Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

A lad insane, 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)

The phrase "left tributary" also exists. —Tamfang (talk) 23:31, 4 October 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)

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)

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)

@61.12.45.242: Perhaps I am missing the point, but these two statements do not seem to be clearly inconsistent. If "life emerged" in this area 9000 years prior to 2000 AD, then isn't it reasonable that "settled life was there" at sixth millennium BCE? And does that preclude it from having continued to gradually evolve over the next 3000 years? Fabrickator (talk) 18:14, 5 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)

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

@Suzanne Dickson: What I would do in your situation would be 1. write your affiliation on your userpage (as you did) to comply with WP:COI, 2. for the content you try to modify/add on Wikipedia's articles, choose as a reference a review referencing your work, instead of your work directly (although if it's a landmark paper, you can add it as a 2nd reference after the review). Of course, this does not preclude that one must be careful about adding one's own work on Wikipedia, because even though it can be interesting, Wikipedia only wants major contributions/views (WP:UNDUE) to be written, but if you are an expert in the field then it's likely that your work is part of the major contributions in the field and that any good quality review will reflect that. Hope this helps and thank you joining Wikipedia's effort to build an open encyclopedia! Have a nice day --Signimu (talk) 22:08, 5 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)

Additionally if the reference has been completely lost it is likely that it has been saved in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at some point. You can copy the dead URL into the search and it will show archived instances of the website from before the page was deleted. You can then link the reference to the appropriate archived page. Doctor Whooves (talk) 01:16, 5 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)

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)

I suggest you thank the editor who formatted the references. David notMD (talk) 20:12, 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?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyasi2019 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyasi2019 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome Siyasi2019. Good luck with the draft. Now, for reference, notification templates like {{ping}} will only work if you WP:SIGN sign the post they are being used in. You didn't SIGN your last post (more specifically "posts") so none of the editors you "pinged" were notified. In addition, you need to sign your post at the time you "ping" the other editor; the templates still won't work even if you go back and add your signature later. I'll ping AlanM1 and ColinFine for you.

Finally, if you're going to split your post and insert comments to different editors like you did here, you might want to add your signature to each "post" since it may be unclear who posted if you don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

@AlanM1: It would be interesting if the cemetery doc were for Germany, because that seems to be where he spent most of his adult life. England has a death record showing this date of death, but that's only relevant if he actually returned to England before his death.

Notwithstanding these various theories, I think the compelling point is that when the date of death was added, there was no indication that the existing citation applies to it ... and absent some assertion by the editor that citation actually supports this change, I think there is a compelling case to remove this information without attempting to ascertain whether that citation does support it.

It is much more important that unsubstantiated factual statements such as this be removed than that they be allowed to stay, and there is a matter of expediency, as this kind of information of questionable source is exactly the "moral hazard" of Wikipedia (i.e. presumably reliable sources being polluted by erroneous information from Wikipedia). The fact that this dubious piece of information has not been previously challenged is symptomatic of the problem. It is the obligation of the editor that added the information to support stated facts with citations, and making us guess about the existing citation doesn't count, and on that basis, I claim this should be removed without further adieu. Fabrickator (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Note that the cemetery doc says he was MD of Nobel Chemical Industries, which is consistent with our article. Winifred was educated, and apparently lived (at Haworth), in England through 1923 (graduation), approx. 1939–45, and after 1955, so she may have lived there continuously during that time, and it would not seem unusual for her father to join her there, or even be buried "close". I'm sure the bio could clarify. Unless the cemetery source can be shown to be WP:CIRCULAR, I believe the totality of the information is sufficient to support the date. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The source was added by a user with the same name as the author (User:Helen MacEwan) here on 2015-11-13, which pre-dated the addition of the section about her family. The author does not have an email registered with Wikipedia and only performed that single edit. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:24, 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)

The entire "records" section would also need to ve removed as none of it has any encyclopedic relevance. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 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)

2409:4043:241A:2CC8:6CF4:3488:7703:60AD A quick google and if find this https://www.jatland.com/home/Jats. Oldperson (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

2409:4043:241A:2CC8:6CF4:3488:7703:60AD This 19th Century book might interest you. many mentions of the Jats http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDFs/The%20Jew,%20the%20Gypsy%20and%20El%20Islam%20JR.pdfOldperson (talk) 19:36, 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)

@Neilj: Or you could cut out the whole paragraph entirely, with an edit summary like "deleting unsourced and wholly incomprehensible text". I note from the article's talk page that this issue was noted a number of times from 2010 onwards. If you have to turn the article back into a short stub so that someone can work on it, going forwards, I wouldn't see that as a bad approach. Garbled, unsourced text serves no encyclopaedic purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, if you have an idea what language the original was in, you can translate the poor English back into that language, and then translate that result back into English, sometimes getting a better result. In this case, gTranslate came up with "Polen konnte sich wegen der russischen Besatzung erst 1950 in den Besitz des Dorfes setzen." and then "Because of the Russian occupation, Poland was not able to take possession of the village until 1950." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Atemberaubend! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 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)

Have a look at this issue. You'll notice that it is dated "Sept 27–Oct 3". Check up on the dates and you'll find that Sept 27 was a Saturday, Oct 3 a Friday. Your 21 November is a Friday, and so the issue would be "Nov 15–21". However if you open the magazine you'll see that the actual issue date is two days earlier, the Thursday. Therefore the publication date of your instance would have been 13 November 1969. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Post about a company

Hi all! How can I post an article about company? Honestly, I'm confused with the requirements and couldn't figure out if the company member can publish such a post or will it cause a conflict of interests? It's also not clear if the topic of such an article will meet notability criteria. Is it possible to work with an editor who could help with these questions? Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazim Ragimov (talk • contribs) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nazim Ragimov Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are asking about writing about your own company. Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy, which will describe important and required declarations that you must make if that's what you wish to do. You should avoid directly writing about things related to any conflict of interest you might have; there are indirect ways to do so, including making edit requests for existing articles and Articles for Creation to submit drafts of new articles. You can also request that others write about your company at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe.

Typically, articles are written by independent editors who take note of significant coverage of a subject in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources write. In order for you to be successful in writing a draft about your company, you must essentially forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position find this difficult to do, though it is possible.

You may wish to review the notability criteria for companies to see if your company meets them; not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. It all depends on the sources. Independent sources does not include press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources.

You may find it helpful to learn more about Wikipedia by using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I need help

can I make a page for a youtuber kevinlasean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.86.118 (talk • contribs)

Only if multiple reliable and independent sources have written about him in-depth. Otherwise, he won't be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Social media and similar self-published sources won't qualify. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary/minor edits

Hello everyone! I'm new here, just started on editing some small things and here's my question: if I check the "minor edit" box, should I still fill the summary box? Where can I read more on what is a minor edit? I understand how important the summaries are for the community, so I decided to ask. Thank you! --Less Unless (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: You can read about minor edits here. Filling in an edit summary is not required, but recommended. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@LPS and MLP Fan: Thank you for the link!

@Less Unless: Yes, please do use the edit summary especially for minor edits. People reviewing edits may want to avoid looking at the "diff" of the edit, which they are less likely to do if they don't have a good description of what the edit was. When they see an edit summary of "Sp" (spelling) or "Grammar", they may just move along to the next one, especially if the performing editor is familiar to them. As a matter of courtesy to your fellow editors, please always use the edit summary. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: thank you for the very precise answer, it's very helpful. Is there a list of special abbreviation to describe the edits made? Like you said - SP - spelling. If there is, could you please give me a link. Thank you! --Less Unless (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Try WP:Edit summary legend or WP:Wikipedia abbreviations. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, David! Gotta study those, it's really saving time for he whole community. Less Unless (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, David. I don't think I've ever seen those. I just sort of tried to emulate the language I saw others using and tossed in a bit of my own telegraphy shorthand. It turns out that Wikipedians will document almost anything. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused about speedy deletion tags.

Hello,

I have made mostly minor edits (grammar, clarifying ambiguous language, etc) since I started editing Wikipedia.

About two years ago, I was trying to find information about a small-ish phone manufacturer. Wikipedia did not have an article about them, but if I recall correctly they were mentioned on another Wikipedia article or list. I had enough information to create at least a basic page. I also thought that this page would meet the Wikipedia:Notability requirements because this manufacturer sold a phone with a built-in battery much larger than any others (at least that I was aware of) at that time. I created the page, but before I was able to add much content, it was nominated for speedy deletion. Before I was able to contest it or explain why I thought it was notable, it was deleted. What I did next was recreate the page. I now realize that this was a mistake. I thought that the topic was notable enough to deserve its own page, but since I had only written one or two sentences (something along the lines of "Ulefone is a Chinese smartphone manufacturer based in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province."), there was no reason for the admin who deleted it to think it was notable. I hoped that if I recreated it, I would have time to add enough content that it would not be speedily deleted. Again, within minutes, it was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted.

What happened is that my user talk page User_talk:Danielmctech now has two sections on it discussing the speedy deletion of the article I created twice, and one telling me to read Wikipedia guidelines/tutorials on how to write articles.

I was very frustrated and gave up making Wikipedia contributions for a while. In the past few months, I have started again, still only making small changes. (See Special:Contributions/Danielmctech If you look at my "user contributions" , you can see I only made two edits in the entire year of 2018.

I want to start making more and larger contributions to Wikipedia, but I am embarrassed that this is the only thing on my talk page. (I don't intend to create more new articles unless they clearly meet notability criteria, and even then I will probably suggest it somewhere appropriate and wait for feedback before doing so.)

I would like to archive/hide/remove the sections and put my past behind me, if possible.

However, I do not want to incur the wrath of the Wikipedia deities and/or admins. I am somewhat confused about the rules for deleting this. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" but also says "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags". It then links to Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings which says users often delete comments on their own talk pages if they have read and understand them and the problem has been solved.

The problem has been solved, as the page no longer exists, and I understand why it was deleted. I now agree that this topic might not notable enough to deserve its own page.

It is clear that I can't remove a speedy deletion tag on my page (saying that my page should be deleted). What is not clear to me is whether the sections on my talk page constitute speedy deletion tags, meaning I can't remove them, or are simply comments saying other pages I created have these tags.

Please Explain. Thanks!

Danielmctech (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Danielmctech: Yes, you may remove the content from your talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Danielmctech. No, the messages on your user talk page are not speedy deletion tags. The exception on WP:REMOVED is talking about tags for speedy deletion of the page they are on (relevantly, User pages), not the courtesy messages on your talk page. However, note what WP:OWNTALK says: " (Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history.)" --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed and ColinFine I am not worried about having them completely obliterated from existence. I just don't want it to be the first thing people see when they click on my username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmctech (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Danielmctech. I recommend that you develop new articles in your sandbox page or in draft space. You should not move any such draft to the encylopedia until you have added sufficient references to reliable, independent sources necessary to establish that the topic is notable. In 2019, it is poor practice to try to write a new article from scratch in the encylopedia itself. For additional information about best practices, please read Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Revamp of Wikiproject:Libya

Hello, I am very knowledge able about the Middle East and MENA and its conflicts. I was very surprised to see that Wikiproject:Libya was not entirely as interactive and attractive as Wikiproject:Syria or Wikiproject:Israel and others for that matter. I have several questions regarding this. First, I was wondering if I could revamp it to look better and make it so it is more interactive as Wikiproject:Syria? If I can, what are some recommendations(if you have any)? Finally, can I make some sort of award like Wikiproject:Syria has, on Photoshop or another program?

Yours truly, Max Pigeon (talk) _{19:40, 4 October 2019 (EST)}

Hi Max Pigeon. Since you seem to be talking about a major revision to the project's layout, scope, etc., perhaps you should propose the changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libya and see if any of the members of that WikiProject agree. The project is listed as "inactive", but there is a list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Libya#Active participants that you can try and get input from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Max Pigeon: Just be aware that a list of 'active participants' may not itself be up-to-date any more. I note that (by checking 'User Contributions') one or two haven't edited for a few years, if at all. So if a message on the Project talkpage doesn't elicit a reply, you might need to do a bit of digging to find out who is really active in that field. Also, one contribution you could make to revitalising an inactive project is to weed out the clearly inactive editors from the Participants list and ask the rest whether or not they still want to remain associated with the project. Sometimes a little approach like that can kick-start some user engagement. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your input. Hopefully if this does go through it might become a more active project and gain a few members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Pigeon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Max Pigeon: Good luck! I had another thought for you on reaching out to people to reactivate that Project. I might look through a number of key articles about Libya and look at both the talk pages and the editing history of the articles themselves and see if you can spot very active editors who are making big contributions. You could try reaching out to them as well. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Pigeon (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia on blockchain?

are there any efforts by the team to use blockchain for wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPQR10 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are not. Everipedia, a "rival" of wikipedia created by Larry Sanger, uses blockchain. Mgasparin (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What would Wikipedia use Blockchain for? It's free to use, and the editors are all volunteers. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Classification Norwegian pharmacologists

I just noticed that this page has erroneously collected two people under this headline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Norwegian_pharmacologists

Hagedorn is Danish and Hausken is in sports. I am not sure how categories are collected. Would be nice if someone could look into this.

Kind regards, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlarhammar (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dlarhammar: welcome to the Teahouse. Categories are added in the respective articles; I have changed the category in Hans Christian Hagedorn, but it looks like Hausken has a PhD in pharmacology, more recent than her sports career, so I left that in for now. --bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Foreign sources

Hello again! I was wondering if I can add foreign sources to other language articles? I speak German and Spanish and wanted to translate or expand articles, but I find reliable sources only in the original languages. Can I add them or does an English article require only an English source? Thank you!--Less Unless (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Less Unless. Whilst it is generally preferable to cite sources written in English, there is absolutely no requirement for you to do so. Sometimes the only sources are in another language. Certainly, this can make verifying statements more difficult for other users, but it's less difficult nowadays because of the ease of machine translation of online sources. To go the 'extra mile' to help other users who only speak English, you could ensure that your edit summary makes really clear what it is that you've added. On rare occasions you might even consider explaining your use of a particular source on the article's talk page - especially if someone tries to remove it. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Well done on doing The Wikipedia Adventure. Did you know you still have three further badges to get before you've fully completed it? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thanks for the answer! I think I will start and learn by trial and error. And I thought I had finished the Adventure! Thank you for pointing out! --Less Unless (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I've just looked at the missions again and I can't find what I missed out. Can you please tell me :) TNX --Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Take a look right at the very bottom of my own userpage, and expand the subsection called 'Declaration of Interests' and you'll find all 15 badges. (It's not helpful that the Adventure doesnt clearly explain what's left to do) Nick Moyes (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My First Article Was Not Approved

I posted an article about 9jahotstars, and before i could even understand what was happening, it was deleted. I would like to be offered assistance on how to avoid another article being deleted. Because ever since it happened, I am afraid to publish another article to avoid being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblogger (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Eblogger Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was deleted because it was a blatant advertisement for the website, leading off with "9jahotstars is Africa's Hottest News, Entertainment, Music, Fashion and Lifestyle Website". Advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. In addition, it contained no independent reliable sources(or any sources at all) to indicate how the website meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website, written at WP:NWEB. Not every website merits a Wikipedia article.

If this is your website or you otherwise work for it, you have a conflict of interest and could be a paid editor. Please review those polices, as you may have some important and mandatory declarations to make. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place to merely tell the world about something. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

How To Create A Wikipedia Page For my Company

I went To Create A Wikipedia Page For my Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banteab (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for promotion. Please read about conflict of interest and about paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, @Banteab: and welcome to Wikipedia. Here's how you can create an article about your company:

Step 1) Don't.

Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and we strongly discourage editors from editing topics they have a financial stake in.

If you want to create articles about other topics, see this guide I wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a reference using the "Manual" tab on Visual Editor?

Visual Editor Automatic tab - the 'Manual' tab is just right of it. (Click image to enlarge

I want to add this citation for a particular edit to the Wikipedia page on Tom of Finland: https://www.davidkordanskygallery.com/attachment/en/5afb0d546aa72c3f18720a36/Press/5cf44499efd750131f4e83c7

When I try, I get a message "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above."

What do I do here? How do I do what it is suggesting? Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen: If you are trying to create a citation. Do it from the Visual edit page. Place your cursor exactly where you want the citation to appear, then click on Cite above, it will present you with various templates such as website or book, choose one.Oldperson (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Greg Dahlen. Adding to what Oldperson has said, do please have a look at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and the page that follows, where you'll see some helpful screenshots of using Visual Editor for referencing. If the 'Manual' tab there offers you all the fields you need, then do use Visual Editor. However, if you feel you need to add one or more of the numerous additional field options (like 2nd author names), then I have to tell you that Visual Editor is absolutely horrible to use for that. Instead, you'd be better off switching to the standard Source Editor (just click the thick black pencil icon to switch) where it's a lot easier to add additional fields. I don't know how helpful you'll find it, but I've put some notes together on using the alternative, source editor, here: User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. Hoping some of this helps you, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki truth

Is Wikipedia about truth or agreed upon truth.

Truth is created by facts, Agreed upon truth is selective use of facts to further a biased worldview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magatism (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Magatism. Please see the essay WP:Verifiability, not truth. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Magatism and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified. We present the sources in articles for readers to evaluate them for themselves and decide what they believe. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hijacking a redirect page

Just wanted to get an opinion on a potential action I’ve been considering.

I was planning on creating an article for a South Asian monarch, but the name I was gonna use is already occupied by a redirect page. The redirect in question is Askaran, which directs users to Asgaran, Iran. It has no page history, no links to it, and has had on average 14 views per year since its creation in 2011.

My question is, would I have any basis to hijack the redirect for my own article? Would I even be allowed to? Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alivardi. In theory, no, there should be no huge concerns. That presumes that Askaran is a notable person (monarchs undoubtedly will be, though I couldn't find anything at a hasty search online), and that this is their proper name, not a nickname or middle name. I would then consider putting an About 'hatnote' at the top of your new article. Like this:

This page is about the Asian monarch. For the Iranian city, see Asgaran, Iran.

If there were a problem, I guess it would be OK to name the article 'Askaran (monarch)'. If you're not confident, I suggest drafting the article and submitting it through Articles for Creation, and the reviewer will sort out naming for you. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for laying out my options. I'm gonna think on what you said a bit before I make a decision. Anyways, I really appreciate your help.
Alivardi (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hello,

Thank you for the assistance.

QUESTION: If my business's title is a created word, and had several PR articles on it; along with it's website and social media pages--- Does this qualify to have a Wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollState (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RollState. Based on the information you have provided, the answer is "no". Coverage of a company that is the result of public relations by that company is not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia. A company's website and social media pages are worthless for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations, marketing, advertising or promotion of any type. Please read the notability guideline for companies and the guideline for editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, RollState. Cullen has already said what I was about to but, as an aside, if your business name is the same as your username, then we would not allow you to continue using it for editing as we don't allow promotional usernames. But I'm guessing that his reply to you means you want want to edit here again(!), in which case this is a moot point. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

help?

i need mentoring cause im getting frustrated i thought wiki ment supporting one another with encyclopedic work. Baozon90 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Baozon90: Hi. Can you be more specific? Often, new editors might take criticism or messages about policy personally, but they are not – the community has standards, policies, and procedures that it has agreed upon in order to further its aim of creating a high quality encyclopedia. Is there a particular article or issue with which you are having trouble? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Baozon90, perhaps you are being frustrated at your drafts getting rejected/declined? I appreciate your effort to contribute. How about you start by reading WP:RS. Your articles about persons must have reliable sources to back the information up. Don't give up and keep trying. We were all new at some point. William2001^(talk) 01:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An even better resource: WP:YFA. William2001^(talk) 01:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you are starting drafts with just a little bit of content, perhaps intending to add more content and references later. A better place to work in private would be your own Sandbox. Only after you have created the essentials of an article should you then submit it to articles for creation. Many new-to-Wikipedia editors are advised to work on improving existing articles before attempting a new article. I've been editing 10+ years, 18,000+ edits, zero new articles. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

EXTREMELY unusually high page views....something strange going on? at 1996 California Proposition 218

The article 1996 California Proposition 218 had ~300,000 page views this past 30 days, and about the same for the previous 30 day span. In the previous 30 day span, I also noticed relatively normal visits, with ENORMOUS spikes occurring once weekly, on Fridays, if I recall correctly.

For background, anyone who lives or has lived in California since ~1980 would be familiar with 1978 California Proposition 13, a law which capped property taxes at 1% of assessed value and limited increases to 2% per year. That article gets ~15,000 page views per month. The Prop218 above is a relatively minor law which followed Prop 13, allowing more ability for voters to vote on new taxes, so my first guess would be that it SHOULD be seeing less than half the 15,000 page views, or somewhere below ~7,000 page views, for my guess at a higher bound.

I'm wondering whether someone is running a bot to generate very high page views for the Prop218 article, but I have no guess as to WHY someone would do that. Either way, this is really strange, and thought that I should bring this to someone's attention, who has more ability to investigate this than me.---Avatar317^(talk) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking from only my own perspective, I'm watching the Washington/Stanford game and they've mentioned it at least a handful of times going to the extent to explain in detail what it means. I would imagine since Stanford is in California, would be the reason? So maybe people watching the game are looking for information on the Proposition?--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Convenience links Link to # of pageviews for last 30 days https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-30&pages=1996_California_Proposition_218 and even looking back 1 year https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=this-year&pages=1996_California_Proposition_218 , the random spikes in views seem to start about late April of this year. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 04:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

On the article Lightweight Programming Language

I am having a doubt on this article about Lightweight programming language. Is this article notable? I think it could be made a section in the article of list of programming languages by type, because all it has is a list.

I think there is a rich literature on this topic, but I could not find some. I want attention from experts on this article.

I have stopped trying to expand it in fear of doing original research (WP:NOR). Smlck19 (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Girl Who Had Everything

Hi. There’s an IP address who adamantly asserts that the plot summary of The Girl Who Had Everything is “unenclycopedic rubbish,” and keeps removing it. I’m not very experienced dealing with this, so can anyone help? Thanks! Ȝeſtikl (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at the matter. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem with signing

I started editing in 2016 but then had to stop because of heart surgery in 2017, and I am now getting back into things.

When I sign a comment on the talk page of an article with the usual four tildes, the published version says that I had not signed, but signature was completed by a bot.

This may be connected with issues about my user page? Though there is a user page my user name appears in red. I have searched for articles about what to do but I am a bit stuck and need some guidance before I move on.Catchsinger 12:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchsinger (talk • contribs)

Looks like editor self-fixed by creating some content for User page (not red any more). David notMD (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catchsinger, welcome to the Teahouse. The easiest way to get a valid signature is to have no checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. Things seem to be going betterCatchsinger (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Catchsinger: Just for completeness: I'm guessing you had just "Catchsinger" in the "Signature" field at your Special:Preferences → User profile. Maybe the signing bot wasn't recognizing your signature as a signature – it was being included in your edits (e.g. here) but without any linking. It's possible that this, in combination with there being no space in front of it, kept it from being recognized as a signature by the bot, so it signed your posts again. It seems to be fixed now (you maybe blanked out the Signature field in your prefs?), but you should put a space before the ~~~~ for readability. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A signature must link the user page, user talk page, or contributions page per Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links. User:SineBot#What it looks for says the bot looks for a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

How to show “Edit source” and “Edit visual” options simultaneously for each section?

I can only see “Edit” when last used VisualEditor, and “Edit source” when having previously used source editing. How can I always display both options? --Handroid7 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Handroid7: In your preferences, go to the Editing tab, in the Editor section, in Editing mode, select Show me both editor tabs. Let me know if you need further assistance. :-) Regards, Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handroid7 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the system for rating (and changing the rating of) articles?

Just curious. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thatoneweirdwikier. It depends on which kind of "rating" you're referring to. Most article ratings you see on their corresponding talk pages follow Wikipedia:Content assessment and for the most part are "unofficial" assessments based upon one's interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines (often including relevant WikiProject guidelines). There are some specific criteria for "each grade" provided as guidance, but this is rather an informal system and how it's applied may vary from editor to editor. There is, however, a more formal type of assessment that is more rigorous and involves more serious discussion in which articles are nominated to be WP:GAs (Good Articles) or WP:FAs (Featured Articles). These articles are subject to much more scrutiny (sometimes by multiple editors) to assess whether actually the do meet the relevant criteria before they're awarded GA or FA status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - @Thatoneweirdwikier: - assuming that you are referring to the article quality scale employed for mainspace articles, information can be seen here. Most often, such ratings are applied by members of the WikiProjects within under whose scope the article's topic falls. The ratings can be updated unilaterally, but it is good practice to inquire with the relevant WikiProject(s), or on the article's talk page, as to whether or not recent edits and enhancements to an article justify altering the quality rating. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If I am the person who has made edits in attempt to improve an article I do not then go to Talk to upgrade the article. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding multiple quotes to a reference

Dear Teahouse,

I have created a webpage for a musician. I wanted to add some details from reviews of her albums. I used the quote parameter in the reference section, to make a quote from the review. However, I wanted to quote two excerpts from the review. When I have added separate quote parameters e.g. quote = bla bla bla | quote = bla bla the article only cites the second quote. What is the best way for me to ensure that two different quotes are displayed in the reference?

Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasphatton (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nicholasphatton: Are you talking about Fenne Lily? Interstellarity (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

​You can only use one quote parameter at a time. You can quote different parts of the same article by adding ellipses: "Bla bla. [...] Also bla bla", or you can add another reference like so: <ref>Goggins (2018): "Bla bla bla"</ref> – Thjarkur (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Where should I go about suggesting the creation a new template or something similar?

I'll copy over what I have posted on Wikipedia talk:Spoken articles, where this had had only one responde that was not sure where to go with this -

'There appear to be articles that were recorded as spoken articles many years ago where the pages have likely changed significantly since and need re-recording. Is there any way to highlight this? If not I think it would be handy if we could implement a way to highlight outdated spoken articles (perhaps a new template?). For example the spoken article for the Avril Lavigne page has not been updated in over 9 years.'

Any help regarding where to post about this or help dealing with the issue here would be appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Helper201, welcome to the Teahouse. We have around 5.8 million articles. Category:Spoken articles only has 1455 articles. When only 1 out of 4000 articles is spoken, I don't think there is much reason to encourage updating some of them instead of making new spoken articles. If we do it then {{Spoken Wikipedia}} can be modified for the purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, thank you for the welcome. In that case, how about a system whereby once an article reaches either good or featured status it can be (or perhaps is automatically) highlighted/requested to be recorded to also become a spoken article? I.e. it could/would recieve some sort of specific template or tag highlighting its request to be recorded as a spoken article. Helper201 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the tiny number of spoken articles is still an issue. Based on incategory:"Featured articles" -incategory:"Spoken articles" versus incategory:"Featured articles" incategory:"Spoken articles", there are 5312 featured articles which are not spoken and only 326 which are spoken. Somebody just looking at random featured articles has 94% chance of hitting one which is not spoken so why point them out? Any article can be added to Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests with {{Spoken article requested}} but I don't know whether anybody considers the requests. The category had 231 page views in the last 30 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Helper201: It seems {{Spoken article requested|Helper201|Needs updating to match article}} is the intended solution, adding the page to Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests. Getting people to look at the category is another matter. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

SaSaptashrungi... Forst road to temple....

Sir, I have written a small article on Forest Road to the temple of Saptashrungi Devi temple, in the word format in M&S office.   I wish to add it this page by #copy. paste.# method.  But the edit page does not accept this.

pl guide.... how can I copy my article to the edit space.  

I am registered member with I'd.. sushajo. S. G. JOSHI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushajo (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you wish to add your section to the Saptashrungi article or are you considering a separate article on the road? Also do not forget to use the four ~s to sign your posts. Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sushajo. MS Word (like other word-processing programs) is not a very useful way of creating text for Wikipedia: it uses its own proprietary way of representing the structure and properties of the text. It is much better to edit using Wikipedia's own editors. I think I remember reading some years ago that somebody had a program to convert MS Word files to Mediawiki markup, but I can't find anything about that now. So I think that the best you are going to be able to do is to copy and paste just the text into an editing window, and then use the Wikipedia editor to reapply any formatting and references. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Help publishing a page

please help me and how to publish my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Verma KMP (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ravi Verma KMP and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule as startign points. It is usually easier to start in your sandbox, or by making a Draft. An article needs multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, for one thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Page

How do I get a wikipage and sitelink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zudeek (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Zudeek Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media where people have "pages" about themselves. Wikipedia has articles about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. If you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, an independent editor will be the one to write an article about you, as autobiographies are highly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First, your User page is not the place to create an article of any type. Second, what you have created in your Sandbox does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page for the band Meteor Airlines

Hello, I'm nowhere near a pro editor. I simply wanted to create a page for a local band named Meteor Airlines and it was moved to draft although all the information was correct. Someone left a comment and pointed me here. Can you please tell me what to do ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skygazer31 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Skygazer31 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The main issue with your draft is that it does not seem to have any independent reliable sources to support its content and indicate how this band meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band, written at WP:BAND. This band would need to meet at least one of the listed criteria there to merit an article, and you would need independent sources to support it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and possibly use the new user tutorial to get an idea of what is being looked for in new articles. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is probably the hardest task here; it takes much effort and practice. Try not to be discouraged. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Trying to rename a page

I own the radio station KSVB and am adding content to the page and trying to change the name of the page from KSVB-LP to KSVB FM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSVB-LP

How do I rename the page?

Jeff Willis — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffLWillis (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

JeffLWillis Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As the owner of the radio station, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. Regarding your question, changing the title of the page is accomplished with a page move; you can request one at Requested Moves. You can then make an edit request on the article talk page to change the article content itself; you should avoid doing this yourself if possible. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)