertising something which isn't true about me. I can't find another published article to use as a citation myself, so can you advise what I can do, please?

Kind regards,

Zoe Carides — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozment (talk • contribs) 04:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You should fix this error in www.imdb.com first. Ruslik_Zero 07:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Zozment You should verify your identity with Wikipedia by following the instructions described here. Your birthplace is not a little thing. I do think Ruslik is correct, once you fix it there, you can then come back here to at least advocate for the incorrect place to be removed on the article talk page(IMDB probably could not be used as a source for your birthplace but we can at least put the listed one in question). 331dot (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot Apologies for intruding, but I understand that Imdb is not a reliable source. If so then why would we use it in this instance?Oldperson (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Zozment, another option is to publish the information yourself in a place you control, such as on your own social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or on your (or your management's) website. Then, that can be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. rchard2scout (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Zozment I found a reliable source and made the changes for you. Theroadislong (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fraud Orchestration-- Help Improving

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone could help point out areas I could improve my article on fraud orchestration. This is the first article I have ever attempted to publish.

Best Brettq888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettq888 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brettq888: - Welcome to The Teahouse. I see a few substantial problems with your draft as it stands.

Firstly, the tone varies somewhere between an academic paper and a promotional website. I've read the page several times and I don't believe I am any clearer on what, actually 'fraud orchestration' is. Articles need to be written in an encyclopedic manner: clear, succinct, free of jargon and promotional language.

Secondly, and this is linked to the first point, it is full of original research and claims that do not appear to be objective, factual, and backed by sources. For example: "However, fraud and any associated security must be adaptive." Says who? Why? And this is just one example - the whole article is like this.

Finally, the biggest problem, there are a lack of reliable sources that establish this as a notable term. As the notice at the top of your draft states, neologisms are not included unless they have received substantial use and independent press coverage. Your sources either do not use the term, or are not independent because they exist specifically to promote it.

My personal view is that this term is simply not ready for an article yet, and you are unlikely to be able to improve the article enough to get it accepted. However, if you wish to keep working on it, you will need to address the three points above, and in particular the third one. Hug^syrup 09:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brettq888, thank you very much for asking. I would like to thank Hugsyrup for the excellent answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

first time article

I just composed and edited an article, hit "publish" but don't know what happens next. I see it in my user page, but not when I search Wikipedia. Am I missing atep or is there a delay while the editors approve etc? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelfeuer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your question has been asked and answered at WP:HD#when will article be reviewed and accepted. Please don't ask the same question in multiple locations, as it is a waste of volunteers' time to answer a question which has already been answered elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a list of articles with the advertisement tag?

As you can probably see from my contributions, i enjoy cleaning up articles with the advertisement tag, but i can't find a list of articles with the tag. I vaguely remember seeing a list of them, but now I cant find it. any help would be appreciated! ArkayusMako (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ArkayusMako: Tags like the advertisement template automatically add the article to hidden maintenance categories. You can find lists of those categories at places like Template:Category tracker#Cleanup or Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. In particular, you'd be interested in Category:Articles with a promotional tone :) Sam Walton (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Category:All articles with a promotional tone has nearly 24 thousand to keep you busy! --David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! ArkayusMako (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

copyright laws

I made a submission to an article by copying and pasting a paragraph from an online article, then linking to it and citing it. It was subsequently deleted, with a note that said something about copyright. Is this correct? If I paraphrase the paragraph, then do I still need to cite the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peshkai (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peshkai and welcome to the Teahouse. It was correctly deleted. Articles on-line are still copyright. You need to express the facts in your own words, not a close paraphrase, to avoid copyright issues. You do need to cite a WP:Reliable source for any facts that you add to an article. It is also possible to quote short parts of a paragraph if you think that helps, but it is not required to quote any of it. The reader can check for themselves when the reference is provided. Dbfirs 12:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Peshkai: to elaborate a bit: there are three related issues here.

The first is that distributing (such as by posting on Wikipedia) something that is a copy-paste or a close paraphrase of something you found online is in almost all cases a copyright violation, which is illegal. That is not a Wikipedia-specific thing, even if other community-based websites are (to put it mildly) less zealous in policing the community's postings. That is why Wikipedia deletes those on-sight with no questions asked, because it must be taken down as soon as possible to avoid legal liability.

The second is that taking someone else's idea and presenting it as your own is plagiarism, which is by itself not illegal, but still unethical. Again, that is not Wikipedia-specific: if you do that as a journalist or academic and get caught, it has serious adverse consequences.

The third is that Wikipedia requires articles to be verifiable and contain no original research. That allows readers to evaluate for themselves the strength of evidence the articles rest on. It turns out that it counters plagiarism as well, because you cannot pass original material for your own if original material is disallowed entirely. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Zakir Naik page

Hi, i am trying to update the page with some information on dr naik ie. he is no longer a member of iera and many of his awards and books but whenever i make changes it keeps restoring it back to the original even after i have provided links. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutowriter123 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As explained on your user talk page, the reason that your edits were reverted is that without any explanation you were removing existing sourced text. If you believe that something should be removed you need to discuss it on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Sandboxes? - need some help!

Hi- New user here. I am tasked with writing two new articles, and one draft I have already submitted for review via my Sandbox. I am starting work on a second article in a newly created sandbox in my userspace, but when I "Publish Changes" to save my work, I do not see the option to submit it as a draft for review. Does it stand to reason that only one draft can be sent for review at any given time? Or am I missing some obvious step? Thanks for any guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollinsycc (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jcollinsycc: You should now have the option. To add the header used to submit a page you need to add {{subst:AFC submission/draft}} to the top of the page. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got one draft awaiting review at Draft:Charles S. Fuchs. When your sandbox draft at User:Jcollinsycc/sandbox/Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD is ready for submission you would use the blue "Submit" button, but obviously it isn't ready for submission yet as it has no references and no wikilinks. If you want to create another sandbox draft you could call it User:Jcollinsycc/sandbox/whatever new article title you like. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"I am tasked..." is problematic. The two academics you are writing about are at the Yale Cancer Center, and you have also edited the Yale Cancer Center article. Are you an employee of YCC? As such, you are required to comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me! I have some questions about page styling, Conflict of Interest, the deletion process, and more.

I was wondering how I create indents, bold text, and the line under a section. I am quite new to Wikipedia and I have not found out how to create styling. Furthermore, I was wondering how far the Conflict of Intrest rules go. Hypothetically, if I were a student at an academic institution, would I be able to edit the article of that institution by adding facts and citations? Would I not be able to edit articles about institutions near my acidemic institution if there are rivalries between the schools? I was also wounder how talk pages work, it appears to me like anyone can use whatever styling they want on a page. Is that correct? If so what styling should I use on talk pages to make my questions/answers easy to read? Lastly, I was wondering where I would be able to find information on when an article should be placed in the deletion process. Any help would be very welcome as I look to grow my editing abilities. Muffin of the English (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your best bet is to read over WP:Contributing to Wikipedia.--Moxy 🍁 14:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muffin of the English, welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your particular questions: write indents by adding one or more colons to the start of the line (view the source of this page for examples); bold text is written with '''three apostrophes'''; underlines are written <u>like so</u>. None of those three things is typically a good idea in articles, but can be useful in talk pages. Being a student of an academic institution is not enough to raise WP:COI concerns. All articles have to be entirely neutral, though, so if you found yourself at all tempted to make your own institution look good or another look bad, that would be the time to step far away. Talk pages are actually very regular in their formatting, and it's a good idea to learn how that works. See WP:Talk page guidelines and in particular Help:Talk pages § Indentation for helpful detail. As for deletion, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If there's a particular page you're thinking about and you're not sure how to proceed, please do ask again here. All the best, › Mortee _talk 01:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Help, please!

I have an entry in word form, complete with citations but it was rejected. I would be most grateful if someone could help me get it online? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbgoodman (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Robertbgoodman: Your only contribution on this account has been to the Teahouse. Could you direct us to the draft so that we can see it? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: You've probably forgotten that deleted pages don't show in the user's contribution record? --David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: , but do not sign in articles.

If you are referring to User:Robertbgoodman/sandbox/Squadron Leader Lawrence 'Benny' Goodman, the explanation given (on your user talk page) for declining the draft was as follows: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." Have you read the links from the blue text in that feedback? You say "in word form", but if you mean MS Word that isn't really a helpful format; the draft needs to be in wikitext with referencing as described at WP:REFB. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and still do not understand the failure(s). How can I put the word document into Wikitext?

With apologies, it is obvious that I need help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertbgoodman (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robertbgoodman. The most basic way to add a citation to an article is to add the citations between two WP:Ref tags immediately following the statement you want to cite; for example, if I wanted to add a citation at the end of a statement, I would add it as follows: the syntax would be Statement 1.<ref>Citation 1</ref> Statement 2.<ref>Citation 2</ref>, and the actual citation would look like Statement 1. Statement 2 in the body of the article with the number in brackets being the footnote marker (the numbers are automatically added in accordance with the order the citations are added, i.e. [1] is the first citation cited in the article; so, you don't need to add them manually).

Once you've added all of the citations to the body of the article, the next thing to do is to make sure they are displayed in the proper section of the article. The way to do that is by creating a "References" section (the syntax is == References ==) as the last section of the article (it's sometimes not actually the last section though; see WP:ORDER for more on this), and then add Template:Reflist to that section (the syntax looks like {{reflist}}). It's important to add this template because it will tell the software where to display the citations within the article. If you forget to add this template, the software will list all of the citations at the bottom of the page (which might not necessarily be the "References" section) by default and keep pushing them to the bottom of the page any time a new section is added to the article. If you've added the citations correctly to the body of the article and then added the "Reflist" template to the references section, the citations should be displayed like below:

References

If you've done everything correctly, clicking on the footnote marker in the body of the article should bring you to the full citation in the "References" section and clicking on the "^" symbol at the beginning of the full citation will bring back to where it's located in the body of the article.

You should try and provide as much information about the source as possible as WP:CITEHOW, especially if you're citing content that cannot be found online, because doing so makes it much easier for others to assess the reliability of the source. If you're creating a new article, then how you format the citation is kind of up to you; lots of people like to use citation templates, but you're not required to do so. The most important thing to try and remember is to try and be as consistent as possible when citing sources so that the same style is used for all the citations per WP:CITESTYLE. If you're adding citations to an already created article, then you should use the style established by the first major contributor to the article per WP:CITEVAR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft is now at Draft:Lawrence Goodman. Most of the content does not have references. David notMD (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I correct an incorrect redirect?

Hi,

I'm a new editor and I'm working on setting up a page on Topic A. However, Topic A actually already has a page on Wikipedia, except it incorrectly redirects Topic A to Topic B. Topic B is *related* to Topic A, but it's not the same thing. How do I fix this, so that Topic A can have its own page, separate from Topic B?

Best, Siyasi2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyasi2019 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

When you submit a draft for review, if it's published the reviewer will look after the disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Siyasi2019: I see that you have, instead, replaced the content of Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, which was a redirect to Mama Qadeer, with text presumably from your Draft:Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, "putting the cart before the horse". Please wait for the draft to be approved and the issue will be dealt with then. I'll revert the changes. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks for your answer. That's just because I figured out how to fix the incorrect redirect myself, and found out that the page that I was trying to set up already exists. My next question is: How do I delete my draft now?

@Siyasi2019: I don't understand. Why do you want to delete the draft? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Because I realised that a page already exists on the topic and that rather than building a new page, I should just edit the original one. Does that make sense?

Hello, Siyasi2019. Your use of the phrase "set up a page for" makes me think that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media. It is not. I suggest it is more helpful to use the phrase "write an article about", and to remember that an article about X does not belong to X, and very little of its content should come directly from X or from people associated with X. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Siyasi2019. In addition to the comments you've received above, I've also posted something at Draft talk:Voice for Baloch Missing Persons#Contested deletion. It appears, based upon some of the things you've posted on that talk page, that you might be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine: @Marchjuly: Thank you both of you. I think I understand what's going on and what I have misunderstood. The purpose is of course not to set up a page *for* something, but *about* something, so I do mean to write an article. But I understand that it has to have better sources, so I'll work on my draft to improve it so that it can pass review. Many thanks!

Username

How do I retrieve my user name? It has been a while since I signed into Wikipedia and I do not remember my user name.

I have sent in a password reset request but have not received an answer.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:71C2:7D00:ED24:903F:776E:A0B0 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember the names of any articles you once edited, and roughly when? If so, you could go to that article, click the View History tab and scroll through the edits to try and spot your old username. If you didn't associate an email with that account, then I don't think you'll be able to get a password sent to you, and won't ever be able to access that account without remembering that password. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A more efficient course of action is probably to just get a new account, if all else fails. Mgasparin (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Television Show Navbox

Quick and easy question. Where do I find the blank template for a TV shows navbox? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. TV shows use the same general Template:Navbox as other topics, e.g. in Template:Oz (TV series) or Template:CSI: Miami. If you mean the box at the top right of articles like Oz (TV series) then it's called an infobox. TV shows use Template:Infobox television. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter infobox is what I was looking for. I'm pretty sure I have it bookmarked or saved somewhere, but couldn't remember what it was called. It's most likely bookmarked on my old computer. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Assistance needed to create a new article

I am slowly honing my editing skills and have over 10 edits to my name. I have been guided by experienced editors such as ThatMontrealIP and I now want to try my hand at creating a new article. I am a rhythm guitarist in a group of musicians. We believe that some of the songs we have written and performed could become popular if they were heard by the wider world. When I googled "letting independent and unsigned artists spread their music", I found Bandcamp and DittoMusic. I also found UnsignedOnly and Tunecrank . All four of these websites give budding musicians an opportunity to have their music heard. However, the thought occurred to me - why do two of these have a Wikipedia article and the other two don't? Perhaps either UnsignedOnly or Tunecrank could be a good place for me to create my first article! My reasoning is that if Bandcamp and DittoMusic warrant an article then surely so do UnsignedOnly and Tunecrank? Quoting from WP:GNG, I believe these two have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia". Delving deeper into each I believe I have "evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention". Do you agree I should have a go at one of them?

References

Bzcons44 (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bzcons44. If you believe that you can find significant coverage of UnsignedOnly and Tunecrank as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and want to create articles about them, then you can try. My suggestion would be for you to read Wikipedia:Your first article first and then maybe take a look at this guide written by a Wikipedia administrator named Ian.thomson which is also helpful. If you still feel articles are warranted about these two companies, you can create a draft for each and develop them. When you think the drafts are ready, you can submit them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. One kinda important thing to remember/understand though is Wikipedia:Other stuff when considering whether to create the articles. Articles which are created because their subjects meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines are what Wikipedia is looking for and such articles tend to survive deletion challenges; on the other hand, articles created simply because other articles about similar subjects exist often don't fare as well.

As for you and your band, sounds like fun and wish you all the best of luck; however, if you think that you can create articles to try and use Wikipedia to promote your band or to try and help independent and unsigned artists spread their music, then you probably should also read Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with broken Shetlopedia links

Hi, I've been editing on here for a few months but I'm still learning the ropes.! I've been concentrating my efforts on articles relating to Shetland. Many of the articles that are on here were imported from another wiki that existed many years ago called Shetlopedia. I'm not sure what exactly happened, however the website went down a long time ago and I think it's safe to say it probably isn't ever coming back. The thing is, many articles on here still link to it for external links and such. I believe there's also a template that states where the article was imported from. Is there any proper procedure to have these links looked into to have them removed / replaced with archive versions / updated / etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griceylipper (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Griceylipper. You seem to be asking about "dead links". You can find guidance on what to do when you come across them in Wikipedia:Link rot, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links and Wikipedia:External links#Longevity of links. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Marchjuly. I've come across the IABot Management Interface, and I guess the best thing to do would be to add the domain in question to its database. However, when I go to Manage Enitre Domains at the top, I get "Permission error: The action you are trying to perform requires the changeurldata permission. This permission is obtainable with the following groups: user, admin, root, bot" - is there any way to get permission? Or to submit the domain to someone who has permission? Griceylipper (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

​I'm not sure what the "IABot Management Interface" is? If it's a Wikipedia bot or something else connected to Wikipedia, then you should be able to ask about it on its relevant talk page or the user talk page of whomever created it or is operating it; if it's something outside of Wikipedia, then you're going to have to contact whomever controls the wesbite and ask them about it.

One other thing that I failed to mention above is that external websites like "Shetlopedia", etc. with "pedia" in their names are not always considered to be reliable sources per WP:UGC or even acceptable as external links per WP:ELNO. A lot depends upon how much editorial control the websites exerts over what's posted on it and who is doing the posting. Many websites use software similar to what Wikipedia uses because it makes things easier, but not all of them are considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia, in fact, doesn't even consider itself to be a reliable source per WP:WPNOTRS; so, trying to find archived versions for a dead link of something not considered reliable or acceptable to link to by Wikipedia might not be worth the effort. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It's this; it lets you automatically add an archive to every source on the page. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

questionable change to Winifred Gérin from 2016

This change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winifred_Gérin&type=revision&diff=714556935&oldid=712793472 claims that Charles Frederick Bourne died in 1928, whereas date of death was previously unknown, and no citation has been added. The existing citation is from a published book, not accessible (to me, at least) online.

The change was made a few years ago, and given the lack of any explanation, it just seems mischievous (I'm biased because this same editor added a zoominfo link (questionable IMO) as well as other edits with no good reason (e.g. removal of commas that should not have been removed).

What is the appropriate action to take? Can I just revert this change, or do I need to add a "citation needed", or what? I feel that all of his edits should be considered suspect. Fabrickator (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Sources don't need to be online. I suggest asking at WP:RX if someone has access to the book and can verify the date. RudolfRed (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: botched ping RudolfRed (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fabrickator. In general, you can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS. If you're BOLD and are subsequently reverted by another editor, then follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, unless you quite certain that the reversion is a clear case of WP:VANDAL (i.e. it's not a case of WP:NOTV) or introduces some serious policy or guideline violation.

A {{citation needed}} template can be added as explained in WP:BURDEN; ideally before doing so, however, you might want (1) check the article history to see whether there was once a citation provided (but subsequently removed) and (2) try and see if you can find a suitable citation yourself. In some cases (e.g. WP:BLPSOURCES), it might be better to remove the content altogether, but that's a self-assessment you may have to make. With respect to maintenance templates, etc., it's generally OK to add them in good faith, but if you tried to "fix" the problem first. Leave an edit summary explaining why you added the template; moreover, for major things like notability and conflict-of-interest templates, it also helps to further clarify the reasons on the article's talk page. As long as you don't seem to be WP:TAGBOMBing articles, you should be OK.

Now in this particular case, the cited source really only needs to be published and accessible. Even if you're unable to access it, someone else may be able to. You shouldn't remove a citation just because it's not available online and you personally cannot verify it. Reliable sources not available online can be cited as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fabrickator, since the claim being added was made quite separately from the book citation that covers the paragraph, I'd just ask the person who added it if they have access to the book and if that's the source they're relying on. That seems simplest. Part of Marchjuly's advice is accurate, but you're not talking about removing sources, for example.

The best way to do that is on the article talk page, pinging them with {{u}} or a similar template. If, after that, you're not satisfied that the claim can be substantiated, remove it from the article or add {{citation needed}} to it. There's certainly nothing to stop you removing an uncited new claim that if you consider it dubious at all, but it would be a strange kind of vandalism so my starting assumption would be that the other editor has access to a source you don't and should be asked to clarify. › Mortee _talk 01:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: I found a cemetery doc to cite for Frederick Charles Bourne's dates of birth/death. There is a potential for it being WP:CIRCULAR, if someone would like to investigate in more depth. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

can't find appropriate template for POV problem

Jewish music § Nineteenth-century synagogue music begins as follows. The boldface superscripts are the tags I've just added, but I'm not satisfied that they do the job.

Changes in European Jewish communities, including increasing political emancipation and some elements of religious reform, had their effects on music of the synagogue. By the late eighteenth century, music in European synagogues had sunk to a low standard. Charles Burney visiting the Ashkenazi synagogue of Amsterdam in 1772, wrote:^Explanation

At my first entrance, one of the priests [i.e. the hazzan] was chanting part of the service in a kind of ancient canto fermo, and responses were made by the congregation, in a manner which resembled the hum of bees. After this three of the sweet singers of Israel [...] began singing a kind of jolly modern melody, sometimes in unison and sometimes in parts, to a kind of tol de rol, instead of words, which to me, seemed very farcical ... At the end of each strain, the whole congregation set up such a kind of cry, as a pack of hounds when a fox breaks cover ... It is impossible for me to divine what idea the Jews themselves annex to this vociferation.

This quotation is the only support offered for "By the late eighteenth century, music in European synagogues had sunk to a low standard," which as it stands is one-sided.

The linked talk page section is what I just posted there. But I don't think that {{ Lopsided}} really describes the problem appropriately. I found the documentation extremely confusing. It says

Template parameters include link (default=WP:POV), text (unbalanced opinion?), title (The material near this tag seems to express a non-neutral point of view.), date ([today]), cat (), cat-date (Category:Articles with minor POV problems).

But when I tried to use those parameters, the output was just my wikicode, displayed as plain text.

I'm not qualified to fix the article. Was my tagging adequate?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Lost Relative:

I am looking for relatives who was last heard from in Columbus Ms.[Whispering Trees area.] I am looking for a black cemetery. I am looking for Elector[Electra] Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theherdwfs173 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This page is for questions regarding Wikipedia, we can't help with general questions. But, perhaps if you haven't already you could look into legal documentation? That might bring up something. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, if you have any photos of them you could try doing a reverse image search on Google. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Getting help with finding references

A cool drink for you (labelled as 'Homeopathic coffee'!)

Hi! I'm working on an article about Homeopathic Doctor Bhasker Sharma in my sandbox and I'm having trouble finding third-party references from reliable online sources. Most of the (few) sources I've found are written in Hindi, which I don't speak! Is there anywhere I can ask for help from Hindi-speaking contributors or contributors who have access to academic journals? Thank you very much! Maud KOC (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maud KOC. You can try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject India to see if any of its members can help with either finding sources or with assessing non-English sources. You can also try checking Wikipedia:Translators available. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maud KOC: Welcome to the Teahouse. (I thought it was about time we offered one of our guests a nice hot drink, as befits our name. Unfortunately I could find no homeopathic tea to give you, but please don't be insulted by the only other image match I could find on Commons, which seemed mildly amusing, if a little irreverent to practitioners.)

I wonder, have you checked Hindi Wikipedia? Own language wikis are often very good sources of references, plus an indicator of whether they're regarded as notable on that wiki. Using Google Chrome as your browser gives you speedy access to a rough translation tool, which I often find serves me well. It's worth adding that we don't expect every scientific paper produced by academics to be listed on Wikipedia, so you might like to cut down that section of your draft considerably, or maybe even remove it altogether. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:@Marchjuly and Marchjuly: I've posted on the links you suggested, let's see if anyone can help! And thanks for the advice about the academic papers, I'll make sure to cut those down. Anyway the references I'm missing are more for the event participations and biography part of the article... Thank you very much, and that homeopathic coffee really did the trick, who needs coffee anymore?!Maud KOC (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

reg. real history of jat kshatriya community

sir,

please provide real history of jat kshatriya community on your wikipedia site anyone write any thing about jat community like chandal/ sudra / lowercast. this information is not related jat people. relaity that jat is kshatriya community and marshal community. please change this type false information about jat, which are mention in under writeen paragraph. --2409:4043:241A:2CC8:6CF4:3488:7703:60AD (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed article content

Varna status The Hindu varna system is unclear on Jat status within the caste system. Some sources state that Jats are regarded as Kshatriyas[68] or "degraded Kshatriyas" who, as they did not observe Brahmanic rites and rituals, had fallen to the status of Shudra.[69] Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, and with some Jats striving for zamindar status after the Jat rebellion of the 17th century.[70][page needed] The Rajputs refused to accept Jat claims to Kshatriya status during the later years of the British Raj and this disagreement frequently resulted in violent incidents between the two communities.[71] The claim at that time of Kshatriya status was being made by the Arya Samaj, which was popular in the Jat community. The Arya Samaj saw it as a means to counter the colonial belief that the Jats were not of Aryan descent but of Indo-Scythian origin.[72]

Hello 2409:4043:241A:2CC8:6CF4:3488:7703:60AD, I'm not really sure what you're asking. If there's something wrong with the article about the Jat people, feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. rchard2scout (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference desk humanities

Help I can't get the present humqnities reference page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.19.61 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Make a Q&A in user or talk page

Is it possible to make a questions and answers page/section on your user or talk page? Main CentralTime301 page and talk 12:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: Per the policy on userpages, you can put whatever you want on your user page as long as it is appropriate. For an example of a Q&A on a userpage, take a look at I dream of horses userpage and mine. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sweden

In the main article for Sweden, when one opens the Global Map page, next to "(Dark Green)" it shows "Sweeden", rather than "Sweden". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana Graversgaard (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dana Graversgaard: Thank you for pointing that out! There was a typo in the file description at Wikimedia Commons, and I have fixed it now. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Review this article

I'd love to know why this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eyitayo_Ogunmola) is having issues being published on the Wikipedia platform? Someone should point me to the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apex Zy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the feedback from the draft, but I have reinstated it. In the feedback block a number of the words are in blue; these are wikilinks to detailed advice for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Help fixing grammar.

I've not done this before so I hope I'm doing it right. I've come across a sentence on a page that needs correcting, but goodness knows what the writer meant! "Poland could because of the Russian crew only 1950 into the possession of the village set itself." I suspect the writer was a first language German and did a literal translation of some German words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendisch-Rambow. I'd appreciate knowing how to fix this kind of problem. I am an occasional Wikipedian who fixes mistakes that I see and writes the odd article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilj (talk • contribs) 2019-10-04T17:58:35 (UTC)

Hello, Neilj, and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree that that is a bad translation. In fact, if you look through the history of the article, you will see that it started of as an appallingly bad translation (I assume, a machine translation) from a German original, and various people have picked at bits of it over the years. (It was very likely a copyright infringement, but not from the German Wikipedia, as de:Wendisch-Rambow was only created two years ago). Huge amounts have been hacked out of it.

I believe it means "Because of Russian forces, Poland could not take possession until 1950". The best strategy, rather than guessing, would be to look at the sources and see what they say. Unfortunately this is one of our many thousands of article with essentially zero value because they have zero references, so that will probably be a significant amount of work. (I have tagged it). So, unless you are willing to go and look for references, I would suggest you either leave it, or clean up the grammar as best you can. (I have also merged two separate Wikidata entries, so that it now links to the German article as well as a few others). --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

TV Guides

There's a guy on Twitter who posts television broadcast dates, and the channels the shows were broadcast on, along with images he's got from the TVTimes as proof. One of those images is for a show which was broadcast on the 21st November 1969. However I can't find that issue from November 1969 (it's most likely one of four as they're published weekly) online anywhere, so I have no idea what issue number it is, or where to find it. Would writing "TVTimes 15-21 November 1969" be sufficient enough to be used as a citation on Wikipedia? Danstarr69 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)